 LeRoy
A. Stone, Ph.D., (Forensic Diplomate) ABFP, ABPP,
and (Fellow) AAFP
Forensic Clinical Psychologist
[Licensed in Maryland (#924), West Virginia (#167), and
Certificate of Professional Qualification in Psychology (#13)
from the Assoc. of State & Provincial Psychology Boards]
P.O. Box 395
Harpers Ferry/Bolivar, West Virginia 25425-0395
(304) 535-2332; For Faxing Please Call For Number;
E-mail: lastone2@earthlink.net
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/home.html
______________________________________________________________________
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT
6 March XXXX
SUBJECT: MR. XXXXXX
INMATE IN THE XXXXX CORRECTION CENTER
XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX; TEMPORARY INMATE
(FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION PURPOSES) IN
THE XXXXX REGIONAL JAIL, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX)
[Referred for psychological evaluation by his attorney, Mr. Daniel X.
XXXXX whose law office is located at XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
XXXXX]
DATE AND PLACE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION:
15 February XXXX (from 8:20 a.m. to 1:50 p.m.) and 16 February XXXX
(from 8:45 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) ; Interview room in the XXXXX Regional
Jail (XRJ), XXXXXXX, XX
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS, TESTS AND
PROCEDURES THAT WERE ADMINISTERED AND UTILIZED IN THIS
EVALUATION:
Stone Consent Form and Test (SCFT)
Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT)
Medical Profile Questionnaire (MPQ)
Dissimulation Index (Q1)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd Edition (MMPI-2;
Validity/Clinical scales computer scored, others hand-scored)
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)
Carlson Psychological Survey (CPS)
Blackburn Hostility Scale (HOS)
Blackburn Aggression Scale (AS)
Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R)
Assessment Scale for Potential Violence (ASP-V)
HCR-20 (Assessing Risk for Violence, Version 2)
VRAG (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide)
Psychological Interview
COLLATERAL SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS
USED IN THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION:
Telephonic communications (in late January and in mid-February XXXX)
and letters from Attorney XXXXX (i.e., dated 1 and 12 February XXXX)
Copy of a packet of criminal investigation, arrest, indictment, plea taking
document, all of which were dated back in 198X-199X in XXXXXXXl County
A large binder with copies of an estimated ‘couple hundred’ pages of
documents collected by Subject pertinent to his being considered for
possible parole. Note - this collection of supporting documentation
is
so impressive and supportive regarding Mr. XXXXX’s potential
future status, its ‘table of contents’ is being listed and attached to
the
present report as “Appendix A.”
Raison d’être FOR THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION:
This psychologist was contacted first by telephone and then by
letters regarding conducting a psychological evaluation of Mr.
XXXXX. The request to conduct such an evaluation was made by
Mr. XXXXX’s attorney, Mr. XXXXX. In his initial communication with
this psychologist, Mr. XXXXX requested that Mr. XXXXX be
evaluated regarding his upcoming parole review.
BRIEF SOCIAL HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGAL CHARGES:
Mr. xxxxx is currently 32 years of age; he was born in XXXXX
(XXXXXXX) and came to the US in 197X, accompanying his mother, when
he was 4-5 years of age. He is still a XXXXXX citizen. It seems
that his
mother is from a well established and quite respectable family, however
she became pregnant and had and raised Subject until he was about four
and then decided that life would be better in the US and she immigrated
here with her son. They located themselves in western XXXXXXXX where
she became a nurse. She later married. In 1981, his step-father
was
fatally injured while working with heavy equipment. Subject related
that
he believed when this occurred his mother “nearly flipped totally out.”
In 1982, he recalled that their house burned down and they lost
everything. In 1983 he started experimenting with and using drugs.
Subject was raised in XXXXXXX where he graduated from high school in
198X. Mr. XXXXX reports that his history includes some sexual, as
well as physical, abuse when he was a child. Apparently, Subject
was not
the instigator of any major troubles while in school, although he never
really studied and as a consequence earned only about a C average.
Unfortunately, as a teenager, Subject started abusing alcohol as well as
some drug usage, the most serious was some rather heavy use of LSD and
PCP, a goodly number of times, mostly when he was 17 and 18.
He
claims that his last contact with alcohol or any kinds of mind altering
drugs was a number of years ago, apparently when he was in XXXXXXX.
While in prison in XXXXXXX, in about 1988 he started attending AA and
NA; he has continued to attend such focused meetings, along with
counseling and Aladru up until about 1998.
When he was about 17-18 he unfortunately involved himself in a double
armed robbery incident, apparently more motivated by the thrill it offered;
seemingly while he was under the influence of some combination of
mind altering substances (mainly alcohol). It was very unfortunate
that
during part of this escapade, in XX, he shot and killed a man.
In 198X,
when he was 18 he started serving time for the first armed robbery in XX
and in 1989 was for a short while transferred to XX, midway through his
XX sentence. In XX, he pled guilty to a rather brutal murder (which
may
have been somewhat accidental), accepted a life sentence with mercy that
was to run consecutive to his XX time.
In 1991 he was paroled from XX and started to serve his XX time in
the old XXXXXXXX penitentiary where he stayed for four years until
it
closed in 199X. In 199X he was moved to the new XXXXXX prison and
in 199X was transferred to the medium security prison in XXXXXXXXXX,
XX.
As a longtime and well-seasoned forensic psychologist, the undersigned
has had a great number of contacts with individuals who were prison
inmates or who had been such and at no time in the past has he ever
encountered a prison inmate who had seemingly accomplished so much
in terms of rehabilitation, while in prison, as is seen with Mr. XXXXX.
He has attempted (and has greatly succeeded) to improve himself
physically, educationally, vocationally, morally, and philosophically to
a
degree that is absolutely outstanding. [The full binder that he has
prepared for a showing of the documentations that support his claim for
complete rehabilitation is the most impressive collection of such
documentations that this psychologist has ever seen for a single prison
inmate - i.e., see Appendix A.]
His high motivation towards wanting to rehabilitate himself can be
deduced from a number of factual considerations. For example, he
not
only has accumulated a large number of college credits towards earning
a
bachelors degree but the level of his scholarship is denoted by his 3.61
GPA. Also, a very visible indication of his motivation level for
self-improvement is his physical condition; his ‘body-building’
efforts that have to be seen almost to be believed. His achieved
results
cannot merely be the consequence of some attempt to relieve boredom or
for self-protection needs in a prison inmate environment.
It is understood that Mr. XXXXX is to be considered for possible
parole in April of 200X. Based upon his documented level of
rehabilitation achievement (i.e., see Appendix A), the undersigned
psychologist would have to say that Mr. XXXXX appears to be
the most rehabilitated inmate that this psychologist has ever encountered.
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN OF THIS REPORT:
It is believed that the more likely readers
of this report will not be clinical psychologists
nor psychiatrists and therefore it is deemed wise to provide brief
descriptions of the
psychological tests/procedures employed in this particular psychological
evaluation.
Following the brief description of each of the employed tests/procedures,
the results from
that test/procedure will be given along with some overall conclusion
or meaningful
interpretation. After all of the information that has been obtained
from the testing and
interviewing has been presented, then the diagnostic impressions held
by the undersigned
psychologist regarding the subject individual of this evaluation will
be stated. Following
this, the Summary and Conclusions section will be presented.
It should be
noted that the particular design of this psychological report has been
developed so as to be
consistent as possible with the federal legal standards for scientific
evidence/testimony as
recently set forth in Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
This 1993 Supreme Court
decision is heavily based upon the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The Court indicated that
four factors should be used in considering the admissibility of expert
testimony that relate
to the essential question of scientific validity within the context
of the issues presented by
a professionals would particular case. It is interesting
to note that of the 22 amicus briefs
filed in the Daubert case, one was filed by the American Psychological
Association. In the
present report, a strong attempt has been made to show the nexus between
psychological
data or evidence developed and the subsequent conclusions drawn from
such
data/evidence. In this fashion, it is believed that the scientific
integrity of this presently
reported psychological evaluation is maintained. It is interesting
to note that up to the
1993 Court ruling, the earlier dominant analytical vehicle for evaluating
clinical
psychological testimony in federal court and in many state courts was
the 1923 Frye rule.
This particular decision resulted in a situation whereby behavioral
science seemingly was
regarded as being not governed by that ruling and/or that it was assumed
that most mental
health professionals generally would agree regarding what is “generally
accepted theory”
matters in their field.
