The mangled butterfly: Rorschach results from 45 violent psychopaths.

Participants were 45 violent California male prison inmates scoring 30 or more on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). Inmates were evaluated using Rorschach and neuropsychological test data. The participants' intellectual functioning was within the low-average range and displayed a lack of flexibility. Rorschach data were not suggestive of chronic narcissism and anger as in other psychopathic samples. This group resembled Exner's normative sample of high Lambda adults. Consistent with previous studies, psychopaths demonstrated poor emotional modulation, diminished reality testing, little interest in people, and virtually no attachment capacity. Most utilized a simplistic, avoidant, and concrete style. This appeared to be consistent with the concrete thinking and fragmentation attributed to the criminal personality. Concrete thinking is based upon literal interpretations of events. Fragmentation is associated with attitudes that are situation specific and self-serving.

Four-facet PCL-R structure and cognitive functioning among high violent criminal offenders.

High violent inmates (N = 126) were administered the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000; Hare et al., 1990) and neuropsychological measures. No significant correlations were present between the overall PCL-R score and 14 cognitive measures. A violence score, computed as the total number of violent acts across all situations and types, was significantly correlated with the PCL-R total score and Facet 2 but not with the other three facets. Our data suggest that Facet 2 elevations may prove relevant to violence risk assessment; this link, however, needs further exploration with larger samples.

A practical method for the evaluation of symptom exaggeration in minor head trauma among civil litigants.

Forensic psychiatrists and psychologists are often called on to provide opinions and render testimony in which minor head trauma accompanied by persistent somatic, cognitive, and/or emotional symptoms is alleged. The frequency of persistent symptoms following such minor head injury is generally low. The forensic clinician therefore must differentiate between subtle brain dysfunction, symptom amplification, psychogenic-based causes for the presence of cognitive and other deficits, or frank malingering. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to review critical issues related to the assessment of malingering and symptom exaggeration in mild head injury cases; and second, to offer a practical model for the assessment of amplified neuropsychological and psychiatric deficits in civil litigants in cases of minor head trauma.