Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Use and Reporting Practices in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations.

We surveyed evaluators who conduct sexually violent predator evaluations ( N = 95) regarding the frequency with which they use the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), their rationale for use, and scoring practices. Findings suggest that evaluators use the PCL-R in sexually violent predator cases because of its perceived versatility, providing information about both mental disorder and risk. Several findings suggested gaps between research and routine practice. For example, relatively few evaluators reported providing the factor and facet scores that may be the strongest predictors of future offending, and many assessed the combination of PCL-R scores and sexual deviance using deviance measures (e.g., paraphilia diagnoses) that have not been examined in available studies. There was evidence of adversarial allegiance in PCL-R score interpretation, as well as a "bias blind spot" in PCL-R and other risk measure (Static-99R) scoring; evaluators tended to acknowledge the possibility of bias in other evaluators but not in themselves. Findings suggest the need for evaluators to carefully consider the extent to which their practices are consistent with emerging research and to be attuned to the possibility that working in adversarial settings may influence their scoring and interpretation practices.

Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance?

We surveyed experts (N = 109) who conduct sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to obtain information about their Static-99R score reporting and interpretation practices. Although most evaluators reported providing at least 1 normative sample recidivism rate estimate, there were few other areas of consensus. Instead, reporting practices differed depending on the side for which evaluators typically performed evaluations. Defense evaluators were more likely to endorse reporting practices that convey the lowest possible level of risk (e.g., routine sample recidivism rates, 5-year recidivism rates) and the highest level of uncertainty (e.g., confidence intervals, classification accuracy), whereas prosecution evaluators were more likely to endorse practices suggesting the highest possible level of risk (e.g., high risk/need sample recidivism rates, 10-year recidivism rates). Reporting practices from state-agency evaluators tended to be more consistent with those of prosecution evaluators than defense evaluators, although state-agency evaluators were more likely than other evaluators to report that it was at least somewhat difficult to choose an appropriate normative comparison group. Overall, findings provide evidence for adversarial allegiance in Static-99R score reporting and interpretation practices.