The Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA): Factor structure and construct validity across three German samples.

Psychopathy is deemed an important construct in forensic settings. Consequently, its theoretical basis and measurement are relevant to researchers but also to criminal justice administrators and decision-makers. The Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA) is a recently developed self-report scale designed to measure psychopathic traits based on the five-factor model, one of the most comprehensive frameworks of general personality. Recent research provided initial support for the reliability and construct validity of the EPA, and exploratory factor analyses yielded a four-factor structure across different samples from the United States. Independent and confirmatory assessments of the construct validity and factor structure of the EPA are, however, pending. Across three independent, non-American samples (accumulated N = 1,803), we examined its content and factorial validity. We corroborated the proposed four-factor structure by means of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Item-based CFA further indicated that the EPA items adequately measure the scales that they were initially assigned to. Taken together, the EPA is a psychometrically sound assessment tool for psychopathy. Given its substantial overlap with basic units of personality, the EPA represents a valid instrument to investigate psychopathy from a dimensional, trait-based perspective. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Triarchic Psychopathy Measure: Convergent and discriminant validity in a correctional treatment setting.

The standard measure of assessment of psychopathy in forensic and correctional settings is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), an observer-rating instrument assessing 4 facets of psychopathy: Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial. The relatively new triarchic model of psychopathy, in contrast, consists of 3 factors: Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition measured with a self-report questionnaire, Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM). The evidence for the utility of the TriPM questionnaire in forensic or correctional settings is still scarce. Therefore, the current study was conducted to examine the convergence of the TriPM questionnaire with the PCL-R and interpersonal psychopathic behavior ratings based on the Interpersonal Measure of Psychopathy in a sample of German adult male prison inmates undergoing a correctional treatment (N = 152). To test the construct validity with external criteria, measures for impulsiveness and self-efficacy were used. Overall, the results were rather equivocal regarding the validity of the TriPM. The TriPM Boldness scale was not significantly correlated with the PCL-R but only with the Interpersonal Measure of Psychopathy Grandiosity and Self-Efficacy. The TriPM Meanness scale and Disinhibition were strongly correlated and showed a similar correlative pattern with the PCL-R Lifestyle and Antisocial facets. Thus, the construct coverage of the TriPM and the added value for measuring psychopathic traits using the TriPM in correctional settings remains inconclusive. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Triarchic or septarchic?-Uncovering the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure's (TriPM) structure.

The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) is based on a 3-dimensional conceptual model, though few studies have directly tested a 3-factor structure. The current study used a large community sample (N = 1,064, 53% males, Mage = 34) to test the structure of the TriPM via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, along with 4 community replication samples from North American and Europe (Ns = 511-603, 33-49% males) and 1 European male offender sample (N = 150). Three of these samples were also used to model the correlations between relevant external correlates and the original TriPM factors versus emergent factors to examine the cost of misspecifying TriPM structure. The model analyses did not support a 3-factor model (comparative fit index = .76, root mean square error of approximation = .08), revealing a number of items with limited statistical information, but uncovered a 7-factor structure (comparative fit index = .92, root mean square error of approximation = .04). From the majority of Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition scale items, respectively, emerged 3 factors reflecting Positive Self-Image, Leadership, and Stress Immunity; 2 factors tapping Callousness and Enjoy Hurting; and 2 factors involving Trait Impulsivity and Overt Antisociality. Further, the Enjoy Hurting and Overt Antisociality factors were more strongly correlated with one another than with the other scales from their home domains (Callousness and Impulsivity). All 7 emergent factors were differentially associated with the external correlates, suggesting that the 3 original TriPM factors do not optimally represent the conceptual model underlying the TriPM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The perils of untested assumptions in theory testing: A reply to Patrick et al. (2020).

We respond to a critique by Patrick et al. (2020) of our recent study (Roy et al., 2020) that raised questions regarding the three-factor model of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM). Roy et al. demonstrated that a replicable model involving seven unidimensional factors accounted for the TriPM items across North American and European general population samples, as well as European male offenders. Despite having access to large TriPM datasets, the Patrick et al. critique relied on tangential analyses of general personality traits, using a single college sample with TriPM data as supplemental. Thus, Patrick et al. ignored findings highlighting multidimensional TriPM scales and the uncertainty they introduce with respect to the larger nomological network of psychopathy. In our reply, we demonstrate additional problems with the three-factor TriPM model and show that the seven-factor model out-performs the three-factor model in predicting correlates of psychopathy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Determinants of Dropout From Correctional Offender Treatment.