As mentioned earlier, all the test administrations
done in this psychological evaluation
were conducted solely by the undersigned psychologist. He makes
no use of
psychological assistants nor psychometricians, who many ‘general practice’
clinical
psychologists utilize to administer their tests, as he believes that
highly important
test-taking behaviors may be very revealing of underlying psychological
processes and
statuses. To not be a first-hand observer of such could constitute
a major loss of highly
significant diagnostic information. It is interesting to note
that many psychological
assessment practices that are almost routine and frequent when taking
place in a
nonforensic clinical psychology practice many times are not too fitting
and proper when
the purpose of an examination is purely in the forensic direction.
TESTS/PROCEDURES UTILIZED:
Stone Consent Form and Test: The
SCFT is a multipurpose tool that was
designed to be employed at the very beginning of the first assessment
session with a
subject individual. Just about everyone in the general medical
and most certainly in the
legal professions is aware that informed consent must be obtained from
a
client/patient/subject prior to any potential rendering of professional
services. In the ethics
code for psychologists (e.g., the APA Ethics Code) and especially in
the separate ethics
code for forensic psychologists, informed consent must be obtained
from the focused upon
subject individual prior to the beginning of any assessment or evaluation
examination. Not
only must the focused upon individual be informed of generally what
will be done in the
examination but perhaps even more importantly what will be done with
the results from
the examination. Some forensic psychologists communicate this
type of information to the
subject individual in a purely oral conversational fashion, others
make use of written
documents that the subject individual is asked to read and to sign.
Dr. David L. Shapiro in
his 1999 book, Criminal Responsibility Evaluations: A Manual for Practice
(Published in
Sarasota, FL by the Professional Resource Press), has presented three
different ‘informed
consent’ forms that were designed to be used (1) with subject individuals
whose defense
counsel made the arrangement for securing the psychological evaluation,
(2) with subject
individuals for whom the prosecutor made the arrangement for securing
the psychological
evaluation, and (3) with subject individuals for whom the involved
Court was the one that
ordered a psychological evaluation to be accomplished. In Shapiro’s
‘informed consent
for the first category, it is stated that the results from the psychological
examination are to
only be communicated to the defense counsel and thus to the defendant
and then only
communicated to the government if the defendant and his/her counsel
decide that this
should be accomplished. In the second type ‘informed consent’
form, it is specified that
the results from the examination will be communicated to the government.
With the third
type of ‘informed consent’ form, the results from the examination will
be communicated to
the involved Court.
Modified versions of all the three types of
Shapiro’s ‘informed consent’ form were developed
and analyzed for their readability levels using four different readability
estimation procedures
(i.e., Fry, Raygor, Flesch, and Gunning-Fog methods). All
three were found to show readability
levels well within what is regarded as being the High School Level
(i.e., or 9th through 12 grade
levels). The Stone Test consists of two sections; the first section
involving a
graded or scaled evaluation of how well a studied individual (i.e.,
subject individual) is
able to orally read aloud the particular form most suited to his/her
situation. The second
section consists of two parts. The first part involves a scored
evaluation of the subject
individual relating (in his or her own words) the meaning of the ‘informed
consent’ that
he/she has just read aloud and is still allowed to look at. The
second part of this second
section consists of seven very specific questions, each scored zero
or one. An overall total
score is obtained for this second section of the test.
In progress are collection of data based upon
persons undergoing forensic
psychological examinations. When sufficient data is obtained,
the necessary statistical
investigations will be undertaken so as to establish some of the different
reliability and
validity types. However, even at the present time, content validity
is well demonstrated.
The Stone Test can, in this fashion, be employed to assess a couple
of features. It
can at the present time be employed to assessment whether a subject
individual can or
cannot orally read at High School level. Also, his/her comprehension/understanding
of the
involved informed consent form can be established as to whether it
was adequate or
inadequate.
This new testing instrument accomplishes a
couple important taskings. It provides the
subject individual with a written form that communicates important
informed consent
matters, is a test to ascertain whether these particular subject matters
were adequately
comprehended/understood by the subject individual and finally, this
instrument is also a
readability skills assessment instrument that examines whether the
subject individual can or
cannot read adequately at the High School level.
When Mr. XXXXX was requested to read aloud
the selected consent form he was
observed doing so in an extremely advanced fashion; all words were
correctly pronounced
and the reading was done rapidly without hesitation. When he
was asked to relate, in his
own words, what he had just read, he did so in a fashion that so-far
was the best that the
undersigned psychologist has encountered with this particular task.
When asked the
specific questions that make up the second part of Section II, he obtained
a perfect
maximum score.
Slosson Oral Reading Test: The
SORT is considered to be a quite valid, but rather
quickly administered test, for measuring an individual's reading ability.
It's use here is
primarily to assess reading skill levels pertinent to the 'taking'
of certain psychological tests
and questionnaires. For example, it has long been generally believed
that in order to
properly 'take' the original form of the MMPI, an individual must possess
at least the
reading skills equal to or better than that of a sixth-grade level.
With the newer MMPI-2,
the reading skills requirements are now known to be at the eighth-grade,
or better, level.
It is not at all unusual for the undersigned psychologist to be involved
in a psychological
assessment, where the Subject individual has been previously psychologically
evaluated by
other psychologists, who have administered psychological personality
tests to the
individual, without ever testing for whether the individual possessed
the requisite reading
skills in order to adequately comprehend what he/she was reading when
attempting to
respond to the test items. It is not at all unusual, in these
types of cases, to discover that
in a previous psychological evaluation the involved psychologist had
administered a test
that required at least an eighth-grade reading skills to an individual
who, under the very
best conditions, is only capable of reading at the third- or fourth-grade
reading levels. The
results of which are, of course, invalid testing results which
the involved psychologist
believes are valid and which subsequently lead to invalid evaluation
interpretations.
Regardless of the Subject’s past educational achievements or of his/her
occupational
attainments, the undersigned psychologist always initially tests for
reading skills
proficiency before any personality type testing is attempted.
It must be admitted that the SORT was administered
to Mr. XXXXX simply to
obtain his responses for purposes of validation of the S/SCFT.
His performance on the
S/SCFT was actually perfect and no other reading skills test was actually
required to
obtain an estimation of his reading skills.
Medical Profile Questionnaire:
The MPQ was developed by J. Mueller, MD,
seemingly with special relevance for use in forensic type evaluations.
The undersigned
psychologist most rather frequently makes use of the Automated Social
History (ASH) to
obtain a background history from a subject individual, which includes
a focus on medical
matters/considerations along with many others. However, since
the ASH can be
considered as a type of psychological test or assessment instrument,
because of very
specific psychological testing ethical principles, it must be administered
on a one-on-one
basis by the involved psychological testing examiner. The MPQ
in contrast is a
questionnaire that actually may be completed by someone other than
the individual
focused upon in the questionnaire (e.g., it can be responded to by
a parent, guardian,
spouse or anyone else who might possess accurate medical/biographic
information
pertaining to the focused upon subject individual). It (unlike
the ASH or some of the
other social history recording assessment tools used by this psychologist)
does not involve
any scoring or indexing of past behaviors for the purpose of predicting
future behavior.
Therefore, the MPQ is a information seeking instrument that may be
responded to by the
subject individual when he/she is back home (or perhaps back in one’s
jail cell) and when
completed it can be delivered to the assessment psychologist.
This can be accomplished
without compromising any psychological assessment ethical principles
as the MPQ should
not be regarded as being the equivalent of a psychological test or
similar such instrument -
it is simply a medical history questionnaire.
One of the limitations of the MPQ is that it
appears to be one that would require a
rather well advanced set of reading skills in order to be validly utilized.
It is suspected that
any respondent to the MPQ should most likely possess at least high
school level reading
skills. The MPQ is a 20-page self (or other informant) report
questionnaire that assesses a
number of areas about which information would seem critical in a forensic
evaluation. It
inquires about pre-existing intellectual or vocational failures, prior
neurologic conditions,
physical and environmental stressors, use of medications or substances
that impair
performance on cognitive testing, surveys important areas in an individual’s
past medical
history, including birth related and childhood illness, a variety of
medical conditions,
physical and sexual abuse, and psychiatric illness, etc.
