No abstract

Psychopathy is defined by a constellation of interpersonal, affective and behavioural characteristics that should, in principle, be strongly related to risk for recidivism and violence. We reviewed the literature on The Hare Psychopathy Checklist‐Revised scales (PCL‐R; Hare, 1980, 1991) and recidivism. We found that the PCL‐R consistently was an important predictor across inmate samples and was consistently among the best predictors of recidivism. Average correlations between the PCL‐R and recidivism, weighted by their degrees of freedom, were .27 for general recidivism, .27 for violent recidivism, and .23 for sexual recidivism. Relative risk statistics at one year indicated that psychopaths were approximately three times more likely to recidivate—or four times more likely to violently recidivate—than were non‐psychopaths. The correlation between general recidivism and PCL‐R Factor 2 (a measure of the social deviance facet of psychopathy) was stronger than the correlation between general recidivism and PCL‐R Factor 1 (a measure of the interpersonal/affective facet of psychopathy). Both PCL‐R factors contributed equally to the prediction of violent recidivism. The PCL‐R routinely made a significant contribution towards predicting recidivism beyond that made by key demographic variables, criminal history, and personality disorder diagnoses. Across studies, PCL‐R scores were as strongly associated with general recidivism, and were more strongly associated with violent recidivism, than were actuarial risk scales designed specifically to predict reoffending. Taken together, these findings indicate that the PCL‐R should be considered a primary instrument for guiding clinical assessments of risk for criminal recidivism and dangerousness.

No abstract

No abstract

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised is a reliable and valid measure of a clinical construct, psychopathy. Its validation includes, but is not limited to, its role in risk assessment. Nevertheless, some commentators have questioned the validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised because it does not consistently outperform purpose-built risk instruments. We contend that this view is misdirected and reflects a very narrow view of construct validation. The framework for our discussions is the conceptually and methodologically flawed "lesson in knowledge cumulation" recently proffered by Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith in which they arrived at the unwarranted conclusion that the Level of Service Inventory-Revised is generally superior to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for predicting recidivism and violence. We argue that both instruments are useful, but for different reasons. The Level of Service Inventory-Revised is a specialized risk tool, whereas the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and its derivatives measure one of the most explanatory and generalizable risk factors identified to date.