Diagnosing mental disorders in offenders: conceptual and methodological issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Studies of mentally disordered offenders have defined and measured mental disorder in very different ways. We evaluated the agreement among six different definitions of mental disorder: narrow versus broad definitions based on measures of psychiatric symptoms (the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; Overall and Gorham, 1962), syndromes (the Diagnostic Profile; Hart & Hemphill, 1989), and disorders (lifetime diagnoses on the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, Version III‐A; Robins and Helzer, 1985). Methods Participants were 192 adult men remanded in custody before jail. Each was administered the DIS, the BPRS, and the DP. A number of variables related to adjustment problems in the jail, other mental health issues, and any institutional treatment or any pharmacological treatment for mental health problems were also recorded and analysed. Results The agreement between the symptom‐ and syndrome‐based definitions was moderate, especially for the narrow definitions; furthermore, they yielded similar estimates of prevalence and had similar patterns of associations variables related to institutional security and mental health problems. The disorder‐based definitions, especially the broad, had low agreement with the other definitions, yielded higher prevalence rates, and were associated only weakly with institutional security and mental health problems. Discussion These findings highlight the need to pay greater attention to definitional issues in research on mental disordered offenders, and support the usefulness of definitions based on active psychiatric symptoms associated with major mental illnesses. Copyright © 2000 Whurr Publishers Ltd.
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 | 0.550 | 0.607 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".