ABSTRACT
We evaluated the reliability and validity of judgments concerning risk for violence made using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA; Kropp, Hart, Webster, & Eaves, 1994, 1995, 1998). We analyzed SARA ratings in six samples of adult male offenders (total N = 2681). The distribution of ratings indicated that offenders were quite heterogeneous with respect to the presence of individual risk factors and to overall perceived risk. Structural analyses of the risk factors indicated moderate levels of internal consistency and item homogeneity. Interrater reliability was high for judgments concerning the presence of individual risk factors and for overall perceived risk. SARA ratings significantly discriminated between offenders with and without a history of spousal violence in one sample, and between recidivistic and nonrecidivistic spousal assaulters in another. Finally, SARA ratings showed good convergent and discriminant validity with respect to other measures related to risk for general and violent criminality.
Subject(s)
Forensic Psychiatry/methods , Risk Assessment/methods , Spouse Abuse/prevention & control , Adult , Canada , Humans , Male , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
An untested assumption of malingering research is that persons who feign mental illness will not attempt to fake a particular disorder, but will be content to fabricate non-specific and possibly global psychiatric impairment. We tested the effectiveness of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) to detect feigning of three diagnostic groupings: schizophrenia, mood disorders, and PTSD on 45 psychologically knowledgeable correctional residents. We found that the SIRS maintained its powers of discrimination with respect to clinical samples. Similar research on faking specific disorders is needed on the MMPI-2 and other psychological measures.
