![]() Further, individuals who score between 13 and 17 may be psychopathic and should be further evaluated. In contrast, scores of 12 and below are typically only obtained by non-psychopaths. Usually scores of 18 and above are only obtained by psychopaths and warrant administration of the full PCL-R. The PCL:SV provides three dimensional scores with scores ranging from 0 to 24. Part 2 scores reveal symptoms of social deviance related to psychopathy. Part 1 scores reflect interpersonal and affective symptoms of psychopathy. The PCL:SV is comprised of twelve questions and is divided into part 1 and part 2, intending to be conceptual analogues of the PCL-R’s empirically derived Factor 1 and Factor 2 (Hart et al., 2003). 80 for forensic inpatients (Hart et al.). Part 2 scores of the PCL:SV have higher interrater reliability than Part 1 and paralleled those found using PCL-R Factor 1 and Factor 2 scores, with averaged interclass Part 1 correlations of. Multiple studies suggest that the PCL:SV is strongly related to the PCL-R (Hart et al., 2003), however it requires half of the time to complete. ![]() ![]() These authors explained that the PCL:SV conceptualizes psychopathy in an analogous manner as the PCL-R. The PCL:SV can be used initially as a screening measure for individuals at less risk of being psychopathic, and then the more traditional PCL-R can be employed if someone reaches the cutoff score of 30. The PCL:SV was developed to be a briefer measure useful for screening individuals who may have a low base rate of psychopathy (i.e., community individuals, sex offenders Guy & Douglas, 2006). (2003) developed the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV). To assist in resolving the lengthy administration and scoring time required by using the PCL-R, Hart et al. Researchers have found that a file-based cut off score of 26 was optimal for predicting a standard PCL-R score of 30 (Hare, 2004). Presently, there is a lack of research in which standard assessments and file reviews are directly compared. In addition, ratings based on file reviews often result in considerably lower PCL-R scores than otherwise obtained from a standard administration. ![]() Specifically, it may be difficult to score some of the interpersonal and affective items without direct observation of the individual’s interpersonal style. In contrast, Hare (2004) explained that there are some consequences to only file-based evaluations. Hare recommended that ratings based only on file/collateral information should be indicated in the evaluation and/or study. Some advantages are that a substantial amount of useful information can be gathered in a short time and that it is unnecessary to wait years to find out if a variable predicts a behavior. Hare explained that a generous amount of research indicates that reliable and valid PCL-R ratings can be obtained based solely on high quality collateral information. For example, the individual may refuse to be interviewed or cooperate. Hare (2004) informed that in some situations it may be impossible to conduct an interview. It is important to note that due to several of the above limitations some evaluators and researchers choose to conduct file-based evaluations. As a result, criminality may not be a key component of psychopathy, but the predictive abilities of the PCL-R largely rest with the Factor 2 items. Cooke, Michie, & Hart, 2006 Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008). A final limitation is that the PCL and its derivatives is only one measurement of psychopathy and some researchers argue that the antisocial features (found in Factor 2, Facet 4) are not central to the disorder of psychopathy itself, rather, they are behavioral manifestations (e.g. Next, these authors explained that the PCL-R has been developed and validated on correctional and forensic samples, therefore, our understanding of psychopathic personality patterns has been based too heavily on unsuccessful criminal psychopaths. Too often institutional records are unavailable, incomplete, or omit certain information in which affects reliability of PCL-R scoring. This often results in a trained mental health professional spending three to four hours to administer and score the test, which can be costly (Edens et al., 2001).Īnother limitation noted by these authors is that the ratings are based on institutional records. Requirements for accurate scoring include a trained examiner, a semi-structured clinical interview, and extensive review of all available institutional file data. First, the PCL-R is highly labor intensive to administer and score. Although there is an abundance of research suggesting that the PCL-R is the “gold standard”, it has some limitations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |