MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164878310 · doi:10.1037/lhb0000105

DSM-5 antisocial personality disorder: Predictive validity in a prison sample.

2014· article· en· W2164878310 on OpenAlex
John F. Edens, Shannon E. Kelley, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Jennifer L. Skeem, Kevin S. Douglas

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

VenueLaw and Human Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntisocial personality disorderMisconductPrisonPsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyPersonality disordersPredictive validityForensic psychiatryPersonalityPoison controlInjury preventionCriminologyMedicineSocial psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Symptoms of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), particularly remorselessness, are frequently introduced in legal settings as a risk factor for future violence in prison, despite a paucity of research on the predictive validity of this disorder. We examined whether an ASPD diagnosis or symptom-criteria counts could prospectively predict any form of institutional misconduct, as well as aggressive and violent infractions among newly admitted prisoners. Adult male (n = 298) and female (n = 55) offenders were recruited from 4 prison systems across the United States. At the time of study enrollment, diagnostic information was collected using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; APA, 1994) Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) supplemented by a detailed review of official records. Disciplinary records were obtained from inmates' respective prisons covering a 1-year period following study enrollment and misconduct was categorized hierarchically as any (general), aggressive (verbal/physical), or violent (physical). Dichotomous ASPD diagnoses and adult symptom-criteria counts did not significantly predict institutional misconduct across our 3 outcome variables, with effect sizes being close to 0 in magnitude. The symptom of remorselessness in particular showed no relation to future misconduct in prison. Childhood symptom counts of conduct disorder demonstrated modest predictive utility. Our results offer essentially no support for the claim that ASPD diagnoses can predict institutional misconduct in prison, regardless of the number of adult symptoms present. In forensic contexts, testimony that an ASPD diagnosis identifies defendants who will pose a serious threat while incarcerated in prison presently lacks any substantial scientific foundation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.303 · 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