As indicated earlier in this report, the MPQ
should really not be regarded as being a
psychological test or assessment instrument; it merely is a well-designed
questionnaire that
is heavily focused on making inquiry regarding one’s past medical history
(viewed in the
broadest sense) as well as other nonmusical personal history subject
areas. In fact, the
MPQ can be completed by someone other than the focused upon subject
individual; it
could be responded to by a parent, spouse, sibling, sibling, etc.
Most individuals who are
tasked to complete the MPQ regarding themselves might be very wise
to ‘check’ with
other closely related persons regarding factual information such as
dates, addresses or
other historical facts that pertain to the subject individual.
Of course, in the present
situation, Mr. XXXXX was entirely unable to secure help from any knowledgeable
relative or the like.
A thorough inspection of the MPQ completed
by Mr. XXXXX reveals that he
completed all of the items that would have been appropriate or relevant
to him and his
particular history pattern. Although, there is no ‘built-in’
validity scale or such inherent in
this instrument, his answers and descriptions that he produced regarding
himself and his
background absolutely match almost perfectly information he provided
regarding himself
in the psychological interview and in the conducted testing.
Also, his report regarding
himself appears to accurately match what is contained in arrest and
subsequent court
documents that led to his incarceration in the XX prison system.
Many of his personal history details were quite
valuable in this reported psychological
evaluation. They assisted greatly in providing information for
completion of the several
different risk potential paradigms that were employed in this evaluation.
Dissimulation Index: This particular
instrument was originally entitled as Q1 (the
Validity Indicator) by it's developers (Johnson, Williams, Klingler
and Giannetti) in 1977.
Using extremely rigorous psychological test construction methodology
they developed this
instrument so that it had high test reliability (e.g., 0.84) and very
acceptable multiple
indications of validity. It can be used to help determine whether
a client/patient is (or has)
"faked bad" in his/her presentation of him/herself with psychological
testing; also, it can be
used to perhaps help spot an individual, early in the psychological
testing session, who for
one reason or another seemingly is simply unable to adequately understand
the task(s) at
hand and as a result is answering test items very carelessly or in
some non valid fashion.
When scores from the Q1 are combined with other obtained psychometric
information
(e.g., the F - K numerical value from the MMPI), the developers of
the Q1 found it useful
for the decision question, "Will the patient give valid . . . self-report
information?" The
Q1 was one of the early and still used psychological instruments which
comprised the
"FASTTEST Computer Assisted Human Assessment System" which was originally
marketed by Psych Systems, Inc., which, back in the early/mid 1980s
was considered to be
one of the largest and most advanced offerer of computerized psychometric
testing in the
country (i.e., see The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 1983).
For anyone interested in
technical documentation regarding the Q1, see Behavior Research Method
&
Instrumentations, 1977, Vol. 9 (2), 123-132.
On the Q1, Mr. XXXXX obtained a raw score of
two. When the two items that
were involved in his scoring were inspected it was very easy to understand
his logic for
responding as he did. There was no positive endorsement of any
item that contained
bizarre type content. It can be understood that Mr. XXXXX most
likely can be validly
assessed using the True/False psychometric response arrangement; also
it is believed
justified to generalize this regard to the multiple-choice response
mode arrangement.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
- Second Version: The MMPI-2
represents the latest version (i.e., available since about 1989/1990)
of the “original” MMPI
that was first made available for clinical work in the mid-1940s.
The MMPI-2 represents
an updated and restandardized version that is touted by its redevelopers
as having been
necessary. Longtime users of the test generally find that most
of the traditional features of
the MMPI are intact in the MMPI-2: the basic scale set, separate
profile norms for the
male and female subjects, hand-scoring keys, and norms with and without
K-scale
corrections. However, closer examination will reveal important
changes and modifications
in item wording; new items covering content areas not represented in
the original MMPI;
additional validity indicators and supplementary scales; and a new
method of scaling T
scores for the component scales. The most important change, according
to the
redevelopers, involves the implementation of new national norms that
are much more
representative of the present population of the United States.
A second major
enhancement of the inventory, according to its redevelopers, is the
introduction of a more
consistent format for the T scores in the basic test profile.
Unfortunately, a number of psychologists are
not as enthused with the ‘new’ MMPI-2
as are its redevelopers, and for a number of reasons. For one
thing, a relatively up-to-date
set of norms has been available for the original MMPI. The norms
developed by Colligan,
et al, in the mid-1980s, have been considered by many to be quite adequate
for the
purpose of their creation. Also, in some ways the MMPI-2 can
be considered to be, in
part, a test that significantly differs from the original MMPI.
So much so that the results
of tens of thousands of sets of results from research based upon the
original MMPI should
be very closely examined before any attempt is made to conclude that
these results should
also be considered to, in the same fashion, apply to the MMPI-2.
With respect to this
latter matter, a great deal of research, over the years, was devoted
to study of various
configurations of MMPI clinical scales scores. It is rather uncertain
as to whether these
past research based understandings also can be validly applied to sets
of scores based
upon the MMPI-2. For example, in a recent study by Downey, Sinnett,
and Seeberger
(published in Psychological Reports in 1998), they found, in a search
of the PsycLit
database, that “no articles mentioned [with respect to clinical scales
score profile] the
MMPI-2 as being used with the category of sex offender. In contrast,
some 39 citations
of the MMPI were given. These researchers conclude that many
psychologist
practitioners “may be making false assumptions about the nature of
the MMPI-2 . . . and
[its] relationship with the original MMPI.” The undersigned psychologist
is strongly in
agreement with such warnings regarding the assumption that the MMPI
and MMPI-2 are
so highly related that all (or even almost all) of the past research
knowledge associated
with the MMPI can be automatically assumed to also equally apply to
the newer MMPI-2.
With the above having been said, the undersigned
psychologist will admit to using the
MMPI-2 more frequently than the MMPI; however, the original MMPI is
still routinely
employed by him in certain type cases. One of the more frequent
justifications for still
using the MMPI is that it is known to only require about a sixth-grade
reading skills level,
on the part of the individual being tested, whereas the MMPI-2 requires
a minimum of at
least an eighth-grade reading skills level. The undersigned would
much rather administer
an instrument that some would say was a bit old (and maybe even partially
obsolete) than
one in which the individual being tested was unable to accurately or
correctly read its
component items. Unfortunately, the general clinical psychology
field seems to have been
overly eager to adopt the MMPI-2 and to have some erroneous beliefs
as to how the new
instrument relates to the original MMPI database. In the forensic
psychology field, users
of the MMPI-2, who blindly or obediently interpret results from an
administered MMPI-2,
using older interpretation implications that are solely based upon
research conducted with
the original MMPI, place themselves in a position where their interpretations
can be easily
challenged by someone who is familiar with the MMPI scientific literature
field.
Regardless of possible complaints or criticism
pertaining to the MMPI-2, it can be said
that it represents the most widely used and respected personality test
in the past almost
decade and most certainly at the present time. It is ‘the’ personality
test in most clinical
practices, in selection of police, security and prison guard evaluations,
and in most
forensic clinical work. Its use almost constitutes something
like ‘political correctness’ in
the area of personality testing.
In the present case, involving Mr. XXXXX, it
is known that he possesses reading
skills well beyond just the eighth-grade level, it was decided that
more might be gained,
than lost, by administering the MMPI-2 to him instead of the earlier
form of this test. As
with most advanced personality assessment inventories, inspection of
the instrument’s
validity scales/indices is the first step in attempted interpretation.
It was noted that he
responded to all of the 567 items. On the L, F, and K scales,
Mr. XXXXX obtained
the following T scores: 48, 48, and 62, respectively. His
L and F scales scores are just
about in the middle of the average range of scores and suggest valid
response on the part
of Mr. XXXXX. On the MMPI-2, it is believed (by its developers)
that K scale scores
in excess of 65 are indicative of possible defensive responding.
Elevations above 65 are
regarded as common in forensic evaluations in which the individual
is motivated to present
a favorable image of him/herself. In Mr. XXXXX’s case, it can
be noted that his K
scale score was 62, which can be considered to be below the cut-off
score of 65, noted
above. Therefore, psychometrically it can be concluded that Mr.
XXXXX attempted
to respond to the MMPI-2 items in a honest and valid fashion.