Research indicates that approximately one third of offenders admitted to social-therapeutic correctional facilities in Germany fail to complete treatment and that treatment dropout is linked to higher recidivism in both sexual and violent offenders. The purpose of this study was to examine determinants of treatment dropout in a social-therapeutic correctional facility in Germany. The sample consisted of 205 incarcerated adult male offenders (49.8% sexual, 38.1% non-sexual violent) admitted to correctional treatment. Completers and dropouts were compared on variables pertaining to demographics, offense type, substance abuse, psychopathy, risk, and protective factors. Univariate analyses showed that treatment dropouts demonstrated significantly higher scores on measures of risk and psychopathy and lower scores on protective factors. Logistic regression analyses identified unemployment, non-sexual violent index offense, higher risk scores (HCR-20), and Facet 1 (interpersonal deficits) of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) as significant predictors of treatment dropout. Surprisingly, substance abuse disorder was a negative predictor of dropout. With the exception of substance abuse, the results support the notion that treatment dropouts represent a group of high-risk offenders with particular treatment needs. Practical implications and suggestions for further research are discussed.

Prison Climate and Its Role in Reducing Dynamic Risk Factors During Offender Treatment.

Although several offender treatment experts have suggested that therapeutic relationships play an important role in offender treatment, empirical finding supporting those arguments are scarce. The present study has therefore examined the relationship between prison climate, treatment motivation, and their influence on changes in risk factors in N = 215 inmates and detainees in four correctional facilities in Berlin, Germany. The inmates' perception of prison climate significantly correlated with their attitudes towards treatment. More positive climate in terms of therapeutic hold and more positive treatment attitude in terms of trust in therapy were also the best predictors of stronger decreases in dynamic risk factors measured by the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). Our results support the importance of treatment relationship factors within the course of offender rehabilitation.

Factors Predicting Desistance From Reoffending: A Validation Study of the SAPROF in Sexual Offenders.

The present study aims at validating the German version of the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors (SAPROF) for violence risk in a representative sample of incarcerated adult male sexual offenders. Sexual offenders ( n = 450) were rated retrospectively with the SAPROF using the database of the Federal Evaluation Centre for Violent and Sexual Offenders (FECVSO) in the Austrian Prison System. Interrater reliability and predictive validity of the SAPROF scores concerning desistance from recidivism were calculated. Concurrent and incremental validity were tested using the combination of the SAPROF and the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20). Interrater reliability was moderate to excellent, and predictive accuracy for various types of recidivism was rather small to moderate. There was a clear negative relationship between the SAPROF and the SVR-20 risk factors. Whereas the SAPROF revealed itself as a significant predictor for various recidivism categories, it did not add any predictive value beyond the SVR-20. Although the SAPROF itself can predict desistance from recidivism, it seems to contribute to the risk assessment in convicted sexual offenders only to a limited extent, once customary risk assessment tools have been applied. Implications for clinical use and further studies are discussed.

[Risk and Protective Factors Among Sexual Offenders: Relapse Prediction and Changes During Treatment]. / Risiko- und Schutzfaktoren bei sexualdelinquent gewordenen Menschen: Vorhersage erneuter Straftaten und Veränderungen im Behandlungsverlauf.

OBJECTIVE: Investigation of two questions: first, whether sexual/forensic therapists are able to make valid assessments for future criminal behavior and second, whether their treatment changes factors relevant for new offences. METHODS: First, the predictive validity for recidivism of HCR-20 and SAPROF were tested. Second, the dynamic scales of both instruments were analyzed concerning changes during treatment process. RESULTS: Both instruments showed good predictive validity. The dynamic scales scores of HCR-20 did not change, whereas the I- and M-scale scores of SAPROF increased statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The therapists were able to identify high-risk clients and seemed to mainly focus their interventions towards factors associated with new offences.

