Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20V3, and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.
MULTIFILE
ABSTRACT Psychopathy in females has been understudied. Extant data on gender comparisons using the predominant measure of assessment in clinical practice, the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), points to a potential lack of measurement invariance (MI). If indeed the instrument does not perform equally (well) in both genders, straightforward comparison of psychopathy scores in males and females is unwarranted. Using a sample of female and male forensic patients (N ¼ 110 and N ¼ 147 respectively), we formally tested for MI in a structural equation modeling framework. We found that the PCL-R in its current form does not attain full MI. Four items showed threshold biases and particularly Factor 2 (the Social Deviance Factor) is gender biased. Based on our findings, it seems reasonable to expect that specific scoring adjustments might go a long way in bringing about more equivalent assessment of psychopathic features in men and women. Only then can we begin to meaningfully compare the genders on the prevalence, structure, and external correlates of psychopathy
BackgroundThere has been an increasing interest in negative or ‘undermining’ motivations for reading. In this study, we aimed to strengthen knowledge on the validity of the distinction between affirming and undermining motivations. First, we examined whether the structure of a questionnaire based on this distinction could be confirmed. Second, we examined the predictive value of undermining motivations for reading comprehension. Third, we studied moderator effects of gender and age.MethodsWe administered a reading motivation questionnaire and a reading comprehension test to 324 low-achieving adolescents. The questionnaire included items on affirming and undermining motivations for school and leisure time reading: intrinsic motivation and avoidance, self-efficacy and perceived difficulty.ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses supported the assumed structure of the questionnaire. Undermining motivations, particularly perceived difficulty, explained unique variance in reading achievement. Gender and age did not moderate effects of motivational variables.ConclusionsEducators need to be aware of the role of undermining motivations. Future research should examine if interventions can lead to the reduction of such motivations.
