Does interrater (dis)agreement on psychopathy checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations?

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 352-362

  Murrie, Daniel C ^a   Boccaccini, Marcus T ^a   Johnson, Jeremy T ^a   Janke, Chelsea ^a  

^a SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Forensic evaluation; PCL R; Psychopathy; Sex offender civil commitment; Sexually violent predator

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; LEGAL PROCEDURE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; OBSERVER BIAS; PREDATOR; PSYCHOPATHY; RATING SCALE; SEXUAL ABUSE; SEXUAL CRIME; VIOLENCE;

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER; CRIME; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMANS; PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; PSYCHOMETRICS; SEX OFFENSES;

EID: 47149083634     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-007-9097-5     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Alterman, A. I., Cacciola, J. S., & Rutherford, M. J. (1993). Reliability of the Revised Psychopathy Checklist in substance abuse patients. Psychological Assessment, 5, 442-448.
2. Amenta, A. (2005). The assessment of sexual offenders for civil commitment proceedings: An analysis of report content. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sam Houston State University.
3. Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84-94.
4. Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2002). Believability of expert and law witnesses: Implications for trial consultation. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 33, 384-388.
5. Borum, R., Otto, R., & Golding, S. (1993). Improving clinical judgment and decision making in forensic evaluation. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 21, 35-76.
6. Brodsky, S. L. (1991). Testifying in court: Guidelines and maxims for the expert witness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.
8. Campbell, T. (2004). Assessing sex offenders: Problems and pitfalls. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
9. Campbell, T. (2006).The validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in adversarial proceedings. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6, 43-53.
10. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
11. Cornell, D. G. (1987). Role conflict in forensic clinical psychology: A reply to Arcaya. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 18, 429-432.
12. DeMatteo, D., & Edens. J. F. (2006). The role and relevance of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in court: A case law survey of U.S. courts (1991-2004). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 215-241.
13. Doren, D. M. (2002). Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil commitment and beyond. London: Sage Publications.
14. Edens, J., Marcus, D., Lilienfeld, S., & Poythress, N. (2006). Psychopathic, not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 131-144.
15. Gacono, C., & Hutton, H. (1994). Suggestions for the clinical and forensic use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17, 303-317.
16. Garb, H. N., & Boyle, P. (2003). Understanding why some clinicians use pseudoscientific methods: Findings from research on clinical judgment. In S.O. Lilienfeld, S.J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. (pp. 17-38). New York. Guilford.
17. Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota, Florida: Professional Resources Press.
18. Hans, V. P. (1986). An analysis of public attitudes towards the insanity defense. Criminology, 24, 393-414.
19. Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
20. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised - Second Edition. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
21. Hemphill, J. F., Templeman, R., Wong, S., & Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopathy and crime: Recidivism and criminal careers. In D. Cooke, A. Forth, & R. Hare, (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and implications for society (pp. 375-398). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
22. Kroner, D. G., & Mills, J. F. (2001). The accuracy of five risk appraisal instruments in predicting institutional misconduct and newconvictions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 471-489.
23. Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 5, 491-498.
24. Marcus, D. K., John, S., & Edens, J. F. (2004). A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 626-635.
25. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.
26. Miller, H. A., Amenta, A. E., & Conroy, M. A. (2005). Sexually violent predator evaluations: Empirical evidence, strategies for professionals, and research directions. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 29- 54.
27. Murrie, D. C., & Warren, J. I. (2005).Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity opinions: Implications for self-monitoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 519-524.
28. Murrie, D.C., Marcus, D.K., Douglas, K.S., Salekin, R.T., Lee, Z., & Vincent, G., (in press). Youth with psychopathy features are not a discrete class: A taxometric analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
29. Otto, R. K. (1989). Bias and expert testimony of mental health professionals in adversarial proceedings: A preliminary investigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 267-273.
30. Otto, R. K. (2006). Discussion of the Forensic Specialty Guidelines. St. Petersburg, Florida: Panel presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society.
31. Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57, 5-18.
32. Patrick C. (Ed.) (2006). Handbook of psychopathy. New York: Guilford.
33. Porter, S., Woodworth, M., Earle, J., Drugge, J., & Boer, D. P. (2003). Characteristics of violent behavior exhibited during sexual homicides by psychopathic and non-psychopathic murderers. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 459-470.
34. Rogers, R. (1987). Ethical dilemmas in forensic evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5, 149-160.
35. Rutherford, M., Cacciola, J. S., Alterman, A. I., McKay, J. R., & Cook, T. G. (1999). The 2-year test-retest reliability of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in methadone patients. Assessment, 6, 285-291.
36. Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review and meta-analysis of the psychopathy checklist and psychopathy checklist-revised: Predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 203-215.
37. Schlank A. (Ed.) (2001). The sexual predator: Legal issues, clinical issues, special populations (2nd Ed). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc.
38. Shalverson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39. Shuman, D. W., & Greenberg, S. A. (2003). The expert witness, the adversary system, and the voice of reason: Reconciling impartiality and advocacy. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 34, 219-224.
40. Silver, E., Cirincione, C., & Steadman, H. (1994). Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 63-70.
41. Texas Health & Safety Code § 841.000 - 841.150 (2000).
42. Walsh, T., & Walsh, Z. (2006). The evidentiary introduction of Psychopathy Checklist-Revised assessed psychopathy in U.S. courts: Extent and Appropriateness. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 493-507.
43. Winick, B. J., & LaFond, J. Q. (2003). Protecting society from sexually dangerous offenders: Law, justice, and therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.