Search

This study assessed psychometric qualities of indirect measures assessing Implicit Theories (ITs) of sexual offending: Implicit Association Task (IAT), Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP), and Relational Responding Task (RRT). For comparison reasons, aggressive behavior was also assessed. In a male sample from the general population (N = 109), we assessed each measure’s (a) feasibility (mean latency, error rate, passing criteria), (b) internal consistency, (c) convergent and discriminant validity, and (d) incremental and predictive validity. Results indicated that no indirect measure met all criteria. Although the IAT was reasonably feasible and reliable in measuring aggression, ITs could not be reliably assessed. The RRT was feasible and somewhat reliable in assessing ITs, whereas the IRAP showed limited feasibility, high task complexity, low reliability, and the presence of a method factor. No measure had incremental predictive validity over the use of self-report measures, although we note that the power to detect such associations was limited. As none of the indirect measures performed satisfactorily on the measured criteria, the use of these measures in clinical practice seems currently unwarranted to assess ITs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) scale is widely used to assess psychopathic traits in noninstitutionalized samples. Recent studies suggest that a three-factor structure measuring Egocentricity, Callousness, and Antisocial factors outperformed the original two-factor structure of the LSRP. This study replicated and extended these findings by examining the factor structure and construct validity of a Dutch version of the LSRP in a community sample (N = 856, subsamples ranging between 140 and 572 participants). Confirmatory factor analysis results corroborated the superiority of the three-factor model of the LSRP, using 19 of the 26 LSRP items. Limitations included the need to specify correlated residuals for some indicators, although these were largely in line with prior studies. Across three subsamples, we found evidence for construct validity of the LSRP subscales. Egocentricity and Antisocial showed a pattern of differential associations with external correlates in accordance with theoretical expectations. Callousness shared some correlates with Egocentricity, others with Antisocial, and uniquely predicted low morality and high physical aggression. Few exceptions to the hypothesized associations were observed, mostly concerning Callousness. Overall, the LSRP three-factor model received further support in a Dutch sample, and is thus recommended in future research, possibly adding items to improve the performance of the Callousness factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of brief, reliable, valid, and practical measures of substance use is critical for conducting individual (risk and need) assessments in probation practice. In this exploratory study, the basic psychometric properties of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) are evaluated. Methods: The instruments were administered as an oral interview instead of a self-report questionnaire. The sample comprised 383 offenders (339 men, 44 women). A subset of 56 offenders (49 men, 7 women) participated in the interrater reliability study. Data collection took place between September 2011 and November 2012. Results: Overall, both instruments have acceptable levels of interrater reliability for total scores and acceptable to good interrater reliabilities for most of the individual items. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) indicated that the a priori one-, two- and three-factor solutions for the AUDIT did not fit the observed data very well. Principal axis factoring (PAF) supported a two-factor solution for the AUDIT that included a level of alcohol consumption/consequences factor (Factor 1) and a dependence factor (Factor 2), with both factors explaining substantial variance in AUDIT scores. For the DUDIT, CFA and PAF suggest that a one-factor solution is the preferred model (accounting for 62.61% of total variance). Conclusions: The Dutch language versions of the AUDIT and the DUDIT are reliable screening instruments for use with probationers and both instruments can be reliably administered by probation officers in probation practice. However, future research on concurrent and predictive validity is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]