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

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

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