Running Head​: EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL- R 1

Examining The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised

Brock University

Psyc 4P25

Brittney Lemos

Prof: Dr. Ashton

TA: Sean Robb

EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 2
Examining The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised

What is Psychopathy? Psychopathy can be defined through the behaviours that one

exhibits ​(Bolt, Hare, Vitale, & Newman, 2004). Such behaviours can be categorized into four

factors, affective, interpersonal, lifestyle and socially deviant behaviours (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, &

Newman, 2004). These factors have shed light on patterns amongst characteristics that are

indicative of psychopathy. These factors are made up of characteristics such as, callousness, lack

of empathy, egocentrism, lack of emotions, deceptiveness and no remorse (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, &

Newman, 2004).

The American Psychological Association (2017) defines personality assessment as a

measure that involves “the administration, scoring, and interpretation of empirically supported

measures of personality traits and styles in order to refine clinical diagnosis,” basically what this

means is that a personality measurement is looking to give a basis for psychological

interventions. It aims to produce a structure that obtains accurate data that can be generalized to

similar populations (APA, 2017). It further looks to heighten the accuracy of predictions in a

variety of different situations through examining behavioural patterns ​(APA, 2017)​. Over the

years, a variety of personality assessments have been created and revised as knowledge on

specific areas have grown, and there is greater accessibility to larger and more diverse

populations.

There are two types of personality assessments, projective and objective ​(APA, 2017)​. A

projective test is a test that looks to examine how patients perform when given abstract concepts

like ink splatter (eg. Rorschach Inkblot Test) and asked to describe what they see ​(APA, 2017)​.

Participants are free to respond to the images in any manner they deem appropriate, and are
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 3
scored in terms such as ‘nature of responses’ whether these natures are violent, emotional or

other classifiable traits ​(APA, 2017)​.

The second kind are objective, which include rating scales and self report inventories

(APA, 2017). Self-report inventories are often designed for specific populations, or examining

specific characteristics in general populations (APA, 2017). They come with their own definition

of norms that can be applied to the appropriate populations being measured ​(APA, 2017)​. They

work in the sense that they have a quantity of items that pertain to the measure being assessed.

Participant answer the items themselves, using scales like the Likert Scale (1-5, least to most

likely) and responses are scored and interpreted in such a way that one is able to gather

discernable information from them. Rating scales are similar to self-report inventories however

they have an outside rater rather than the participant. The participant may be asked to complete a

self report measure or an interview of sorts, however there is a person observing and rating their

behaviour (APA, 2017).

The Hare Psychopathy (PCL-R) test is an ​objective test (Barone, 2004). It is a

standardized method of measuring psychopathy and is highly relied upon (Barone, 2004).

Currently it is the most used test in regards to measuring psychopathy (Barone, 2004). ​This test

is loosely​ based on Cleckley’s (1941) 16 criterion for defining psychopathology; however, the

PCL-R places more focus on antisocial and criminal behaviour than Cleckley did (Edens, 2001).

This new take on Cleckley's original idea lead to more extensive and conclusive theoretical

material on psychopathy (Barone, 2004).

The PCL-R is a 20-item scale that measures amount of psychopathic tendencies based on

factors that have been shown to correlate with these tendencies (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie,
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 4
2016). These 20 items are broken down into 4 factors, Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle and

Antisocial, respectively (Barone, 2004). The PCL-R measures prevalence of these traits across

the patient's lifetime, and documents how severe they are on a 3-point scale (Storey, Hart,

Cooke, & Michie, 2016). The score of each item is then added up, for each category and factor

involved in the test to result in a total score (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). The highest

possible score is 40, however the most common cut of for meeting the diagnostic criteria of

psychopathic personality disorder is a score of 30 or higher (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie,

2016).

Historically there have been some flaws in the PCL-R. In the original construction of the

PCL-R, the study it was based on was not a generalizable study and lacked reliability and

validity (Barone, 2004). A large part of the problem was that there were only two factors

(Barone, 2004). These factors were much broader than the current four facets that are utilized, in

fact three of the current four facets were actually subsets of the original two (Barone, 2004) The

original two factors comprised of interpersonal and affective features as one factor and socially

deviant, impulsive lifestyle as the second factor (Barone, 2004). The revision to the original

design was based on non supporting results of a confirmatory factor analysis (Storey, Hart,

Cooke, & Michie, 2016). The analysis broke down the checklist and tested the correlations

between the questions that were asked and the factors that they were supposedly associated with,

and found that there was very little association for a two factor model (Storey, Hart, Cooke, &

Michie, 2016). It was due to these results that new designs were proposed.

