Relative Efficacy of the PAI, PCL:SV, and VRAG in

Transcript Relative Efficacy of the PAI, PCL:SV, and VRAG in

Relative Efficacy of the PAI, PCL:SV, and VRAG in Predicting Institutional Misconduct and Short term Recidivism

Mark E. Hastings, Ph.D.

Loudoun County Mental Health Center George Mason University & Jeff Stuewig, Ph.D.

June Tangney, Ph.D.

George Mason University Paper presented March 2, 2006 at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society in St. Petersburg, FL

Main Study Questions

• • How well do various PAI scales predict institutional misconduct?

– Previous research shows ANT and AGG significantly correlate with institutional misconduct (Buffington Vollum

et al.

, 2002; Edens

al., 2001; Walters, Duncan, & Geyer, 2003) How well do various PAI scales predict short-term recidivism?

– Two prior studies show ANT and AGG significantly correlate with recidivism in female inmates and male inmates referred for forensic evaluation in federal prison system (Salekin

et al

., 1998; Walters & Duncan, 2005).

Violence Potential Index (VPI)

• • • • The VPI consists of 20 features of the PAI profile that are congruent with research on the assessment of violence (e.g., impulsivity, agitation, lack of empathy, history of antisocial behavior).

Wang

et al.

(1997) – VPI significantly correlated with staff ratings of aggression on the Overt Aggression Scale (OAS).

Caperton

et al.

(2004) – VPI significantly correlated with any and verbal disciplinary infractions. No study to date has examined the VPI and prediction of recidivism.

Study Participants

• • • • • • • • • N=326 male inmates incarcerated at large urban jail.

Age = 31 (s.d.= 9.7; range= 18 to 69) Race = 44.4% African-American, 33.9% Caucasian, 9.3% Mexican American/Other Hispanic, 3.7% Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.7% Mixed, 2.8% Other, & 1.2% Middle Eastern Wonderlic IQ Score = 93.19 (s.d.= 13.77, range= 67 to 138) Education Level = 11.62 years (s.d.= 2.18, range= 3 to 19) WRAT Reading Standard Score = 91.54 (s.d.= 16.68, range= 44 to 120) PCL:SV Total Score = 12.88 (s.d.= 4.96, range= 1 to 22) VRAG Score = +7.62 (s.d.= 8.07, range= -18 to +25) Violence Potential Index = 5.87 (s.d. = 4.1, range 0 to 19).

Practical Application Of “Touch Screen Tablet” For Standardized Interview

• Audio and visual presentation accommodates participants with minimal reading ability • Touch-screen response mode does not require familiarity with computers • Circumvents social desirability demands of face-to-face interviews

SCALES ANT AGG MAN PAR BOR DOM VPI Part 1

PAI Correlations

PCL:SV .28** .21** .24** .18** .10

.24**

.25**

Note: N=326;

< .05*

< .005** PCL:SV Part 2 .49** .47** .31** .28** .36** .20**

.45**

PCL:SV Total .44** .39** .32** .26** .27** .26**

.41**

VRAG .53** .50** .43** .39** .38** .26**

.50**

Jail Behavior

• Institutional misconduct data were collected from official jail records and were classified into four categories: – Physical Acts (e.g., assaults, setting fires, etc.) Base Rate = 6% – Verbal Acts (e.g., threats, curse and abuse, etc.) Base Rate = 5% – Defiance (e.g., refuse order, contraband, etc.) Base Rate = 25% – Other (e.g., self-mutilation, banging on cell door, etc.) Base Rate = 4%

Predicting Jail Misconduct

Scales/Jail Behavior PCL:SV Total PCL:SV Part 1 PCL:SV Part 2 VRAG VPI ANT AGG MAN PAR BOR Physical Acts Verbal Acts .08

.13*

.03 .10

.10

.13* .12* .11*

.09

.12* .13** .18**

.06

.03

.08

.06

-.02

.11

.04

-.04

Note: N = 326;

< .05*

< .005** Defiance

.23** .16** .24** .24** .21* .23** .14* .24** .17**

.10

Other

.12*

.10

.11* .14*

.07

.05

.07

.00

.10

Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC)

Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) for Any Disciplinary Infraction

Scale/ROC Data AUC SE Sign.

95% CI PCL:SV Total PCL:SV Part 1 PCL:SV Part 2 VRAG VPI ANT AGG .614

.576

.613

.654

.625

.619

.598

.035

.037

.033

.038

.036

.002

.037

.002

.000

.001

.007

.544- .683

.504 - .648

.548 - .677

.579 - .728

.555 - .695

.548 - .690

.527 - .669

Recidivism 1-year Post Release

• Participants were contacted either by phone or in person one year after their release from incarceration.

