Psychopathy Profiles and Personality Assessment Inventory Scores in a Sex Offender Risk Assessment Field Setting.

A growing body of research suggests there are identifiable psychopathy subtypes among offenders scored on Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). We used latent profile analysis to examine the generalizability of these subtype findings to PCL-R scores (N = 615) assigned in a sex offender risk assessment field setting and to examine how offender subtypes differ on measures of comorbid psychopathology, risk, and treatment amenability from the Personality Assessment Inventory. Consistent with prior research, we identified four subtypes when using PCL-R scores from all offenders: Prototypic psychopathy (n = 239, 38.9%), callous-conning (n = 154, 25.0%), sociopathic (n = 96, 15.6%), and general offenders (n = 126, 20.5%). Prototypic and sociopathic subtypes exhibited the highest levels of comorbid psychopathology and risk for potential violence. We identified classes consistent with primary (n = 66, 36.7%) and secondary (n = 114, 63.3%) psychopathy among offenders with PCL-R total scores ≥ 25, and found higher levels of comorbid psychopathology and potential for violence among those in the secondary psychopathy class. Findings provide support the generalizability of existing PCL-R subtype findings to field scores and show how those with similar PCL-R total scores may differ on scores from commonly used multiscale inventories.

Jurors report that risk measure scores matter in sexually violent predator trials, but that other factors matter more.

After deliberating to a verdict, jurors (N = 462) from 40 sexually violent predator (SVP) trials completed a questionnaire asking them to rate the extent to which risk measure scores, diagnoses, expert witness testimony, and offender characteristics described during the trials influenced their commitment decisions. Jurors reported that offenders' sexual offending history, failure to change, and lack of remorse had the strongest influence on their commitment decisions. They reported that testimony about risk instrument scores (e.g., Static-99) and psychopathy had less influence on their decisions, but those who did report being influenced by instrument results were especially likely to view the offender as being at a high risk for reoffending. Overall, findings suggest that SVP jurors view risk measure results as important, but not as important as other offender, offense, and testimony characteristics, including some that have limited relevance to recidivism risk. Thus, findings also suggest that experts may need to better educate jurors regarding factors that do and do not relate to recidivism risk.

Jurors' views on the value and objectivity of mental health experts testifying in sexually violent predator trials.

Although psychologists and psychiatrists often testify in court, we know relatively little about the extent to which jurors value the testimony they hear from these experts. We surveyed 161 jurors who rendered opinions in 14 sex offender civil commitment trials after hearing testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses. Most jurors reported that the experts they heard testify were honest, and they tended to attribute disagreements among experts to case complexity, as opposed to adversarial allegiance or bias. Most reported that hearing from the experts helped them make better decisions and that experts using risk assessment instruments could make more accurate predictions than those who did not. Jurors were, however, more skeptical about the ability of experts to accurately predict recidivism when they heard testimony from both prosecution and defense experts. Findings suggest that jurors value risk assessment testimony from experts, but that experts must think carefully about how to best make risk assessment instrument results accessible to jurors.

How likely is "likely to reoffend" in sex offender civil commitment trials?

Many sexually violent predator (SVP) laws are ambiguous regarding the degree of reoffense risk that would indicate that an offender is sufficiently "likely to reoffend" to justify civil commitment. We review how SVP statutes operationalize likelihood of reoffending. We then examine what likelihood of recidivism actual SVP jurors considered to indicate that an offender was likely to reoffend. Real jurors (N = 153) from 14 actual SVP hearings completed a questionnaire after deliberating to a verdict. Most jurors (81.7%) considered a 15% estimated chance of recidivism to mean that the respondent was "likely" to reoffend, and many (53.6%) even considered a 1% chance to indicate likely reoffense. Jurors who heard lower risk estimates in trials were more likely to report that a low chance of recidivism (as low as 1%) indicated an offender was likely to reoffend. Results suggest that jurors view risk more in terms of the severity of potential harm than in terms of strict statistical probability. Results also suggest that when laws give jurors discretion to define tolerable risk, jurors consider even a statistically low degree of risk intolerable.

Do PCL-R scores from state or defense experts best predict future misconduct among civilly committed sex offenders?

In a recent study of sex offender civil commitment proceedings, Murrie et al. (Psychol Public Policy Law 15:19-53, 2009) found that state-retained experts consistently assigned higher PCL-R total scores than defense-retained experts for the same offenders (Cohen's d > .83). This finding raises an important question about the validity of these discrepant scores: Which type of score, state or defense evaluator, provides the most useful information about risk? We examined the ability of PCL-R total scores from state and defense evaluators to predict future misconduct among civilly committed sex offenders (N = 38). For comparison, we also examined predictive validity when two state experts evaluated the same offender (N = 32). Agreement between evaluators was low for cases with opposing experts (ICCA,1 = .43 to .52) and for cases with two state experts (ICCA,1 = .40). Nevertheless, scores from state and defense experts demonstrated similar levels of predictive validity (AUC values in the .70 range), although scores from different types of state evaluators (corrections-contracted vs. prosecution-retained) did not. The finding of mean differences between opposing evaluator scores, but similar levels of predictive validity, suggests that scores from opposing experts in SVP cases may need to be interpreted differently depending on who assigned them. Findings have important implications for understanding how rater disagreement may relate to predictive validity.