MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100119796 · doi:10.1177/0093854813492959

Research and Clinical Scoring of the Psychopathy Checklist can show good Agreement

2013· article· en· W2100119796 on OpenAlexaff
Grant T. Harris, Marnie E. Rice, Catherine A. Cormier

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyChecklistPsychopathy ChecklistPsychologySpearman's rank correlation coefficientReliability (semiconductor)Clinical psychologyIntraclass correlationPredictive validityRank correlationPoison controlApplied psychologyInjury preventionPsychometricsSocial psychologyStatisticsMedicineAntisocial personality disorderMedical emergencyPersonalityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) is an important predictor of violent behavior and is widely used to make important decisions about forensic clients. Some research casts doubt on whether the scoring of the PCL-R in clinical practice matches that attained in research and, therefore, whether the use of the PCL-R is warranted in high-stakes decisions. We examined scoring correspondence of the PCL-R in 58 offenders where scoring by trained clinicians was compared with that by a very experienced researcher whose scoring was of known predictive validity (or with a student supervised by this experienced researcher). Research and clinical scorers showed good agreement (Spearman’s rank order correlation = .85; intraclass correlation coefficient = .79, absolute agreement for single measures), especially on those parts of the PCL-R that are most consistently and robustly associated with violence. We conclude that trained clinicians can achieve acceptable reliability and validity when scoring the PCL-R, especially for risk assessment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207