Subject’s T scores for the 10 major clinical
scales were all noted to be well within what
are regarded as being average or normal ranges. His two lowest
scores were 34 and 36
and were associated with the Depression and Social Introversion scales,
respectively. He
showed T scores of 45 and 46 with the Hysteria and Paranoia scales,
respectively. He
showed T scores of 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, and 59 with the Schizophrenia,
Masculinity/Femininity, Psychasthenia, Hypomania, Hypochondriasis,
and Psychopathic
Deviate scales, respectively. Again, it should be clearly stated
that all these clinical scales
scores should be considered to be well within normal or average ranges
and as such do not
reflect any meaningful levels of psychopathology.
Almost 25 years ago, Megargee and Bohn identified
10 types of criminal offenders by
using their response to the then MMPI. In subsequent years, their
developed typology
(hereafter known as Megargee types) were widely studied, and a number
of demographic
variables and prison behaviors have been associated with these profile
types. A great
many published studies have been presented that rather strongly have
added to and have
support the Megargee types. Dr. Megargee is also well known as
he rose to the very top
psychologist positions in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. By and
large, more recent research
has shown that the Megargee types can also be deduced based upon MMPI-2
results.
When Mr. XXXXX’s MMPI-2 scales scorings are inspected and studied using
the
Megargee typology requirements, it is found that his MMPI-2 scores
configuration can be
regarded as representing the pattern associated with the Megargee Item
profile type. The
Item profile type “is considered to be generally stable with minimal
psychological
problems.” Basically, this is the single most major conclusion
that can be drawn from his
MMPI-2 results.
Although the MMPI-2 can be scored for a multitude
of more special scales, there really
seems to be, in the present assessment situation, no reason to
do so with his already
reported test findings. The major purpose of the MMPI-2 is to
mainly be a test for
measurable psychopathology; none seems to be very evident based upon
Mr.
XXXXX’s response pattern. From the MMPI-2 results it can be concluded
that he
possesses a favorable degree of generalized mental health. No
particular type
mental/emotional problems are noted.
Personality Assessment Inventory:
The undersigned psychologist has very strongly
welcomed this instrument into his collection of psychological assessment
tests that are
especially useful when conducting psychological evaluations for forensic
purposes. Most
of the behavioral science development of the PAI occurred in the 1980’s
(it was first
copyrighted in 1991) and in the 1990’s it was viewed as a welcomed
new challenger to the
MMPI (at about the time that the new version MMPI-2 was introduced).
Due to the fact
that the undersigned psychologist (and many other forensic assessment
psychologists)
view the MMPI-2 basically as not just an updated, moderately revised
version of the
original MMPI, but many aspects of it really should be viewed as being
a somewhat quite
different and new test, questions still are validly raised as to whether
it is better to employ
the MMPI or the MMPI-2 when conducting some particular forensic evaluations.
Even
with this being said, the newer MMPI-2 still basically represents the
testtaking and
test construction logic that guided the way to construction of the
original MMPI back in
the late 1930s and early 1940s. Since that time many new
designs and methodological
developments in psychological test construction have taken place.
The PAI can be
regarded as a personality assessment instrument, especially designed
to assess
psychopathology, that is based upon some of the quite latest design
and methodological
concepts in the psychometric field. Because of this, as well
as some of the controversy
that still is quite alive regarding the relative value of the MMPI-2
over the MMPI and
whether the MMPI should be at all considered to be obsolete, especially
when used in
conjunction with more recent norms (such as that provided by Colligan,
et al, back in the
1980’s), this psychologist now regards the PAI as the primary personality
assessment test
in his collection of personality assessment instrumentations.
The PAI is an objective item inventory of adult
personality designed to provide
information on critical clinical variables (i.e., those associated
with psychopathology). The
PAI contains 344 items which comprise 22 non overlapping full scales:
four validity scales,
11 clinical scales, five treatment scales, and two interpersonal scales.
The very
well documented development of the PAI was based upon a construct validation
framework that emphasized both rational and empirical methods of scale
construction.
This approach placed a strong emphasis on scale development and selection
of items, as
well as on scale stability and correlates. The development of
the test went through four
iterations in a sequential construct validation strategy similar to
that described by
Loevinger (1957) and Jackson (1970), although a number of item parameters
were
considered in addition to those described by these authors. The
PAI was designed for use
with adults aged 18 and older. Its items were quite purposely
written at the 4th-grade
reading level since it was well known that many American adults (and
especially those
facing possible criminal charges) possess rather poor reading skills.
By comparison, it is
widely believed that the MMPI (and also the MMPI-2) really require
reading skills at least
the 6th-grade level and perhaps even higher.
It is important to note that the PAI was normed
in a variety of both clinical and
community settings; combined-gender normative data are also available.
Scores on the
PAI are presented in the form of linear T-scores that have a mean score
of 50T and a
standard deviation of 10T. The T-score transformations are calibrated
with reference to a
national census-matched (using census projections for the year 1995)
community sample
of 1,000 adults stratified according to age, race, and gender.
Extensive data were also
gathered for representative samples of clinical subjects (N = 1,246)
and college students
(N = 1,051). Needless to say, the PAI is known as having excellent
estimated validities
and reliabilities, all of which are shown in this instrument’s sound
and complete test
manual.
As mentioned earlier, the PAI contains four
validity scales: Inconsistency,
Infrequency, Negative Impression, and Positive Impression. Its
11 clinical scales are:
Somatic Complaints, Anxiety, Anxiety-Related Disorders, Depression,
Mania, Paranoia,
Schizophrenia, Borderline Features, Antisocial Features, Alcohol Problems,
and Drug
Problems. Its five treatment scales are: Aggression, Suicidal
Ideation, Stress,
Nonsupport, and Treatment Rejection. Its two interpersonal scales
are Dominance and
Warmth. Eight of the clinical scales each contain three subscales,
the Borderline Features
scale contains four subscales. With the treatment scale, the
Aggression scale contains
three subscales. All scales and subscales are used when developing
interpretations of PAI
scorings; configural (or profile) interpretations are also made.
The very complete test
manual provides sufficient information for making such interpretations.
It should be also
noted that the PAI developers also have presented particular personality
scoring patterns
or paradigms, which they refer to as ‘clusters.’ Ten well-defined
personality ‘clusters’ are
defined (based upon their PAI scorings) and described in terms of their
particular
personality patternings. These ten personality clusters are seen
as being of particular value
when attempting an evaluation in the forensic psychology domain.
As might be expected, the PAI’s relationship
with many other personality assessment
instrumentations has been widely studied. The PAI test manual
alone provides statistical
relationship information regarding the relationship of PAI scorings
with dozens of other
personality measuring tests. Its use with forensic samples (i.e.,
those who were
incarcerated in jails/prisons) is also well documented; normative information
regarding this
is shown in the PAI test manual.
The PAI, as with the MMPI-2, contains a multiple
number of validity scales and
indices. On the Inconsistency, Infrequency, Negative Impression
and Positive Impression
scales Mr. XXXXX obtained T scores of 49, 47, 44, and 59, respectively.
The first
three of these validity scales scorings are well within what is regarded
as being normal or
average ranges. His score of 59 on the Positive Impression scale
suggests that he
probably attempted to respond in a manner that portrayed himself as
being relatively free
of the common shortcomings to which most individuals will admit.
It is therefore
somewhat likely that his PAI profile will somewhat under represent
the extent and degree
of significant test findings. However, it should be noted that
in forensic focused
evaluations, this last mentioned matter is almost the rule and not
the exception.
On the regular 11 clinical scales, Mr. XXXXX
was noted to show rather moderate
elevations on two of them, on the Mania and Antisocial Features scales.
His T score of 55
on the Mania scale suggests that he may be seen as active, outgoing,
ambitious, and
self-confident [this seems to fit very well with how he behaved in
the interview situation].
His T score of 58 on the Antisocial Features scales, although it is
his single highest T
score in this section, according to the test manual it should be considered
a being an
average range score. Such a score is described as indicative
that he is reasonably empathic
and warm in his relationship with others, and more importantly, “these
individuals typically
exhibit reasonable control over impulses and behavior.”
With the five treatment scales, all of his
scorings can be regarded as being just about at
the middle of the average range or rather well below this range.
In other words, all five of
these scores are suggestive of positive mental health aspects for Mr.
XXXXX.
With the two interpersonal scales, his scores
on both could be considered to be a bit
elevated. His T score on the Dominance scale was 63, such a scoring
can be considered
to be moderately high and suggests that he is self-assured, confident
and forceful. Again
this interpretation is highly consistent with how he was viewed in
the interview situation.
