Some Misconceptions about the Hare PCL-R and Risk Assessment
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.180 | 0.452 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".