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

1
Relative Efficacy of the PAI, PCLSV, and VRAG in
Predicting Institutional Misconduct and
Short-term Recidivism

• Mark E. Hastings, Ph.D.
• Loudoun County Mental Health Center
• George Mason University
• Jeff Stuewig, Ph.D.
• June Tangney, Ph.D.
• George Mason University
• Paper presented March 2, 2006 at the annual
  meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society in
  St. Petersburg, FL

2
Main Study Questions

• How well do various PAI scales predict
  institutional misconduct?
• Previous research shows ANT and AGG significantly
  correlate with institutional misconduct
  (Buffington-Vollum et al., 2002 Edens et al.,
  2001 Walters, Duncan, Geyer, 2003)
• How well do various PAI scales predict short-term
  recidivism?
• Two prior studies show ANT and AGG significantly
  correlate with recidivism in female inmates and
  male inmates referred for forensic evaluation in
  federal prison system (Salekin et al., 1998
  Walters Duncan, 2005).

3
Violence Potential Index (VPI)

• The VPI consists of 20 features of the PAI
  profile that are congruent with research on the
  assessment of violence (e.g., impulsivity,
  agitation, lack of empathy, history of antisocial
  behavior).
• Wang et al. (1997) VPI significantly correlated
  with staff ratings of aggression on the Overt
  Aggression Scale (OAS).
• Caperton et al. (2004) VPI significantly
  correlated with any and verbal disciplinary
  infractions.
• No study to date has examined the VPI and
  prediction of recidivism.

4
Study Participants

• N326 male inmates incarcerated at large urban
  jail.
• Age 31 (s.d. 9.7 range 18 to 69)
• Race 44.4 African-American, 33.9 Caucasian,
  9.3 Mexican American/Other Hispanic, 3.7
  Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.7 Mixed, 2.8 Other,
  1.2 Middle Eastern
• Wonderlic IQ Score 93.19 (s.d. 13.77, range
  67 to 138)
• Education Level 11.62 years (s.d. 2.18, range
  3 to 19)
• WRAT Reading Standard Score 91.54 (s.d. 16.68,
  range 44 to 120)
• PCLSV Total Score 12.88 (s.d. 4.96, range 1
  to 22)
• VRAG Score 7.62 (s.d. 8.07, range -18 to
  25)
• Violence Potential Index 5.87 (s.d. 4.1,
  range 0 to 19).

5
Practical Application Of Touch Screen Tablet
For Standardized Interview

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

6
PAI Correlations
Note N326 p lt .05 p lt .005
7
Jail Behavior

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

8
Predicting Jail Misconduct
Note N 326 p lt .05 p lt .005
9
Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC)
10
Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) for Any
Disciplinary Infraction
11
Recidivism 1-year Post Release

• Participants were contacted either by phone or in
  person one year after their release from
  incarceration.
• Participants were asked about whether they had
  been formally arrested for or engaged in any of
  several types of criminal behavior in the
  previous year.

12
Percentage of participants self-reporting arrest
and/or criminal behavior
13
Percentage of participants that report criminal
behavior versus arrest
No reports of arrest or offense for robbery,
murder, kidnapping, or arson. One report of
arrest for a sexual offense. No report of arrest
for prostitution
14
Predicting Short-term Recidivism
Note N 121 p lt .05 p lt .005
15
Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) for
Self-Report Arrest
16
Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) for
Undetected Offenses
17
Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) for
Violent Offense
18
Overall ROC Performance
19
Classification Accuracy for Recommended Cut
Scores for the VPI

• Self-reported arrest
• Moderate (VPI 9) Sensitivity .228
  Specificity .875
• Marked (VPI 17) Sensitivity .018
  Specificity 1.00
• Self-reported undetected offenses
• Moderate (VPI 9) Sensitivity .208
  Specificity .896
• Marked (VPI 17) Sensitivity .014
  Specificity 1.00
• Self-reported arrest or undetected offenses for
  violence
• Moderate (VPI 9) Sensitivity .320
  Specificity .865
• Marked (VPI 17) Sensitivity .000
  Specificity .990

20
Conclusions

• The VPI, ANT, and AGG scales were moderately
  correlated with the PCLSV and VRAG.
• Several PAI scales performed as well or better
  than the PCLSV and VRAG in predicting physical
  acts of aggression and defiance within the jail.
  However, the correlations for all types of
  misbehavior were generally small.
• The VPI, ANT, and AGG scales performed as well or
  better than the PCLSV and VRAG in predicting
  self-reported arrest, undetected offenses, and
  any violent recidivism.