MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108376088 · doi:10.1177/1073191105284001

Incremental Validity Analyses of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version in a Civil Psychiatric Sample

2006· article· en· W2108376088 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyPsychopathy ChecklistPsychologyChecklistClinical psychologyIncremental validityPredictive validityAntisocial personality disorderPsychiatryBivariate analysisSample (material)Poison controlTest validityInjury preventionPsychometricsPersonalitySocial psychologyMedicineMedical emergencyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares two instruments frequently used to assess risk for violence, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV), in a large sample of civil psychiatric patients. Despite a strong bivariate relationship with community violence, the VRAG could not improve on the predictive validity of the PCL:SV alone, even though the VRAG includes several ostensible violence risk factors other than psychopathy. Moreover, incremental validity analyses indicated that the remaining VRAG items accounted for little or no variance in violent outcomes once psychopathy scores were controlled. Conversely, the PCL:SV continued to account for considerable variance after controlling for the VRAG. These results reflect the limited validity of the VRAG items in civil psychiatric samples beyond the variance that is explained by the PCL:SV alone.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.348 · 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