His T score on the Warmth scale was 60 also can be regarded as being
moderately high
and it suggests an individual who is warm, sympathetic and supportive
towards others.
Again, this seems consistent with the impression he conveyed in the
interview situation.
Inspection of the so-called designated critical
items shows little or no endorsement
with one noted exception. He assigned a full “true” endorsement
to the item that read: “I
have had some horrible experiences that make me feel guilty.”
From this it can be
assumed that he is fully admitting guilt to his most major societal
violation and that
remorse is strongly felt. All in all, his PAI results suggest
that he is a man who not only is
enjoying a rather favorable mental health status, he also seems to
possess some
characteristics that should be expected to render him as an asset to
society.
Carlson Psychological Survey:
The CPS is a somewhat not old nor obsolete (i.e., it
was first copyrighted in 1982) testing instrument that was especially
designed for the
assessment and classification of criminal offenders, persons charged
with crimes, and
others who have come to the attention of the criminal justice or the
social welfare systems.
The scale scores provided represent four content areas and one validity
check scale. The
five scales are: Chemical Abuse; Thought Disturbance; Antisocial
Tendencies;
Self-Depreciation; and Validity. Statistical comparison with
18 offender types can be
made. So far, only norms for males have been suggested although
there does exist some
use of the instrument with female offenders (i.e., based upon N = 332).
In its
development, its use was studied not only with state prison inmates
(in Minnesota and in
Ontario) but also with U.S. Federal prison inmates. One very
important aspect of the CPS
is that “probable institutional adjustment” (in percentage form) is
given for the 18 offender
types that Carlson has identified. Predictions (in percentage
form) are given, for each of
the offender types, in terms of Institutional (i.e., remain in medium
security, transferred to
minimum security, returned from minimum security, and other); also
for Escape. Addition
percentage predictions are given, for each offender type, for Parole
(i.e., successfully
paroled, violated parole, and not granted parole) as well as for Four
Year Post-Release
Adjustment (i.e., no re-convictions, probation-suspended-or fine over
$100, re-imprisoned
for less than 90 days, re-imprisoned for less than 2 years, and re-imprisoned
for more than
2 years). Unfortunately, these percentage form predictions are
not based on large enough
samples/norms upon which a great deal of confidence can be felt.
It is believed that the results from the CPS
can be considered to be rather important in
this psychological evaluation of Mr. XXXXX. He was seen to obtain
rather low scores
on the four clinical scales. On the Chemical Abuse, Thought Disturbance,
Anti-Social
Tendencies and Self Depreciations scales his %tile rank scoring positions
were: 13, 3, 24,
and 14, respectively. It should be remembered that his response
were compared to
normative information developed from responses made by a male prison
inmate norm
group. Because of his having a foreign origin background (i.e,
from XXXXXX), his highly
correct responses to two of the items that are in the Validity scale
were scored in the
‘invalid’ direction. However, it should be understood that Mr.
XXXXX’s scoring on
this particular should be interpreted as indicating a valid test responding
on his part.
One matter that is described in the CPS test
manual, regarding Type 14 individuals, is
their probable institutional adjustment. Part of the description
for Type 14’s is as follows:
“Incarceration
may prove beneficial in that the time served in the institution
may increase their sense of responsibility and maturation. Most of
these
individuals remain in medium security with only a small percentage being
transferred to minimum security settings.”
With respect to predictions regarding Type
14 individuals, Dr. Carlson reports that
about 70 remain in medium security with about 10% transferred to minimum
security;
however he also notes that 0% are returned from minimum security.
Dr. Carlson also
notes that this type individual shows a 0% escape attempt rate.
With respect to parole
matters, he notes that Type 14 individuals show a 50% rate for successful
parole, with
0% violating their parole. Carlson reports an extremely interesting
(and relevant to the
presently reported case) set of statistics for Type 14 individuals;
when they are looked at
with respect to their “four year post-release adjustment,” 90% of them
show no
re-convictions during the studied four-year period of time. Only
10% were re-imprisoned
for more than two years. Based upon simply the results from the
CPS, Mr. XXXXX
most certainly looks like a “winner” with respect to potential predicted
success were he to
be paroled. Type 14’s appear to be the type of inmate who actually
experiences bona fide
rehabilitation while in prison.
Hostility Scale: The HOS was designed
by Blackburn to measure feelings of anger; it's
items were originally taken from several previously developed personality
measuring
instruments. Norms are available. High estimates of reliability
and significant correlations
with several personality instruments indicate that this scale is tapping
psychometrically
meaningful dimensions of human behavior. The HOS is one of 10
scales in the 1986
Special Hospitals Assessment of Personality and Socialization [test]
which is fully
described in R. Blackburn’s 1993 book.
On the HOS, Subject was seen to have obtained
a raw score of only one (T score =
39); such a scoring can be believed to reflect a below-average level
of anger (normally
towards society and authority type figures) for this man. This
seems to agree with how he
described himself in the psychological interview and agrees with the
supporting
documentation that he (through his attorney) provided to the undersigned.
Aggression Scale: The AS was designed
by Blackburn to measure feelings of
aggression and to predict the likelihood of aggressive behavior.
It is based on the
assumption that aggression is a meaningful dimension of individual
differences that can be
assessed by a self-report scale. It's items were taken from several
previously developed
personality measuring instruments. It appears to possess high
reliability and does show
significant correlations with a number of personality measuring instruments
which indicate
that it is tapping psychometrically meaningful dimensions of human
behavior. Norms are
available with which to compare and interpret scores. The AS
is one of 10 scales that
comprise the 1986 Special Hospitals Assessment of Personality and Socialization
[test],
which has been adequately described in R. Blackburn’s 1993 book.
On the AS, Mr. XXXXX was seen to have obtained
a raw score of six (T score =
36); such a score indicates for this man a very low level for any generalized
feelings of
aggression (towards others) that he may harbor. Aggression for
this instrument is defined
as ‘hostile type’ aggression. Again it is noted that in his self-reporting,
in the
psychological interview, he rather consistently described himself as
being the type of
person his score on this instrument is descriptive of. Therefore,
based upon both the HOS
and the AS, Mr. XXXXX would appear to be an individual who apparently
is neither
hostile towards others, but is also rather below average in this potential
for committing
hostile aggression on others.
Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised:
The PCL-R is a 20-area symptom construct
rating scale that was designed to assess psychopathic (antisocial)
personality disorders in
forensic populations. Researched for well more than ten years,
the PCL-R has very
rapidly become accepted as the standard instrument for conducting assessment
in this area.
After completing a semi-structured interview and a review of collateral
information, the
evaluating forensic psychologist rates the subject-client on a 3-point
scale on each
item/area construct. Scoring is based on the degree to which
the personality or behavioral
history of the client matches the item, and its various rating scale
anchors, described in the
rating booklet. The PCL-R yields a dimensional total score indicating
the degree to which
the subject-client matches the prototypical psychopath. This
score can be used to make a
categorical, lifetime diagnosis of psychopathy. The PCL-R
provides rather complete
domain coverage of psychopathic traits and behaviors by yielding dimensional
factor
scores that reflect the two major facets of psychopath: the callous,
selfish, remorseless
use of others (Factor 1); and a chronically unstable and antisocial
lifestyle (Factor 2). The
PCL-R's manual can be regarded as being very complete in that it contains
quite adequate
reliability and validity data as well as norms for male prisoners and
forensic populations.
It also includes sections on using the PCL-R with female offenders,
young offenders and
non criminals. All in all, the PCL-R has, in only a few years'
time, been accepted in
forensic psychology settings (both for research as well as in actual
applied situations) as
being the most definitive and most defendable testing instrument for
diagnosing
psychopathy. At the present time, the PCL-R is really not possessed
and used by
nonforensic psychologist examiners. It is the belief of the undersigned
psychologist, that
he is most likely one of the very few (and most likely, the very
first) psychologists in West
Virginia who currently and routinely employs the PCL-R in many of his
evaluations of
criminally charged clients.
When all the 20 characteristics, that form
the PCL-R, were rated regarding Subject, it
was rather surprising to note that he only obtained a score of one
on Factor 1, a score of
four on Factor 2 and a Total Score of only five. It was surprising
due to the fact that
subject was convicted of 1st degree murder that was committed some
14 years earlier
when he was about 18 years of age. A Total Score of only five
normally would be almost
out of the question with someone with this type of serious criminal
behavior history.