Cooke and Michie (2001) proposed another version of the PCL-R, this proposal consisted

of a three-factor model that relied on confirmatory factor analyses which indicated that there
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 5
were three factors (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). The first of which was arrogant and

deceitful interpersonal style, the second was deficient affective experience, and the third was

impulsive and irresponsible behavioural style (Skeem & Cooke, 2010). These three factors were

then given shorter names and are instead called interpersonal, affective, and lifestyle (Skeem &

Cooke, 2010). This model consisted of 13 items that were divided into 6 subsets that made up

the 3 factors of psychopathy (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016).

However Hare also proposed a new design, the four facet model, this model is the most

widely accepted model despite some adverse beliefs (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). The

new design took into consideration Cooke and Michie’s (2001) proposal of three factors, and

added one pertaining to antisocial/criminal behaviour (Skeem & Cooke, 2010). This is the

current model, it comprises of psychopathy being broken down into two factors, interpersonal

and affective features as one factor and socially deviant, impulsive lifestyle as the second factor;

which are further broken down into four-facets. The facets being interpersonal, affective,

behavioral, and antisocial (Barone, 2004; Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). With the first

two facets relating to interpersonal and affective behaviours, and the second two facets relating

to socially deviant and impulsive lifestyle (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016.

The PCL-R has a very specific use. It is used as a gauge to help researchers determine

whether someone has psychopathic tendencies (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). Originally

it focused on clinical uses in prison and psychiatric facilities; however, with the revision a

normative and generalizable reference was calculated in order to enable researchers to compare

those in facilities to those in daily normative life (Barone, 2004).​ The PCL-R is utilized when

people are suspected of behaviours that are associated with psychopathy ​(Gacono & Hutton,
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 6
1994). Such behaviours may include a long criminal history, violence and a diagnosis of

antisocial personality disorder (Gacono & Hutton, 1994).

The PCL-R can also be used as a gauge to determine how severe existing characteristics

of psychopathy are ​(Gacono & Hutton, 1994). The individual items of the PCL-R can be

examined and used as a structure for describing patients, and organizing them into manageable

and compatible groups (Gacono & Hutton, 1994).

A major advantage of the PCL-R is that it comprises of both clinical findings, patients

past and psychological theories in its rating of psychopathy (Serin, 1992). It does not rely on

only one base to form a result, instead taking the important bits from each category and weaving

it together to gather discernable information. Also because of its integration of concepts in the

framework of the PCL-R, it allows for research into the prevention of psychopathy, and

correctional intervention once one shows psychopathic traits (Serin, 1992).

The factor structure of the PCL-R was touched upon briefly earlier in the paper, however

it is important enough to further examine. Based upon a confirmatory factor analysis, Hare

developed the second edition of the PCL-R (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). Confirmatory

factor analysis is when one looks at how much characteristics are related to one another and

develop larger groups, or facets. Based on these relations, these larger groups can in turn be

related into a larger factor or factors.

The factors that Hare found are what comprised the original design of the PCL-R, factor

one being interpersonal and affective features and factor two being socially deviant, impulsive

lifestyle (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). Facets one and two relating to factor one, facets

two and three relating to factor two. These factors can then further be factored into one factor,
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 7
psychopathy (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). All the subsets in Hare’s four-facet model

of the PCL-R can be related back to the larger factor of psychopathy.

Questions have been raised as to whether the PCL-R is a reliable measure of

psychopathy. In terms of the individual items of the PCL-R, the reliability levels are lower than

appropriate, however reliability for the total items, and factors were both good (Blais, Forth, &

Hare, 2017). This could be interpreted as poor reliability, however on the basis that the items

included are not being assessed or utilized in anyway individually, only as a whole, one could

further argue that it is reliable. There is also a large amount of variability between raters,

however there is no difference between PCL-R scores due to this variability indicating that

despite the low reliability for singular items, trained raters can reliably score total scores and

factor scores (Blais, Forth, & Hare, 2017).

Reliability appears to rise and fall with the severity of scores (Blais, Forth, & Hare,

2017). There is higher reliability amongst those showing psychopathic tendencies than there is

for those scoring moderate and low tendencies (Blais, Forth, & Hare, 2017). Like the individual

items, this could be interpreted as an indicator of poor reliability, however due to the importance

of reliability being on the scores that indicate psychopathic traits, and not on the moderate and

low scores, reliability may still be intact. Therefore it is clear that psychopathy is present.

