Is the PCL-R Really the “Unparalleled” Measure of Offender Risk?

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Gendreau ◽  
Claire Goggin ◽  
Paula Smith
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Risk Measures ◽  
Risk Measure ◽  
Level Of Service ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
General Utility ◽  
Violent Recidivism ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised

The declaration that the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) is the “unparalleled” measure of offender risk prediction is challenged. It is argued that such an assertion reflects an ethnocentric view of research in the area and has led to unsubstantiated claims based on incomplete attempts at knowledge cumulation. In fact, another more comprehensive risk measure, the Level of Service Inventory–Revised, notably surpasses the PCL-R in predicting general (φ = .37 vs. .23) and violent recidivism, albeit only modestly so in the case of the latter (φ = .26 vs. .21). In addition, other problematic issues regarding the PCL-R are outlined. Finally, it is suggested that a more useful role for psychopathy in offender risk assessment may be in terms of the responsivity dimension in case management. Finally, the authors suggest further research directions that will aid in knowledge cumulation regarding the general utility of offender risk measures.

scholarly journals An Exploratory Study of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments for Individuals Convicted of Sexual Offenses in Singapore

Sexual Abuse ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 107906321988457
Author(s):  
I Ting Tsao ◽  
Chi Meng Chu
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Level Of Service ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Sexual Recidivism ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Sexual Offenses ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised

The predictive validity of risk assessment instruments for persons who have committed sexual offenses has improved tremendously in the last four decades, but the progress has been limited to Western offender populations. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive validity of Static-99R, Stable-2007, Sexual Violence Risk-20, Version 2 (SVR-20 v2), Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R), and Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) in predicting recidivism of persons convicted on sexual offenses in Singapore. Retrospective data of 134 such persons were used to code the various instruments. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed that combined Static-99R/Stable-2007 new standardized risk ratings, SVR-20 v2 total scores and risk ratings, PCL-R total scores, as well as LS/CMI total scores and risk ratings predicted sexual recidivism. All the aforementioned instruments’ total scores and risk ratings (if applicable) predicted any recidivism. However, risk profiles of this sample differed significantly from the normative Western samples.

A Comparison of Predictors of General and Violent Recidivism Among High-Risk Federal Offenders

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. J. Glover ◽  
Diane E. Nicholson ◽  
Toni Hemmati ◽  
Gary A. Bernfeld ◽  
Vernon L. Quinsey
Keyword(s):  
Risk Measures ◽  
Statistical Information ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Violent Recidivism ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
General Statistical ◽  
Federally Sentenced

The accuracy of 10 risk measures in predicting general and violent recidivism among 106 federally sentenced male offenders was compared. During an average period of opportunity to reoffend of 713 days ( SD = 601.38), 28 offenders recidivated nonviolently, and 34 recidivated violently. Common language effect sizes in discriminating violent recidivists from other offenders were .73 for the General Statistical Information on Recidivism–Revised and .72 for the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. Effect sizes ranging from .58 to .68 were obtained for DSM-IV Conduct Disorder scored as a scale, the Violent Statistical Information on Recidivism–Revised, the Psychological Referral Screening Form, the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised total score and Factor 2, and the Childhood and Adolescent Taxon Scale. Effect sizes of .58 and .51 were obtained with the DSM-IV Antisocial Personality Disorder scored as a scale and the Psychopathy Checklist Factor 1, respectively.

An Examination of Changes in LSI-R Scores Over Time: Making the Case for Needs-Based Case Management

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 541-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda D. Schlager ◽  
Daniel Pacheco
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Community Corrections ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Level Of Service ◽  
Change Scores ◽  
Risk Assessment Instrument ◽  
Over Time

The Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R) is an actuarially derived risk assessment instrument with a demonstrated reputation and record of supportive research. It has shown predictive validity on several offender populations. Although a significant literature has emerged on the validity and use of the LSI-R, no research has specifically examined change scores or the dynamics of reassessment and its importance with respect to case management. Flores, Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa and Lowenkamp and Bechtel, among others, specifically identify the importance and need to examine LSI-R reassessment scores. The present study uses a sample of parolees ( N = 179) from various community corrections programs that were administered the LSI-R at two different times. Results indicate that both mean composite and subcomponent LSI-R scores statistically significantly decreased between Time 1 and Time 2. The practical, theoretical, and policy implications of these results are discussed.

scholarly journals Use and perceived utility of structured violence risk assessments in English medium secure forensic units

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 129-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reena Khiroya ◽  
Tim Weaver ◽  
Tony Maden
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offender ◽  
Risk Measures ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Risk Matrix ◽  
Risk Appraisal ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Perceived Utility ◽  
Dynamic Factors ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised

Aims and MethodWe surveyed the usage and perceived utility of standardised risk measures in 29 forensic medium secure units (a 62% response rate).ResultsThe most common instruments were Historical Clinical Risk–20 (HCR–20) and Psychopathy Checklist – revised (PCL–R); both were rated highly for utility. the Risk Matrix 2000 (RM2000), Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) and Static-99 were the most common sex offender assessments, but the Sexual Violence Risks–20 (SVR–20) was rated more positively for its use of dynamic factors and relevance to treatment.Clinical ImplicationsMost medium secure units use structured risk assessments and staff view them positively. As HCR–20 and PCL–R/PCL–SV (Psychopathy Checklist – Screening Version) are so widely used they should be the first choices considered by other services.