However, it can be said, with some confidence that the ratings values
were assigned based
perhaps somewhat upon a rather liberal, and not conservative type,
rating bias. His score
of only one on Factor 1 is about at the 1.8%tile rank position when
compared to Male
Prison Inmate norms; when compared to Male Forensic Patients norms
it is noted to be at
about the 2.5%tile rank position. His score of one on Factor
1 is at about the 3rd%tile
rank position when compared to Male Prison Inmate norms; when compared
to Male
Forensic Patients norms it is seen to be at about the 6.4th%tile rank
position. His Total
Score of five, when compared to the Male Prison Inmate norms is at
about the 5.4th%tile
rank position and when compared to the Male Forensic Patient norms
his Total Score is at
about the 9.1st %tile rank position. When these %tile rank position
values are inspected it
can be easily deduced that his PCL-R scorings are low indeed.
What this means is that
Mr. XXXXX should not be believed to be a psychopath; in fact,
he shows surprisingly
little similarity to those type individuals who are known as psychopaths
and who are
frequently and extensively found in prison populations.
Assessment Scale for Potential Violence:
The ASP-V was recently (in 1me996)
developed by Dr. Jack S. Annon, who is an internationally well known
forensic
psychologist (he holds Diplomate status in Forensic Psychology from
the American Board
of Forensic Psychology and the American Board of Professional Psychology),
and is based
upon the to-date results and findings that have emerged from a series
of research
investigations that are widely known as the MacArthur Risk Study, which
have been
funded, since the early 1990s, by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation
through grants to Professor John Monahan, who is considered to be currently
the most
authoritative psychologist regarding the whole question of determinations
of
dangerousness and its prediction. What has emerged from these series
of MacArthur
Foundation sponsored research is a conceptual understanding that the
factors that are
related to risk (regarding expression of future violence) assessment
are not only
dispositional factors, but also historical cues, contextual factors
as well as possible clinical
factors. What Dr. Annon has accomplished is to create a rating
or measuring device that
requires numerical ratings for 57 different psychological and environmental
aspects of an
individual’s life situation. These different aspects or matters
have been shown, based upon
the MacArthur Risk Study, to have validity with respect to prediction
of potential
violence. Each of these 57 aspects is rated on a 0-2 scale with
example reference
“anchors” provided.
These ratings are combined in prescribed fashions
to produce various summarization
statistics that can be used to identify the possible sources for violence
proneness, which
then can be compared and evaluated. Four violence potential factors
are thus identified
and measured with respect to a given studied individual. These
factors are: Dispositional,
Historical, Clinical, and Situational. The Dispositional Factor
is based upon assessment of
nine aspects or matters in an individual’s life situation. The
Historical Factor is based
upon assessment of 31 aspects or matters; the Clinical Factor is based
upon assessment of
10 aspects or matters; and the Situational Factor is based upon assessment
of seven
aspects or matters. Also available is a computational model for
computing the Grand
Factor Total, which is an overall violence potential assessment measure.
Dr. Annon has
indicated that the ASP-V still should be considered as an experimental
instrument,
however the undersigned is aware of a good deal of current clinical
use with this
instrument. There is no doubt that additional future research
should be focused upon use
and refinement of this instrument.
Based upon his Grand Factor Total score, which
was 22 (or approximately a 19%
scoring), his overall future violence potential should be considered
to not be overly high,
perhaps only at the “moderately low” level. In order to perhaps
better interpret Mr.
XXXXX’s Grand Factor Total score of 22, the undersigned psychologist
attempted to
ascertain what his (i.e., the undersigned psychologist’s) own Grand
Factor Total score, on
the ASP-V, would have been when he was 32 years of age (i.e., Subject’s
present age).
Interesting enough, the undersigned psychologist’s Grand Factor Total
score was found to
also be 10 (or approximately a 9% scoring), which when compared to
Mr. XXXXX’s
score is seen to be about half as great. It should be noted that
the undersigned
psychologist believes that his life [he is now 69 years of age] has
been one that most
definitely can be regarded, on his part, as being associated with virtually
no noted
significant unlawful or violent behavior. By comparison then,
Mr. XXXXX’s scoring
here should not be regarded as being overly indicative of any high
likelihood for future
potential violent behavior on his part.
Although the ASP-V technique has, at the present
time, no developed norms or
standardized scoring information, the undersigned has utilized the
technique a good deal in
the past couple of years and has developed for himself some estimated
clinical type
standards for interpreting scores. With many persons who the
undersigned has used this
techniques, who have been charged with various criminal behaviors,
the undersigned
typically sees much higher scores than were seen associated with Mr.
XXXXX.
HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence
(Version 2) The HCR-20 was originally
published back in 1995, the Version 2 was copyrighted in 1997 by the
Mental Health,
Law, and Policy Institute of the Simon Fraser University. It
was developed by the Drs.
Webster, Douglas, Eaves and Hart with funding provided by the British
Columbia
Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission. This work has been
the focus of a good deal
of international attention, e.g., in the U.S. as well as in Sweden.
Originally, the letters,
HRC stood for ‘Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management.’
The HCR-20 is a 20-item checklist to assess
the risk of future violent behavior in
criminal and psychiatric populations. Items were chosen based
on a comprehensive review
of the literature and input from experienced forensic clinicians.
The HCR-20 includes
variables which capture relevant past, present and future considerations
and should be
regarded as an important first step in the risk assessment process.
Its manual provides
information about how and when to conduct violence risk assessments,
research on which
the basic risk factors are based, and key questions to address when
making judgments
about risk.
Violence is defined as “actual, attempted,
or threatened harm to a person or persons.”
The professional who completes the HCR-20 Coding Sheet must first determine
the
presence or absence of each of the 20 risk factors according to three
levels of certainty
(i.e., Absent, Possibly Present, Definitely Present). The 20
items are divided into three
sections:
- 10 Historical Items (previous violence, age
at first violent offense, family and
vocational background, etc.)
- 5 Clinical Items (current symptomatology and psychosocial
adjustment)
- 5 Risk Management Items (release and treatment
plan, necessary services and
support).
Historical information serves as an anchor
for risk assessments because there is a
strong predictive link between past and future violent behavior.
The five clinical variables
can be assessed at regular intervals so that risk level may be modified
accordingly. The
risk management items focus on predicting how individuals will adjust
to future
circumstances, and this is directly related to the context within which
the individual will be
living. The final judgment regarding the risk for future violence
(Low, Moderate, High)
should be based on a careful analysis of the 20 risk factor items.
Statements of risk should
take into consideration the base rate of violence in the particular
population or setting
(e.g., low, moderate or high risk relative to other correctional inmates).
When Subject was rated using the HCR-20 paradigm,
it was found that with the ten
‘Historical Items’ he obtained a total of about five points (i.e.,
about a 25% level
endorsement). With the five ‘Clinical Items’ he obtained zero
points (i.e., a 0% level
endorsement). With the five ‘Risk Management Items’ he obtained
a total of zero points
(i.e., a 0% level endorsement). His overall HCR-20 Total score
was five (i.e., 12.5% level
endorsement). Frankly speaking, such an overall scoring should
not be considered to be
very high and, as such, actually suggests that a potential risk for
future violence most
likely should be considered to be somewhat ‘low.’ The fact that
he showed zero level
scorings on both the Clinical Items and the Risk Management Items sections
has much to
do with who he is now and what situations he seems most likely to be
associated with
were he to leave prison in the near future. His highest scorings
were with a couple of
items in the Historical Items section, namely those pertaining to his
previous old history of
violence and most likely maladjustment during his teen years. Other
than his old history of
severe criminality during his late teen years, practically nothing
in his background seems to
suggest the probability of violent behavior in the future. What
this all means is that the
only real predictors of future violence on his part are his behaviors
of some 14 years ago;
since then he seems to have changed drastically, and all to the better!
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG):
This extremely well researched prediction
instrument was developed, starting in the late 1980s and which is still
going on. In its
present form it is based upon use of 12 different background variables
informational input.
