A clinical investigation of malingering and psychopathy in hospitalised insanity acquitees

This study compares Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) scores, DSM-Ill-R diagnoses, and select behavioral indices between hospitalized insanity acquittees (N = 18) and hospitalized insanity acquittees who successfully malingered (N = 18). The malingerers were significantly more likely to have a history of murder or rape, carry a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or sexual sadism, and produce greater PCL-R factor 1, factor 2, and total scores than insanity acquittees who did not malinger. The malingerers were also significantly more likely to be verbally or physically assaultive, require specialized treatment plans to control their aggression, have sexual relations with female staff, deal drugs, and be considered an escape risk within the forensic hospital. These findings are discussed within the context of insanity statutes and the relevance of malingering, psychopathy, and treatability to future policy concerning the disposition of insanity acquittees

The PCL–R and capital sentencing: A commentary on “Death is different” DeMatteo et al. (2020a).

DeMatteo et al. (2020a) published a Statement in this journal declaring that the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) “cannot and should not” be used in U.S. capital-sentencing cases to assess risk for serious institutional violence. Their stated concerns were the PCL-R’s “imperfect interrater reliability,” its “variability in predictive validity,” and its prejudicial effects on the defendant. In a Cautionary Note, we (Olver et al., 2020) raised questions about the Statement’s evaluation of the PCL-R’s psychometric properties, presented new data, including a meta-meta-analysis, and argued that the evidence did not support the Statement’s declaration that the PCL-R “cannot” be used in high stakes contexts. In their reply, titled “Death is Different,” DeMatteo et al. (2020b) concurred with several points in our Cautionary Note, disputed others, asserted that we had misunderstood or mischaracterized their Statement, and dismissed our new data and comments as irrelevant to the Statement’s purpose. This perspective on our commentary is inimical to balanced academic discourse. In this article, we contend that DeMatteo et al. (2020b) underestimated the reliability and predictive validity of PCL-R ratings, overestimated the centrality of the PCL-R in sentencing decisions, and underplayed the importance of other factors. Most of their arguments depended on sources other than capital cases, including mock trials, Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) hearings, and studies that included the prediction of general violence. We conclude that the rationale for the bold “cannot and should not” decree is open to debate and in need of research in real-life venues

Reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in the assessment of risk for institutional violence: A cautionary note on DeMatteo et al. (2020).

A group of 12 authors (GA) shared a statement of concern (SoC) warning against the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) to assess risk for serious institutional violence in US capital sentencing cases (DeMatteo et al., 2020). Notably, the SoC was not confined to capital sentencing issues, but included institutional violence in general. Central to the arguments presented in the SoC was that the PCL-R has poor predictive validity for institutional violence and also inadequate field reliability. The GA also identified important issues about the fallibility and inappropriate use of any clinical/forensic assessments, questionable evaluator qualifications, and their effects on capital sentencing decisions. However, as a group of forensic academics, researchers, and clinicians, we are concerned that the PCL-R represents a psycholegal red herring, while the SoC did not address critical legislative, systemic, and evaluator/rating issues that affect all risk assessment tools. We contend that the SoC’s literature review was selective and that the resultant opinions about potential uses and misuses of the PCL-R were ultimately misleading. We focus our response on the evidence and conclusions proffered by the GA concerning the use of the PCL-R in capital and other cases. We provide new empirical findings regarding the PCL-R’s predictive validity and field reliability to further demonstrate its relevance for institutional violence risk assessment and management. We further demonstrate why the argument that group data cannot be relevant for single-case assessments is erroneous. Recommendations to support the ethical and appropriate use of the PCL-R for risk assessment are provided

Reliability and validity of the psychopathy checklist-revised in the assessment of risk for institutional violence : A cautionary note on DeMatteo et al. (2020)

A group of 12 authors (GA) shared a statement of concern (SoC) warning against the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) to assess risk for serious institutional violence in US capital sentencing cases (DeMatteo et al., 2020). Notably, the SoC was not confined to capital sentencing issues, but included institutional violence in general. Central to the arguments presented in the SoC was that the PCL-R has poor predictive validity for institutional violence and also inadequate field reliability. The GA also identified important issues about the fallibility and inappropriate use of any clinical/forensic assessments, questionable evaluator qualifications, and their effects on capital sentencing decisions. However, as a group of forensic academics, researchers, and clinicians, we are concerned that the PCL-R represents a psycholegal red herring, while the SoC did not address critical legislative, systemic, and evaluator/rating issues that affect all risk assessment tools. We contend that the SoC’s literature review was selective and that the resultant opinions about potential uses and misuses of the PCL-R were ultimately misleading. We focus our response on the evidence and conclusions proffered by the GA concerning the use of the PCL-R in capital and other cases. We provide new empirical findings regarding the PCL-R’s predictive validity and field reliability to further demonstrate its relevance for institutional violence risk assessment and management. We further demonstrate why the argument that group data cannot be relevant for single-case assessments is erroneous. Recommendations to support the ethical and appropriate use of the PCL-R for risk assessment are provided.Facultad de Ciencias Médica