The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Disturbance Among Adolescent Male Offenders: Interview Strategies and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is relatively common for some practitioners to assess psychopathic personality disturbance (PPD) among adolescent offenders, little has been said about interview skills and strategies that are helpful for an accurate assessment. Thus, this article provided recommendations for improving interview protocols for the assessment of PPD among incarcerated adolescent offenders. These recommendations were based on experiences interviewing adolescents from the Incarcerated Serious and Violent Young Offender Study and related to: (1) establishing and improving rapport, (2) responding to dishonesty, (3) tailoring the interview for adolescents as opposed to adults, (4) the importance of follow-up questions, and (5) recognizing and responding to symptoms of PPD that emerge during the interview. Vignettes of interviews with incarcerated adolescent males were used to help illustrate recommendations and strategies. Future research should systematically measure what works and what does not work when implementing interview strategies, including whether such strategies generalize across gender and culture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.121 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".