The validity and reliability of the violence risk scale-youth version (VRS-YV)

The present study examines the validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of a newly developed violence risk assessment and treatment planning measure for youth – the Violence Risk Scale-Youth Version (VRS-YV; Lewis, Wong, & Gordon, 2004). Composed of 4 static and 19 dynamic items, the VRS-YV is designed to assess violence risk, identify targets for treatment, and evaluate changes in risk as a function of treatment. Change is evaluated through a modified application of Prochaska et al.’s (1992) Transtheoretical Model of Change. Stages of change ratings made pre- and post-treatment are summed across dynamic items to yield change scores. The VRS-YV, Youth Level of Services/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2003), and Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version (PCL-YV; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003) were each rated from file information on a sample of 133 young offenders (68 males and 65 females) who had received assessment and/or treatment services from a community mental health facility in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. All youths had been charged or convicted of a violent offense. This tended to be a rather high risk sample with a large proportion of Aboriginal youths.The VRS-YV demonstrated good internal consistency (VRS-YV total á = .91) and interrater reliability (VRS-YV total ICC = .90), while most of the individual items had acceptable inter-item (mean r = .32) and item total correlations (range r = .30 to .70). Male and female youths displayed few differences on the three risk measures or their respective scale components; however, Aboriginal youths scored significantly higher on these measures than non-Aboriginal youths, with the trend being particularly strong among males.The VRS-YV showed good convergence with the YLS/CMI and PCL-YV. The three measures significantly postdicted violent offending, that is, youth who were repeat violent offenders tended to score significantly higher on each of the measures, than first time violent youth (i.e., those who had no previous history of violence). Similar postdiction was observed for general criminal offending. Recidivism data were available for roughly half of the total sample (n = 62) over a mean follow-up time of approximately 2 years. Preliminary evidence was obtained for the predictive accuracy of the VRS-YV with respect to violent and general recidivism. Predictive accuracy statistics were comparable to those obtained for the YLS/CMI and PCL-YV, with correlations generally being in the .40 to .50 range and Areas Under the Curve (AUCs) in the mid .70s to low .80s. There was also a significant relationship between VRS-YV risk level and both violent and general recidivism. Survival analyses further confirmed that the VRS-YV was able to differentiate those who were more likely to recidivate and more likely to do so more quickly.Change ratings were available for a small subsample of youth (n = 39), which were used to compute post-treatment dynamic ratings. Youths appeared to demonstrate some degree of change, indicating possible therapeutic progress after receiving treatment services. While the trends for the change results tended to be in the expected direction across several of the analyses, the small nature of the sample precluded meaningful interpretation of these findings.In sum, these data provide preliminary evidence for the ability of the VRS-YV to evaluate risk and predict violent and general recidivism with comparable accuracy to that of two well-known and psychometrically robust instruments in the field. The results further demonstrate that the VRS-YV, YLS/CMI, and PCL-YV can have predictive validity for future violent and general recidivism among a diverse sample of youth that includes both male and female, Aboriginal, and community-based youth, living in the province of Saskatchewan. Limitations and future directions are discussed

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

Some notes on the validation of VRS-SO static scores

The present study was a psychometric examination of Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version (VRS-SO; Wong, S., Olver, M. E., Nicholaichuk, T. P., & Gordon, A. (2003). The violence risk scale: Sexual offender version (VRS-SO). Saskatoon: Regional Psychiatric Centre and University of Saskatchewan) static item scores in a Canadian multisite sample of 668 treated adult male sexual offenders. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of 13 nonredundant Static-99R and VRS-SO static items generated three factors labelled Youthful Aggression, Sexual Criminality, and General Criminality. The factor and total scores converged with Static-99R and VRS-SO dynamic factor scores. Scores on the VRS-SO static items, EFA-derived factors, and total score each significantly predicted 5- and 10-year sexual, violent, and general recidivism through ROC analyses. Cox regression survival analyses showed all three factors uniquely predicted sexual recidivism to varying degrees in the overall sample; however, only Youthful Aggression and General Criminality uniquely significantly predicted violent and general recidivism in the overall sample and among sexual offender subgroups. Implications for theory, clinical practice, and instrument refinement are discussed

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

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.Facultad de Ciencias Médica