MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892320140 · doi:10.1108/jcrpp-11-2017-0035

Sexual offender treatment outcomes among psychopathy subtypes

2018· article· en· W2892320140 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay A. Sewall, Mark E. Olver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Criminological Research Policy and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyRecidivismPsychopathy ChecklistPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPoison controlAntisocial personality disorderInjury preventionPersonalityMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine sexual offender treatment responses as a function of psychopathy subtype. Design/methodology/approach Measures of sexual violence risk, treatment change and outcome variables were coded retrospectively on a sample of 86 high Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) scoring sexual offenders. Psychopathy subtypes were identified through cluster analysis of PCL-R facet scores. Findings Two subtypes were identified labeled classic and aggressive. They were comparable in their level of risk and need and did not differ in rates of treatment completion or change. The aggressive subtype had higher rates of violent and general recidivism and higher frequencies of major mental disorder and cognitive disability. Results of Cox regression survival analysis demonstrated that treatment-related changes in risk were associated with reductions in violent recidivism for the aggressive, but not classic, psychopathy variant. Practical implications Psychopathy is a heterogeneous syndrome. Moreover, psychopathic offenders can demonstrate risk relevant treatment changes. PCL-R facet profiles have important responsivity implications. However, not all psychopathic offenders fare poorly in treatment. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to examine treatment response and links to outcome among psychopathic offenders, particularly as this relates to subtype.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.138 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Criminological Research Policy and PracticeSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207