Risk Assessment in Child Sexual Abusers Working With Children.

Child sexual abuse occurring in a child- or youth-serving institution or organization has attracted great public and scientific attention. In light of the particular personal and offense-related characteristics of men who have abused children within such an institution or organization, it is of special importance to evaluate the predictive performance of currently applied risk assessment instruments in this offender population. Therefore, the present study assessed the risk ratings and predictive performance of four risk assessment instruments and one instrument assessing protective factors concerning any, violent and sexual recidivism in child sexual abusers working with children (CSA-W) in comparison with extra-familial child sexual abusers (CSA-E) and intra-familial child sexual abusers (CSA-I). The results indicate that CSA-W mostly recidivate with a sexual offense. Although all included risk measures seem to function with CSA-W, the Static-99 seems to be the instrument that performs best in predicting sexual recidivism in CSA-W. CSA-W had the most protective factors measured with the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors (SAPROF). While the SAPROF could not predict desistance from recidivism in CSA-W, it predicted desistance from any recidivism in all CSA. As CSA-W frequently hold many indicators for pedophilic sexual interests but only a few for antisocial tendencies, it can be suggested that CSA-W are at an increased risk for sexual recidivism and thus risk measures especially designed for sexual recidivism work best in CSA-W. Nevertheless, CSA-W also hold many protective factors; however, their impact on CSA-W is not clear yet and needs further study.

Protective factors and recidivism in accused juveniles who sexually offended.

To date, research on juvenile sexual offender recidivism has tended to focus on risk factors rather than protective factors. Therefore, very little is known about protective factors in the population of juveniles who sexually offended. The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of protective factors on non-recidivism in a sample of accused juveniles who sexually offended (N = 71) in a mean follow-up period of 47.84 months. Protective factors were measured with the Protective Factor Scale of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF). Criminal charges served as recidivism data. The internal scale of the SAPROF, in particular, yielded moderate predictive accuracy for the absence of violent and general recidivism, though not for the absence of sexual recidivism. No protective factor of the SAVRY did reveal predictive accuracy regarding various types of the absence of recidivism. Furthermore, protective factors failed to achieve any significant incremental predictive accuracy beyond that captured by the SAVRY risk factors alone. The potential therapeutic benefit of protective factors in juvenile sexual offender treatment is discussed.

Comparing sexuality, aggressiveness, and antisocial behavior of alleged juvenile sexual and violent offenders.

Sexual delinquency in juveniles is insufficiently explored in regard to the specificity of offender characteristics. The aim is to investigate relevant areas for juvenile sexual offending in a precourt, pretreatment group. Thirty-two alleged juvenile sexual offenders (ASO) referred to by police were compared with 32 juvenile nonsexual violent offenders (VNO) on standardized measures of aggressiveness and psychopathology, antisocial behavior, substance use problems, and sexuality. Less externalizing disorders and antisocial behavior were found among the ASOs than among the VNOs. The ASO group was sexually less experienced, had less trust in their relationship abilities, fewer victimization experiences, and reported more sexual deviance, while pornography use and obscene calls were reported less often. Few juvenile sexual offenders had severe problems in the investigated areas. Including groups of offenders before court, treatment or incarceration in research appears crucial to understand the full spectrum of sexual deviance in youth and avoid misguidance due to selection factors.

Assessment of accused juvenile sex offenders in Germany: a comparison of five different measures.

The present study examines the relationship between risk and protective factors among young alleged sexual offenders (N = 66) in pre-trial and pre-treatment settings. For risk assessment purposes, the Screening Tool for the Assessment of Young Sexual Offenders' Risk (STAYSOR), the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) were used. Psychopathological indicators measured with the Basis Raads Onderzoek (BARO) and the German adaption of the Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening Inventory (RAASI) were used to examine the relationship between the risk assessment scales and instruments measuring risk-relevant psychopathological constructs. Risk and protective factors were significantly negatively correlated. Psychopathological measures were positively correlated with risk factors and negatively with protective factors. Although further studies on the predictive validity of the instruments are needed, the results of the present explorative pilot study indicate that the use of all five instruments may be clinically meaningful for the assessment of young persons who are at risk of sexual offending.