In terms of structural reliability, as a whole, including factor and facets, there appears to

be high reliability based on cronbach's alpha (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). More

specifically, on average structural reliabilities are higher for factor one and the associated facets,

than they are for factor two and its associated factors, however these reliabilities still remain high

(Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016).

EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 8
The current version of the PCL-R when compared across populations, has good reliability

(Bolt, Hare, Vitale, & Newman, 2004). Including the reliability measures of internal consistency,

test–retest, and interrater reliability (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, & Newman, 2004). It is also important to

note that a particular aspect of the PCL-R actually raises the interrater reliability, and that would

be the use of semi-structured interviews in the testing process(Serin, 1992).

It appears that there is a general consensus that the PCL-R is a reliable measure of

psychopathy. Without any substantial or significant findings to argue otherwise, the PCL-R

remains the most popular diagnostic tool for psychopathy in clinical settings.

Much like reliability, the validity of the PCL-R has also been questioned as it is only

natural to do so. One cannot move further into understanding a concept without questioning the

knowledge they already contain. However unlike reliability, there is a more established basis for

validity, after the revision from two factors, to four facets, many of the validity problems were

solved. The worse being the generalizability from one population to another as the original base

scores outlined by the PCL-R did not have a diverse population basis. Since then validity has

been established in both clinical settings and general settings (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, & Newman,

2004). In fact in clinical populations such as prisons, scores have accurately predicted violent

behaviour and recidivism amongst other behaviours, indicating that the PCL-R has good

predictive validity (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, & Newman, 2004). This also bring about the idea that

there is good construct validity, because the PCL-R predicts what researchers are trying to

predict, than it likely is measuring what it is supposed to be measuring (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, &

Newman, 2004).
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 9
There seems to be an underwhelming amount of criticism for the validity of the PCL-R in

comparison to reliability how ever further research may prove otherwise. Based on these findings

it appears as though not only does the PCL-R have good reliability, it has very good validity.

As with most good things, there are always people who are going to use things the wrong

way. However with a measure that is indicative of psychopathy, things can go very wrong. Two

major examples of inappropriate use of the PCL-R are actually court cases. The first one under

consideration is how the PCL-R was used as justification for the death penalty (Edens, 2001). In

this case, the defendant (defendant X) committed a horrible crime and his PCL-R scores were in

the levels that indicate psychopathic personality disorder (30+) (Edens, 2001). The prosecution

was using an expert witness on the PCL-R to convince the jury of selecting the death penalty

(Edens, 2001). The main argument in relevancy to the PCL-R was that due to the fact that

defendant X scored above 30 on the PCL-R. It was argued that since the PCL-R is a predictive

indicator of recidivism, defendant X should receive the death penalty because he will recidivate

(Edens, 2001). This is a gross misuse of the PCL-R, it is intended for diagnostic purposes, and

predictive research only, not to be used to base a man's life off of. It was created to enable further

understanding of humans and their personality, and to encourage the development of further

research. It was not designed with the utmost preciseness in mind, rather it was designed as a

framework to be revised time and time again as new information comes to light and it has been

revised already. It was not completely right before, and may not be now, and using it to justify

the death penalty is not a great use of the PCL-R.

The second case is the opposite of the last, this one instead argues innocence on the basis

of the PCL-R. The defendant (defendant Y) argues that he is innocent in the case of molesting
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 10
his own children based on a PCL-R score that does not indicate sociopathic tendencies (Edens,

2001). However, this is also a misuse of the PCL-R. Attempting to convince a jury of innocence

based on the non-indicative score of the PCL-R is unsubstantial to those with an understanding

of abnormal psychology and the PCL-R. One does not have to have sociopathic tendencies to

molest children, there may be a number of underlying disorders that pertain to that, but the

PCL-R does not cover those. It is explicitly a measure for psychopathy, while sociopathic

tendencies may cross with psychopathic tendencies, the PCL-R is not a complete measure of

sociopathic tendencies, or any other disorder that may provide insight to defendant Y’s guilt. An

argument against the use of the PCL-R in defendant's case can also be made in this case, the

PCL-R was not designed to measure innocence or guilt, it was designed for predictive and

research purposes and is constantly changing, what is true today may not be true the next. It is

important not to rely on a measure that is so focalized on one potential aspect of a person that all

other aspects go unnoticed in important cases like this.

