Edens John F, Skeem Jennifer L, Douglas Kevin S
Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA.
Assessment. 2006 Sep;13(3):368-74. doi: 10.1177/1073191105284001.
This study compares two instruments frequently used to assess risk for violence, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV), in a large sample of civil psychiatric patients. Despite a strong bivariate relationship with community violence, the VRAG could not improve on the predictive validity of the PCL:SV alone, even though the VRAG includes several ostensible violence risk factors other than psychopathy. Moreover, incremental validity analyses indicated that the remaining VRAG items accounted for little or no variance in violent outcomes once psychopathy scores were controlled. Conversely, the PCL:SV continued to account for considerable variance after controlling for the VRAG. These results reflect the limited validity of the VRAG items in civil psychiatric samples beyond the variance that is explained by the PCL:SV alone.
本研究在一大群民事精神病患者样本中,比较了两种常用于评估暴力风险的工具,即暴力风险评估指南(VRAG)和精神病态清单:筛查版(PCL:SV)。尽管VRAG与社区暴力存在很强的双变量关系,但即使VRAG包含了除精神病态之外的几个表面上的暴力风险因素,它也无法单独提高PCL:SV的预测效度。此外,增量效度分析表明,一旦控制了精神病态得分,其余的VRAG项目在暴力结果中占的方差很小或没有方差。相反,在控制了VRAG之后,PCL:SV仍然占相当大的方差。这些结果反映了在民事精神病样本中,VRAG项目的效度有限,超出了仅由PCL:SV解释的方差。