• Participants were asked about whether they had been formally arrested for or engaged in any of several types of criminal behavior in the previous year.

Percentage of participants self-reporting arrest and/or criminal behavior 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 47.1

Any Arrest 60 69.4

21.7

Any Criminal Behavior Arrest or Any Criminal Behavior Any Violent Arrest or Behavior

45 40 35 Percentage of participants that report criminal behavior versus arrest 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Theft Drugs Domestic Violence Assault Weapon Prostitution Fraud Prob/Parole Violations Resist Arrest Other

No reports of arrest or offense for robbery, murder, kidnapping, or arson. One report of arrest for a sexual offense. No report of arrest for prostitution

Offense Arrest

Predicting Short-term Recidivism

Scale/Recidivism PCL:SV Total Self Report Arrest .23* PCL:SV Part 1 .04

PCL:SV Part 2 VRAG VPI ANT AGG .36** .33**

.28** .27** .19*

# of Diff.

Offenses Undetected Offenses # of Diff.

Offenses Any Any Offense Violent .13

-.06

.31** .21**

.19** .16* .19*

.31** .16

.37** .33**

.31** .36** .18*

.28** .15

.35** .42**

.32** .41** .27**

.32** .17

.16 .03

.40** .28** .30** .36**

.29** .28** .35** .25** .17 .33**

Note N= 121;

< .05*

< .005**

Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) for Self-Report Arrest

Scale/ROC Data AUC SE Sign.

95% CI PCL:SV Total PCL:SV Part 1 PCL:SV Part 2 VRAG VPI ANT AGG .618

.523

.705

.681

.670

.662

.617

.051

.053

.047

.053

.049

.051

.026

.657

.000

.002

.001

.002

.026

.518 - .717

.420 - .627

.614 - .797

.578 - .785

.575 - .765

.565 - .758

.518 - .717

Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) for Undetected Offenses

Scale/ROC Data AUC SE Sign.

95% CI PCL:SV Total PCL:SV Part 1 PCL:SV Part 2 VRAG VPI ANT AGG .679

.598

.705

.687

.725

.609

.051

.054

.050

.058

.050

.049

.053

.001

.070

.000

.002

.001

.000

.044

.578 - .780

.492 - .703

.607 - .820

.573 - .802

.588 - .785

.629 - .821

.506 - .712

Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) for Violent Offense

Scale/ROC Data AUC SE Sign.

95% CI PCL:SV Total PCL:SV Part 1 PCL:SV Part 2 VRAG VPI ANT AGG .630

.523

.701

.741

.690

.679

.720

.062

.065

.057

.069

.055

.051

.056

.046

.720

.002

.001

.003

.006

.001

.508 - .752

.397 - .650

.589 - .814

.606 - .875

.583 - .797

.578 - .780

.611 - .829

Overall ROC Performance

Order/Type of Recidivism First Any Jail Disciplinary Infraction VRAG (AUC=.654) Second Third VPI (AUC=.625) ANT (AUC=.619) Self-Report Arrest Undetected Offense Violent Offense PCL:SV Part 2 (AUC=.705) VRAG (AUC=.681) VPI (AUC=.670) ANT (AUC=.725) VRAG (AUC=.741) PCL:SV Part 2 (AUC=.705) VPI & VRAG (AUC=.687) AGG (AUC=.720) PCL:SV Part 2 (AUC=.701)

Classification Accuracy for Recommended Cut Scores for the VPI

• Self-reported arrest – Moderate (VPI ≥ 9): Sensitivity = .228; Specificity = .875

– Marked (VPI ≥ 17): Sensitivity = .018; Specificity = 1.00

• Self-reported undetected offenses – Moderate (VPI ≥ 9): Sensitivity = .208; Specificity = .896

– Marked (VPI ≥ 17): Sensitivity = .014; Specificity = 1.00

• Self-reported arrest or undetected offenses for violence – Moderate (VPI ≥ 9): Sensitivity = .320; Specificity = .865

– Marked (VPI ≥ 17): Sensitivity = .000; Specificity = .990

Conclusions

• The VPI, ANT, and AGG scales were moderately correlated with the PCL:SV and VRAG.

• Several PAI scales performed as well or better than the PCL:SV and VRAG in predicting physical acts of aggression and defiance within the jail. However, the correlations for all types of misbehavior were generally small.

• The VPI, ANT, and AGG scales performed as well or better than the PCL:SV and VRAG in predicting self reported arrest, undetected offenses, and any violent recidivism.