The primary purpose of the VRAG was to be able to predict which offenders
would
commit at least one violent reoffense. The developers, Professor
V. Quinsey and his
associates made use of some of the world’s largest data banks that
pertain to incarcerated
inmates and their involvement in violent behaviors. They started
with attempting to use a
violence prediction system that was first described by Nuffield in
1982 that attempted to
provide relevant research for developing a decision guidelines system
for use in parole
decision-making matters. In attempting to develop an actuarial
prediction instrument,
Quinsey and his group wanted an informational weighting system that
nonstatistician
would find easy to use and would not require much computation on the
part of the users.
In its present form, the VRAG consists of twelve predictor variables,
each scored on plus
(+) and minus (-) weighting system were the weights vary from a -5
to a +12. The
VRAG requires information regarding the subject individual such as:
Revised Psychopathy
Checklist Score, Elementary School Maladjustment Score, whether meets
DSM criteria
for any personality disorder, age at the time of the index offense,
whether there had been
separation from either parent (except by death) under age 16, failure
on prior conditional
release, Nonviolent offense history score (using the Cormier-Lang scale),
whether never
married (or equivalent), whether meets DSM criteria for schizophrenia,
most serious
victim injury (from the index offense), alcohol abuse score, and whether
there had been a
female victim in the index offense. A reading of these listed
informational input variables
shows that individuals, for who violent offender risk is to be determined,
must have
already had scores for them from the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
instrument as
well as having already determined summed scaled scores from the Cormier-Lang
Criminal
History for Nonviolent Offenses scale.
Employment of the VRAG results in a VRAG score
which can then be used to
determine the “probability of violent recidivism at two different mean
lengths of
opportunity.” These two opportunity designations have been set
at 7 years and at 10
years. In other words, when one has determined an individual’s
VRAG score, then the
probability of that individual having behaved in a violent recidivism
manner, within the
coming seven years can be stated. The same probability information
can also be stated for
the probability of violent recidivism behavior occurring within the
next 10 years.
Probabilities are stated in a form that ranges from 0.0 to 1.0.
For example, if an
individual has a VRAG score of -10, his probability of having engaged
in violent
recidivism type behavior within the next seven years is stated as being
0.12; his probability
of having engaged in violent recidivism behavior within the next 10
years is stated as being
0.24. Therefore, this particular individual can be then
said to have a probability of .12 of
engaging in violent recidivism behavior in the next seven years and
a probability of .24 of
engaging in violent recidivism behavior in the next 10 years.
On a probability basis, this
person can be said to be a “pretty good” risk for probation/parole
as his probability for
staying out of serious trouble seems to be much higher than for his
getting into serious
trouble (i.e., the kind that would constitute ‘violent recidivism behavior’).
Quinsey and his associates have recently described
much of their work, including that
pertaining to the VRAG, in a newly published book, “Violent Offenders:
Appraising and
Managing Risk,” which was published by the American Psychological Association
in
1998. To say that this book has been well received is an understatement.
According to
Professor John Monahan, Henry and Grace Doherty Professor of Law, Professor
of
Psychology and Legal Medicine, University of Virginia School of Law
[Note - Dr.
Monahan can easily be considered to be the world’s top psychologist
when it comes to
matters pertaining to the prediction of violent behavior.] According
to Professor
Monahan, the Quinsey et al book “is a model of uncompromising methodological
rigor,
envelope-pushing statistical sophistication, and on-the-ground creative
implementation. A
mile-marker in a research collaboration of unparalleled productivity,
this genuinely
important contribution tops the short list of ‘must read’ book for
anyone working with
mentally disorder offenders.”
Also, Dr. Judith V. Becker, Professor of Psychology
and Psychiatry and Associate
Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Arizona,
states that “Quinsey
and colleagues provide a most comprehensive review of 25 years of research
on violent
offenders. This book is an indispensable resource for all clinicians
who work in the area of
criminal violence. The authors are to be congratulated not only
writing such an
authoritative book which will serve as a benchmark for years to come,
but also for their
ability to look at the topic through multiple lenses.”
When the VRAG’s 12 personal history characteristics
were ‘scaled’ and entered into
this summation paradigm, it was found that Mr. XXXXX’s VRAG Total Score
was a
-6 value. Such a VRAG Total Score is associated with the
VRAG Category # 4.
Individuals having membership in VRAG Category #4, according to the
research to date,
are believed to show a probability of about 0.17 for becoming involved
in violent
recidivism behavior in the next seven years and show a probability
of about 0.31 for
becoming involved in violent recidivism behavior in the next ten years.
When the particular VRAG item/characteristics
were noted that had added scoring
value to Mr. XXXXX’s VRAG scorings (i.e., in the direction of a highly
likelihood of
he being involved in future violence), it was rather evident that many
of them involved
information regarding quite historically ‘old’ information in his life.
For example, the
characteristic that added the most to him being predicted to have a
increased likelihood for
violence in the future had to do with whether he lived with both biological
parents up to
age 16 (no, he did not); such an answer involved him being awarded
a +3 number of
VRAG points. Another VRAG characteristic that gave him some VRAG
points was his
young age at the time of the index offense (he was about 18 at the
time, but this was
almost 14 years ago. In the same vein, another VRAG characteristic
that ‘gave’ him
another VRAG point was that he has never been married (not likely as
he entered prison
when he was only 18). In contrast, those VRAG characteristics
that gave him minus
direction scorings almost all pertained to characteristics in his life
that involved more
recent time-frames. For example, the fact that he does not meet
DSM diagnostic criteria
for having a personality disorder gives him a -3 number of points,
that he does not meet
DSM criteria for schizophrenia given him another -3 number of points,
and that his Hare
PCL-R score seems to only be equal to five, this gives him another
-3 number of points.
What can be seen here is that all of the predictor characteristics
that suggest that he had a
low propensity for violent recidivism behaviors all seem to be in the
‘here and now’
whereas most of those predictor characteristics that suggest that he
has a heightened for
violent recidivism behaviors all seem to be focused upon his more distant
past, i.e.., his
childhood and teen years (whereas he is now 32 years old).
Psychological Interview: Almost
from the very beginning of the session, it appeared
that Mr. XXXXX was highly motivated to talk with and to work with (i.e.,
the testing)
the undersigned psychologist. Apparently this psychologist’s
reputation for competence
and objectivity was involved in the selection made by Subject and his
attorney. At no time
in the session did the undersigned develop an impression that Mr. XXXXX
was
‘holding back,’ failing to disclose, or dissimulating in any form regarding
his responses to
questioning about himself and his past. There were no real signs
of grandiosity although
sometimes it was a bit difficult to detect the difference between that
and his own, just
well justified, proud opinion of his rehabilitation achievements during
past almost a decade
and a half. However, in some ways he gave the appearance of being
quite humble; he is
entirely aware that despite his remarkable level of rehabilitative
efforts, much of his future
is still almost entirely in the hands of others - of this he is entirely
aware. Several times in
the interview he expressed what was believed to be genuine admissions
of remorse
regarding his action of 14-15 years ago. He clearly expressed
the fact that no one else, or
any set of circumstances outside of his control, was to blame for what
he did, except for
himself. In the interview, this ‘message’ came across very clearly.
It would appear from
his incarceration record that rehabilitation must have started almost
as soon as he entered
the prison system in XXXXXXX and has continued, without a break, up
to the present time.
A very good bit of physical evidence for this is that, even though
he entered prison as an
impressionable 18-year-old youth, he still had the ‘good sense’ and
resolve to not to submit to
the almost inescapable practice of prison tattooing. He claims
to have not a single tattoo.
To have shown the wisdom of not wanting a tattoo, even though he entered
prison being
only 18, this can be considered to be a behavioral decision that was
then already founded
upon some kind of rehabilitation type motivation.
The night before last (i.e., on
3 March XXXX) this psychologist watched on TV a
movie that starred XXXXX XXXXXX, with whom Mr. XXXXX shows a very similar
physical appearance. It is very much apparent that the attention
to physical health and to
physical strength acquisition that Mr. XXXXX has devoted in the past
several years
has been absolutely outstanding. To have developed a body physique,
very similar to that
of Mr. XXXXXX’s, has to have been the product of a motivational level
bar none! The
fact that his physical development was accomplished in a controlled
prison environment is
proof that no use of steroids were involved, as would have been more
likely in Mr.
XXXXXX’s situation. Again, this is another bit of physical evidence
or proof of Subject’s
long and extensive motivation for self-improvement.
Another matter that would seem to be very important
in any parole decision is whether
he has expressed any realistic future plans were he to be paroled.