Despite the PCL-R’s many positives there are some limitations. In the original edition of

the PCL-R there was a major problem with generalizability (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie,

2016). Instead the sample populations were gathered by pooling sample of convenience, all from

Canada, instead of sampling offenders systematically (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016).

What was considered the normative sample focused on offenders serving custodial sentences

(non violent crime majorities) (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). Pooling samples of

convenience does not account for biases the way systematic sampling does (Storey, Hart, Cooke,

& Michie, 2016). The main concern in regards to the non normative sample is that the

recommended interpretations of the PCL-R may not be accurate due to the biases created by
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 11
unsystematic sampling (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). It is difficult to determine how

reliability may have been affected by this poor sampling choice, it may also affect the factor

structure of the PCL-R as its factors and facets are based on these biased populations (Storey,

Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). The lack of diverse populations also reduces validity outside of

Canada and the United States due to cross cultural differences in other parts of the world (Storey,

Hart, Cooke, & Michie, 2016). Despite the expansion of generalizability accomplished in the

revision of the PCL-R there is still little research validating the scoring metric of the PCL-R

(Bolt, Hare, Vitale, & Newman, 2004).

Another limitation is that since the revision of the PCL-R very few studies have gathered

and ran analyses on the measure using systematic sampling procedures (Storey, Hart, Cooke, &

Michie, 2016). Further, the format of the PCL-R itself raises the possibility of inter rater biases

(Serin, 1992). Amongst the semi-structured interview, and the need for interpreters of data, there

may be variability between the decisions about how a patient acted and the interpretation of the

patient's past notes (Serin, 1992).

Another believed limitation was that the PCL-R had become too popular, that it reduced

other researchers motivation to develop new psychopathy measures (Skeem & Cooke, 2010).

They believed that the majority of research being done was centralized on the PCL-R and did not

consider the limitations of the measure (Skeem & Cooke, 2010). This limitation however was not

validated, as there are countless new psychopathy measures being developed and tested (Hare &

Neumann, 2010).

As a whole, the PCL-R seems like a reliable and valid measure of psychopathy, it appears

to be well thought out with copious amounts of data to solidify the claims it makes. It appears to
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 12
be updating accordingly to new information, and some next steps when it comes to the PCL-R

would be to continually make it more generalizable, and to focus on systematic sampling in order

to reduce the amount of bias that is contained in the measure (Storey, Hart, Cooke, & Michie,

2016). It is important to constantly verify the reliability and validity of the measure as new

information arises that may impact the results. This is especially true when it is a measure that is

being misused as mentioned earlier and may severely affect people’s lives, even without the

intention.
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 13
References

APA (2017). Personality Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2017, from

http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/personality.aspx

Barone, N. M. (2004). Book Section: Essay and Review: The Hare Psychopathy

Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), 2nd

edition, by Hare Robert D., Ph.D. (Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 2003), 222 pp.,

$259.00. ​The Journal of Psychiatry & Law,​ ​32​(1), 113-114. doi:10.1177/0093185304032

00111

Blais, J., Forth, A. E., & Hare, R. D. (2017). Examining the interrater reliability of the Hare

Psychopathy Checklist—Revised across a large sample of trained raters. ​Psychological

Assessment,​ ​29​(6), 762-775. doi:10.1037/pas0000455

Bolt, D. M., Hare, R. D., Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2004). A Multigroup Item Response

Theory Analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. ​Psychological Assessment,

16​(2), 155-168. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.155

Edens, J. F. (2001). Misuses of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in Court. ​Journal of

Interpersonal Violence,​ ​16​(10), 1082-1093. doi:10.1177/088626001016010007

Gacono, C. B., & Hutton, H. E. (1994). Suggestions for the clinical and forensic use of the hare

psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R). ​International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,

17​(3), 303-317. doi:10.1016/0160-2527(94)90032-9

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2010). The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct:

Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010). ​Psychological Assessment,22​(2), 446-454.

doi:10.1037/a0013635
EXAMINATION OF THE HARE PCL-R 14
Serin, R. C. (1992). The clinical application of the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R) in a

prison population. ​Journal of Clinical Psychology,​ ​48​(5), 637-642.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199209)48:5<637::aid-jclp2270480510>3.0.co;2-v

Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010). Is criminal behavior a central component of psychopathy?

Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. ​Psychological Assessment,​ ​22​(2),

433-445. doi:10.1037/a0008512

Storey, J. E., Hart, S. D., Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Hare

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in a representative sample of Canadian federal

offenders. ​Law and Human Behavior,​ ​40​(2), 136-146. doi:10.1037/lhb0000174