Boccaccini Marcus T, Murrie Daniel C, Rufino Katrina A, Gardner Brett O
Psychology Department.
Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, University of Virginia.
Law Hum Behav. 2014 Aug;38(4):337-45. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000069. Epub 2013 Dec 16.
Recent research suggests that the reliability of some measures used in forensic assessments--such as Hare's (2003) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)--tends to be weaker when applied in the field, as compared with formal research studies. Specifically, some of the score variability in the field is attributable to evaluators themselves, rather than the offenders they evaluate. We studied evaluator differences in PCL-R scoring among 558 offenders (14 evaluators) and found evidence of large evaluator differences in scoring for each PCL-R factor and facet, even after controlling for offenders' self-reported antisocial traits. There was less evidence of evaluator differences when we limited analyses to the 11 evaluators who reported having completed a PCL-R training workshop. Findings provide indirect but positive support for the benefits of PCL-R training, but also suggest that evaluator differences may be evident to some extent in many field settings, even among trained evaluators.
最近的研究表明，与正式的研究相比，一些用于法医评估的测量方法（如哈雷（2003年）的《精神病态核查表修订版》（PCL-R））在实际应用中的可靠性往往较弱。具体而言，实际应用中的部分分数差异可归因于评估者自身，而非他们所评估的罪犯。我们研究了558名罪犯（由14名评估者评估）在PCL-R评分上的评估者差异，发现即使在控制了罪犯自我报告的反社会特征之后，每个PCL-R因子和方面的评分中仍存在评估者的巨大差异。当我们将分析限制在11名报告完成了PCL-R培训工作坊的评估者时，评估者差异的证据较少。研究结果为PCL-R培训的益处提供了间接但积极的支持，但也表明评估者差异在许多实际场景中可能在一定程度上是明显的，即使在训练有素的评估者中也是如此。