In the interview, he fully
explained that were he to be paroled he would almost immediately return
to the XXXXXX
area of XXXXXX where he has many close relatives (i.e., uncles and
aunts, grand parents,
cousins, etc.) and would attempt to start a new life there. It
is noted that he is as fluent in
the XXXXXX language as would be any other XXXXXX citizen. He
explained that in the past
year or so he has had visitations with some of his XXXXXX relatives,
who came over to visit
with him. He described their financial status in XXXXX as being
quite well off and that
they are highly motivated to want to help him become established in
their community. At
the present time, Mr. XXXXX described a fairly large number of potential
career goals.
He is wanting to obtain a masters degree in business with a minor in
international relations
and it is understood that he is now very close to being awarded a bachelors
degree from
XXXXXX State. More in the vocational sense, he described himself
as now being capable
of being employed as a personal physical trainer, a graphic designer,
and in desktop
publishing. He also reported that he would like to be active
as a political advocate. These
plans for the future seem most realistic and attainable as he is now
employed, as an
incarcerated prison inmate, as a Computer operator and as an instructor
employed by the
XX Department of Education.
At no time in the interview did he express
any behavior that could be considered to be
bizarre or inappropriate to the situation. No psychopathology,
of any kind, was noted.
DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS:
The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, of the
American Psychiatric Association, better known simply as the DSM-IV,
represents the
current edition of the 'official' manual of mental disorders, the first
edition of which
appeared in 1952. The DSM-IV was in development by a quite large
task force for over
several years; it appeared for use in mid-May of 1994. At the
present time the DSM-IV,
although it has some critics and detractors, is the most widely used
and accepted
psychiatric diagnostic system in use in this country. It's only
competitor is the
ICD-10-CM (the Tenth Revision of the International Classification of
Diseases - Clinical
Modification) which, it was estimated in the "late 1990s" that would
become the 'official'
medical classification system set forth by the World Health Organization.
Actually, the
recently developed DSM-IV classification and it's diagnostic terms
are included in and are
quite compatible with the ICD-10-CM classifications system which will
in a few years
become the official system in this country for recording all "diseases,
injuries, impairments,
symptoms and causes of death." New aspects of diagnosis, which
started with the
DSM-III edition are continued into the DSM-IV, are that explicit diagnostic
criteria are
provided to be used as guides for making each diagnosis since such
criteria enhance
interjudge diagnostic reliability. Multiaxial evaluation diagnosis
has been characteristic of
the DSMs since the third edition (Axes I and II include all of the
mental disorders; Axis III
is for general medical disorders and conditions; Axis IV is for noting
the severity of
psychosocial and environmental problems, and Axis V is to note an estimation
or
assessment of overall or global functioning.
My multiaxial diagnostic impressions of Mr.
XXXXXX X. XXXXX are as follows:
Axis I: V71.01 Adult Antisocial
Behavior (In Long-term Remission)
[This diagnostic entry is given simply to account for his
period of felonious criminal behavior that took place when
when he was 17-18 years of age. His propensity towards
such behavior appears to have almost entirely ceased just
about as soon as he was first incarcerated.]
304.80 Polysubstance Dependence, in Sustained Long-term
Full
Remission
[In the couple of years just prior to his arrest, when he was
18 years of age, he was actively involved in the polysubstance
abuse of alcohol, marijuana, LSD, PCP and barbiturates; to a
degree that would appear to have been a dependency upon use
of such substances.]
Axis II: V71.09 No Diagnosis
on Axis II
Axis III: Nothing described by Subject
Axis IV: Incarcerated in prison, upcoming parole board
decision
Axis V: GAF = 88 (Current).
A reading of the above stated diagnostic impressions
of Subject reveals that, at the
present time, he is seen as enjoying a surprising state of very positive
mental health,
despite the fact that he has been incarcerated in prisons for the past
14 years. The Axis I
diagnoses were given here mainly for ‘completeness’ purposes.
It is believed, that
although he was involved in armed robberies and in an associated murder,
he was not at
that time a psychopath, nor is he now. Since the purpose of this
reported psychological
evaluation is focused upon his present mental health status, and not
that when he was
17-18 years of age, no great amount of attention was made as to his
psychological status
at that earlier period of his life. However, what is rather evident
is that he did experience
a somewhat troubled teenage period that included a heavy and extensive
use of drugs,
especially when he was about 17-18 years of age. Although he
fully blames himself, and
not others or any set of circumstances, he did respond to the question
put to him by the
undersigned, that prior to the murder, when he was 18, he had shortly
before consumed an
estimated 11 beers. Without doubt, such a fact bore some relationship
to his subsequent
criminal behavior
One very important consequence of his very
dedicated interest in physical health,
during the past several years, is that such an interest would seem
to entirely preclude any
interest in or wanting to use alcohol/drugs in the future. In
fact, such would be
oppositional to his current interests and motivations.
In general, Mr. XXXXX should be considered
to be presently enjoying a status of
surprisingly good mental health.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
The undersigned psychologist has been psychologically
evaluating criminal offenders
since when he was a U.S. Army psychologist, back in 1955 and 1956.
Later he was for
almost three years a clinical psychologist in the Montana State Hospital
and that institution
evaluated many who were charged with crimes. Since the Hospital
was only about 15
miles from the Montana State Prison (in Deer Lodge), he a number
of times went to that
prison for the express purpose of conducting psychological evaluations
of incarcerated
persons. As a very senior clinical psychologist (i.e., GGD 15.10)
with the National
Security Agency, for about a decade and a half he was involved in the
psychological
evaluation of employees who had violated agency or criminal codes.
Since about 1969,
when he first started his private practice in forensic clinical psychology,
he has
psychologically evaluated literally hundreds (thousands, if one goes
back to about 1955) of
persons accused or convicted of very serious crimes. At
this point, it should be stated that this psychologist has never before
encountered an individual, who had been earlier convicted of
a most serious crime, who had achieved a greater rehabilitation while
incarcerated, as is
seen with Mr. XXXXX. His case truly represents the most successful
rehabilitation of a
convicted criminal that this psychologist has ever encountered; this
is said without reservation.
The just stated conclusion, given in the last
sentence of the previous paragraph, is not
based upon only some subjective clinical type thinking but is strongly
based upon
objective psychological test and actuarial paradigm assessment and
utilization. The results
from the administered psychological personality testing (i.e., MMPI-2,
PAI, CPS, HOS
and AS) are all very consistent and point to a very positive
mental health status being
current for Mr. XXXXX. This is, of course, the type of
mental health status that
would be hoped for in any type of parole consideration. It should
be also noted, quite
importantly, that Mr. XXXXX obtained validity scale/index scores, that
some of the
above listed tests provide as ‘checks’ to see whether the respondent
answered the test’s
items in a valid and honest fashion, that consistently indicated a
basic honest response set
on his part.
The results from the PCL-R rather clearly suggest
that Mr. XXXXX is not (and was
not in the past) some type of psychopath or sociopath. His criminal
behavior, expressed
when he was about 17-18 years of age, does not appear at all to be
the product of
psychopathy. Use of the actuarial models (i.e., the ASP-V, HCR-20,
VRAG, and even
the PCL-R) for predicting future criminal or recidivism type behavior
on his part, rather
consistently suggests that such would have fairly low likelihood in
Mr. XXXXX’s case.
His interview behavior and presentation were such that they seemed
to be entirely
consistent with the results from his psychological testing and from
use of the actuarial
paradigms designed for prediction of future violence and recidivism
type behaviors. All of
this appears entirely consistent with his formal record of rehabilitation,
as can be gleaned
from a inspection and reading of the hundreds of pages of copied documents
that Mr.
XXXXX has collected over the years and has presented as evidence
of his
rehabilitation..
A ‘test’ that the undersigned psychologist
sometimes makes use of in cases where the
evaluative direction seems extremely clear is my Next Door Neighbor
Test. The concept
and logic of this test is very simple - it indicates whether this psychologist,
after being
aware of all of the available information regarding Subject, would
be approving or not
approving were he to learn that Subject was planning to move next door
to the residence
location of this psychologist. Based upon many of this psychologist’s
evaluations, he
would be horrified were he to learn that those evaluated were planning
to become his
neighbors. However, in a few evaluations, the results are such
that no worry or concern
would seem to be associated with such residential relocation plans.
In a very few
evaluative situations, the undersigned would actually welcome the news |
