The role and reliability of the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised in U.S. sexually violent predator evaluations: A case law survey.

Abstract

The civil commitment of offenders as sexually violent predators (SVPs) is a highly contentious area of U.S. mental health law. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is frequently used in mental health evaluations in these cases to aid legal decision making. Although generally perceived to be a useful assessment tool in applied settings, recent research has raised questions about the reliability of PCL-R scores in SVP cases. In this report, we review the use of the PCL-R in SVP trials identified as part of a larger project investigating its role in U.S. case law. After presenting data on how the PCL-R is used in SVP cases, we examine the reliability of scores reported in these cases. We located 214 cases involving the PCL-R, 88 of which included an actual score and 29 of which included multiple scores. In the 29 cases with multiple scores, the intraclass correlation coefficient for a single evaluator for the PCL-R scores was only .58, and only 41.4% of the difference scores were within 1 standard error of measurement unit. The average score reported by prosecution experts was significantly higher than the average score reported by defense-retained experts, and prosecution experts reported PCL-R scores of 30 or above in nearly 50% of the cases, compared with less than 10% of the cases for defense witnesses (κ = .29). In conjunction with other recently published findings demonstrating the unreliability of PCL-R scores in applied settings, our results raise questions as to whether this instrument should be admitted into SVP proceedings.

A Field Study of a Comprehensive Violence Risk Assessment Battery

“…We could not calculate inter-rater reliability statistics because the evaluations in this sample were completed by individual evaluators. It would have been ideal to be able to calculate inter-rater reliabilities to compare to other recent field research that has suggested poor inter-rater reliability of risk assessment tools (particularly the PCL-R) in clinical settings (e.g., Boccaccini, Turner, & Murrie, 2008;DeMatteo, et al, 2014;Edens, Boccaccini, & Johnson, 2010). Given those recent findings, there is reason to be concerned about the inter-rater reliability between clinicians in the present sample.…”

Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations.

“…(e.g., DeMatteo, et al, 2014;Murrie et al, 2008;Murrie, Boccaccini, Turner, Meeks, Woods, & Tussey, 2009) and in Canada (Lloyd, Clark, & Forth, 2010). Beyond these studies, surveys of judges and attorneys consistently reveal their concern about bias among experts as well (e.g., Krafka, Dunn, Johnson, Cecil, & Miletich, 2002;Shuman, Whitaker, & Champagne, 1994).…”

Identifying the Forensic Psychologist Role

“…The forensic identification finding by mental health professionals in adversarial forensic settings has been observed by other investigators as well, including in several recent field studies -despite the ethical guidelines about striving to be unbiased and impartial (e.g., DeMatteo, Edens, Galloway, Cox, Toney Smith, & Formon, 2014;Lloyd, Clark, & Forth, 2010;Murrie, Boccaccini, Johnson, & Janke, 2008;Murrie, Boccaccini, Turner, Meeks, Woods, & Tussey, 2009;Otto, 1989). …”