Comparative Validity Analysis of Multiple Measures of Violence Risk in a Sample of Criminal Offenders

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Douglas ◽  
Melissa Yeomans ◽  
Douglas P. Boer
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Violent Offender ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Criminal Offenders ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised ◽  
Hare Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Risk Judgments

This study compared the predictive validity of multiple indices of violence risk among 188 general population criminal offenders: Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) Violence Risk Assessment Scheme, Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), Violent Offender Risk Assessment Scale (VORAS), Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), and Screening Version (PCL:SV). Several indices were related to violent recidivism with large statistical effect sizes: HCR-20 (Total, Clinical and Risk Management scales, structured risk judgments), VRAG, and behavioral scales of psychopathy measures. Multivariate analyses showed that HCR-20 indices were consistently related to violence and that the VRAG entered some analyses. Findings are inconsistent with a position of strict actuarial superiority, as HCR-20 structured risk judgments—an index of structured professional or clinical judgment—were as strongly related to violence.

Risk assessment in sentencing decisions: a remedy to mass incarceration?

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan R. Kopkin ◽  
Stanley L. Brodsky ◽  
David DeMatteo
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Measures ◽  
Risk Measure ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Sentencing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Past ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Under Construction

Purpose The legal system’s use of risk assessment has grown exponentially over the past several decades. Empirically validated risk measures are commonly implemented in parole, bail, civil commitment, and presentence proceedings. Despite their growing popularity, both policy-makers and legal scholars question their moral and legal acceptability, particularly in presentence proceedings. The purpose of this paper is to assess the current role of risk assessment in sentencing through an examination of the instrument currently under construction in the state of Pennsylvania. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the current state of the literature, this paper evaluates the current use of risk assessment in criminal sentencing and discusses its consequences, both positive and negative. Findings Four areas for improvement in the use of risk assessment in sentencing were identified. Recommendations for change are proposed. Practical implications While the use of risk assessment within the legal system has significantly increased over the past several decades, the incorporation of risk assessment in presentence proceedings is a relatively new practice. This paper provides readers with insight on the appropriateness of using risk assessment in this context and provides suggestions for reducing ethical concerns. Recommendations for increasing the validity and clinical utility of these instruments are also discussed. Originality/value Although the literature on the use of risk assessment in legal proceedings is dense, relatively little is written about their use in criminal sentencing. This paper introduces readers to this concept by examining a risk measure proposed for use in the state of Pennsylvania’s presentence proceedings. The authors discuss concerns and propose recommendations for the future use of risk assessment in this setting.

Field validity of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised in sex offender risk assessment.

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 524-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Murrie ◽  
Marcus T. Boccaccini ◽  
Jennifer Caperton ◽  
Katrina Rufino
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Sex Offender Risk Assessment ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised

Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Use and Reporting Practices in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations

Sexual Abuse ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 592-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus T. Boccaccini ◽  
Caroline S. Chevalier ◽  
Daniel C. Murrie ◽  
Jorge G. Varela
Keyword(s):  
Risk Measure ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Sexually Violent Predator ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Score Interpretation ◽  
Bias Blind Spot ◽  
Sexually Violent ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised

We surveyed evaluators who conduct sexually violent predator evaluations ( N = 95) regarding the frequency with which they use the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R), their rationale for use, and scoring practices. Findings suggest that evaluators use the PCL-R in sexually violent predator cases because of its perceived versatility, providing information about both mental disorder and risk. Several findings suggested gaps between research and routine practice. For example, relatively few evaluators reported providing the factor and facet scores that may be the strongest predictors of future offending, and many assessed the combination of PCL-R scores and sexual deviance using deviance measures (e.g., paraphilia diagnoses) that have not been examined in available studies. There was evidence of adversarial allegiance in PCL-R score interpretation, as well as a “bias blind spot” in PCL-R and other risk measure (Static-99R) scoring; evaluators tended to acknowledge the possibility of bias in other evaluators but not in themselves. Findings suggest the need for evaluators to carefully consider the extent to which their practices are consistent with emerging research and to be attuned to the possibility that working in adversarial settings may influence their scoring and interpretation practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document