MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168961643 · doi:10.1177/0306624x01452005

Validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory for Forensic Assessments

2001· article· en· W2168961643 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin S. Douglas, Stephen D. Hart, P. Randall Kropp

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyForensic sciencePersonalityPersonality Assessment InventoryClinical psychologySample (material)Millon Clinical Multiaxial InventoryMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryIncremental validityPersonality disordersTest validityPsychometricsPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a relatively newself-report inventory that has become popular in correctional and forensic settings. The utility of thePAI for forensic assessments was investigated in a sample of 127 adult male forensic psychiatric patients. Theoretically relevant PAI scales and subscales were used as predictors of criterion variables of violence, lifetime diagnosis of psychosis, and lifetime diagnosis of personality disorder. Moderate support for the validity of the PAI was found, in that theoretically relevant PAI (sub)scales tended to predict criterion variables, and theoretically unrelated (sub)scales tended not to. The PAI appears to be able to discriminate on major conceptual dimensions in a forensic setting. A clinical description of the sample, based on PAI scales, is also presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.473
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.006 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations57
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207