作为双相结构的精神病:在六个临床样本中测试四种精神病检查表修订/筛选版本的小面得分的风险促进状态。

Glenn D Walters, Raymond A Knight, Klaus-Peter Dahle
{"title":"作为双相结构的精神病:在六个临床样本中测试四种精神病检查表修订/筛选版本的小面得分的风险促进状态。","authors":"Glenn D Walters, Raymond A Knight, Klaus-Peter Dahle","doi":"10.1037/per0000714","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study tested the possibility that the four facets of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised/Screening Version (PCL-R/SV) serve as bipolar constructs in predicting future criminal justice outcomes. Organizing scores on the four facets (Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial) into three categories-that is, lowest 25% of cases (best category), highest 25% of cases (worst category), and middle 50% of cases (intermediate category)-we tested bipolarity by crossing the three categories with a dichotomized crime/violence outcome and calculating both promotive (best category vs. worst + intermediate categories) and risk (worst category vs. best + intermediate categories) effects in six samples. Bipolarity was defined as the simultaneous presence of promotive (low scores predicting a good outcome) and risk (high scores predicting a poor outcome) effects for each PCL-R/SV facet in each sample. Odds ratios and the Cochrane-Armitage linear trend test revealed evidence of bipolarity in one of six samples for the Interpersonal facet, three of six samples for the Affective facet, five of six samples for the Lifestyle facet, and all six samples for the Antisocial facet. An item response theory analysis was then conducted, the results of which supported the facet-level findings from the odds ratio and Cochrane-Armitage analyses at the individual item level. These results provide modest (Affective facet) to moderately strong (Lifestyle and Antisocial facets) evidence of bipolarity in three of the four facets of the PCL-R/SV by showing that low scores are just as effective in predicting good criminal justice outcomes as high scores are in predicting poor criminal justice outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychopathy as a bipolar construct: Testing the risk-promotive status of the four psychopathy checklist-revised/screening version facet scores in six clinical samples.\",\"authors\":\"Glenn D Walters, Raymond A Knight, Klaus-Peter Dahle\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000714\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study tested the possibility that the four facets of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised/Screening Version (PCL-R/SV) serve as bipolar constructs in predicting future criminal justice outcomes. Organizing scores on the four facets (Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial) into three categories-that is, lowest 25% of cases (best category), highest 25% of cases (worst category), and middle 50% of cases (intermediate category)-we tested bipolarity by crossing the three categories with a dichotomized crime/violence outcome and calculating both promotive (best category vs. worst + intermediate categories) and risk (worst category vs. best + intermediate categories) effects in six samples. Bipolarity was defined as the simultaneous presence of promotive (low scores predicting a good outcome) and risk (high scores predicting a poor outcome) effects for each PCL-R/SV facet in each sample. Odds ratios and the Cochrane-Armitage linear trend test revealed evidence of bipolarity in one of six samples for the Interpersonal facet, three of six samples for the Affective facet, five of six samples for the Lifestyle facet, and all six samples for the Antisocial facet. An item response theory analysis was then conducted, the results of which supported the facet-level findings from the odds ratio and Cochrane-Armitage analyses at the individual item level. These results provide modest (Affective facet) to moderately strong (Lifestyle and Antisocial facets) evidence of bipolarity in three of the four facets of the PCL-R/SV by showing that low scores are just as effective in predicting good criminal justice outcomes as high scores are in predicting poor criminal justice outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000714\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000714","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究检验了精神变态检查表修订/筛选版(PCL-R/SV)的四个方面作为双相构念预测未来刑事司法结果的可能性。将四个方面(人际关系、情感、生活方式和反社会)的得分分为三类,即最低25%的案例(最佳类别),最高25%的案例(最差类别),中间50%的案例(中间类别)——我们通过将犯罪/暴力结果一分为二的三个类别交叉,并计算六个样本中的促进效应(最佳类别vs最差+中间类别)和风险效应(最差类别vs最佳+中间类别)来测试双极性。双极性被定义为每个样本中每个PCL-R/SV方面同时存在促进效应(低分预测好结果)和风险效应(高分预测差结果)。比值比和Cochrane-Armitage线性趋势测试显示,人际关系方面的六个样本中有一个存在双极性,情感方面的六个样本中有三个存在双极性,生活方式方面的六个样本中有五个存在双极性,反社会方面的六个样本中都存在双极性。然后进行项目反应理论分析,其结果支持优势比和Cochrane-Armitage分析在个体项目水平上的方面水平的发现。这些结果在PCL-R/SV的四个方面中的三个方面提供了适度(情感方面)到中等强烈(生活方式和反社会方面)的双极性证据,表明低分在预测良好的刑事司法结果方面与高分在预测不良的刑事司法结果方面同样有效。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychopathy as a bipolar construct: Testing the risk-promotive status of the four psychopathy checklist-revised/screening version facet scores in six clinical samples.

This study tested the possibility that the four facets of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised/Screening Version (PCL-R/SV) serve as bipolar constructs in predicting future criminal justice outcomes. Organizing scores on the four facets (Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial) into three categories-that is, lowest 25% of cases (best category), highest 25% of cases (worst category), and middle 50% of cases (intermediate category)-we tested bipolarity by crossing the three categories with a dichotomized crime/violence outcome and calculating both promotive (best category vs. worst + intermediate categories) and risk (worst category vs. best + intermediate categories) effects in six samples. Bipolarity was defined as the simultaneous presence of promotive (low scores predicting a good outcome) and risk (high scores predicting a poor outcome) effects for each PCL-R/SV facet in each sample. Odds ratios and the Cochrane-Armitage linear trend test revealed evidence of bipolarity in one of six samples for the Interpersonal facet, three of six samples for the Affective facet, five of six samples for the Lifestyle facet, and all six samples for the Antisocial facet. An item response theory analysis was then conducted, the results of which supported the facet-level findings from the odds ratio and Cochrane-Armitage analyses at the individual item level. These results provide modest (Affective facet) to moderately strong (Lifestyle and Antisocial facets) evidence of bipolarity in three of the four facets of the PCL-R/SV by showing that low scores are just as effective in predicting good criminal justice outcomes as high scores are in predicting poor criminal justice outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信