Assessing risk for violent recidivism: A comparison of the Psychopathy Checklist---Revised and the Child and Adolescent Taxon Scale when calculating Violence Risk Appraisal Guide scores.

摘要

The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) is the tool of choice when conducting forensic assessments of risk, and consists of 12-items correlated with violent recidivism. One of these items is level of psychopathy, which is normally assessed via the Psychopathy Checklist---Revised (PCL-R). The PCL-R is a 20-item instrument, based on an interview and a review of collateral information, which provides a score reflecting severity of psychopathy. The Child and Adolescent Taxon Scale (CATS) also provides an index of psychopathy, but is comprised of only 8-items. There is no interview associated with the CATS, and items are scored based on retrospective information reflecting antisocial and aggressive childhood characteristics. This exploratory study tested the hypothesis that VRAG probabilities computed with the PCL-R as its index of psychopathy would be equivalent to probabilities made with the CATS. Also, reflecting the lack of minority participants in previous studies, it was hypothesized that VRAG probabilities would be equivalent between African-American and Caucasian patients regardless of the index of psychopathy used.;Forty male forensic patients were selected at random for inclusion into the study. The sample was stratified by race, so that half of the sample was African-American and the other half Caucasian. Two VRAG scores were calculated for each patient, based on retrospective information contained in their hospital records. The first VRAG score used the PCL-R as the index of psychopathy (VRAG-P), and the second used the CATS (VRAG-C).;Results indicate that the VRAG-P probabilities are equivalent to VRAG-C probabilities. Also, 7- and 10-year probabilities for African-American and Caucasian patients were not significantly different, regardless of the index of psychopathy used to calculate the VRAG. Similarities between African-American and Caucasian patients on demographic and predictor variables are discussed, as well as implications for clinical practice.