Assessing Antisocial and Psychopathic
29 Personalities

Carl B. Gacono and J. Reid Meloy

The assessment of antisocial and psychopathic personalities presents special challenges for the forensic
evaluator. This chapter emphasizes use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Rorschach,
and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) for a comprehensive evaluation of these patients.
These measures lend incremental validity to understanding these difficult patients, especially when
combined with testing of intelligence and cognitive functioning. Integrating data from multiple domains is
essential to answering the psycholegal and forensic treatment questions surrounding the antisocial and
psychopathic patient. The forensically trained clinical psychologist is best suited to assess psychopathy, a
task that historically has been overlooked or avoided in traditional mental health settings.

Keywords: antisocial, forensic evaluation, psychopathy, PCL-R, Rorschach, MMPI

Understanding that antisocial personality disorder psychopathy requires a formal assessment with the
and psychopathy are distinct but related constructs Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare,
is crucial to clinical and forensic assessment of these 1991, 2003) that typically involves a review of collat-
patients. While antisocial personality disorder eral information and a semistructured interview
(ASPD; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association (Gacono, 2005).
[APA], 1994, 2000) evolved from a social deviancy Two additional findings support the need to
model (Robins, 1966) and the term sociopathy differentiate between these terms. First, base rates
(DSM; American Psychiatric Association (APA), for ASPD and psychopathy are not the same.
1952),1 the construct of psychopathy can be traced Although most psychopathic subjects will meet
to the more traditional psychiatric conceptualizations criteria for ASPD, at most one-third of ASPD sam-
originating in late nineteenth-century Germany ples in maximum-security prisons will meet the
(Cleckley, 1976). ASPD criteria are primarily PCL-R criteria for ‘‘psychopathy’’ (Hare, 1991,
behavioral, while psychopathy criteria include both 2003). The clinical importance of this fact can be
behaviors and traits that significantly overlap with stated differently. Most ASPD adults, male or
most of the DSM-IV Cluster B syndromes (narcis- female, are not psychopathic and will not meet
sistic, histrionic, borderline, and antisocial personality the factor analytic definition of this construct, in
disorders; Gacono, Nieberding, Owen, Rubel, & particular the personal qualities and behavior char-
Bodholdt, 2001). A clinician arrives at a diagnosis of acterized by a callous and remorseless disregard for
ASPD by verifying that the patient meets specific the rights and feelings of others and a chronic
criteria outlined in the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000), antisocial lifestyle (Hare, 1991, 2003).
which include (a) a pervasive pattern of disregard for Second, an ASPD diagnosis provides far less
and violation of the rights of others since age 15; (b) a predictive utility in clinical/forensic decision
history of conduct disorder prior to the age of 15; and, making than PCL-R scoring (Hare, 2003; Lyon &
(c) age 18 or older. In contrast, the diagnosis of Ogloff, 2000). An impressive body of literature


9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:567

which in behavior while in treatment (Gacono. standing of his or her purpose for assessing psycho- Goldstein. the examinee. the judge symptoms. Gacono. is performing an information are necessary when assessing antisocial investigation to gather data. Bodholdt. Harris. 2002). in answering a psycholegal question. mal- usually to gain a more dominant or pleasurable ingering. employment These robust findings make psychopathy assessment a records. He is not an agent of and psychopathic patients. Gacono. records. 2001). & Roske. 2001. sanity. Gacono. When evaluating antisocial and psychopathic tally different roles may lead to misuse of informa. 1988). (malingering. & Forth. 1988. and testing—aids the evaluator used against male strangers (Hare & McPherson. 2006) is torical information. treatment amenability or planning. scores The forensic psychologist must always evaluate the validity all data. whether a violence risk. referral goal of the psychopathic patient. 2007). which. form the foundation of the evaluation (Meloy. & Independent historical or contemporaneous informa- Gacono. with the individual long enough to complete a • have a poorer response to therapeutic mental status exam. pathy varies with the nature of the setting and the The psychologist must also consider that psycho. Meloy. 2001. or legal proceeding (Meloy. All three sources of evaluator rather than therapist. threat management. chological. Evans. turn may inform or ‘‘flesh out’’ the interpersonal Sheppard.. malingering or exaggeration of psychiatric usually called upon to aid the trier of fact. an institution. criminal records. face-to-face interviewing may provide crimes (Rice. PCL-R item analysis provides valu. dangerousness. 2000. pared with low scorers. particularly unsubstantiated self- • commit a greater quantity and variety of reports. may be followed by gather self-reported problems and historical data. Loving et al. and interviews with histor- useful. 2002). 2008). Interviewing involves a face-to-face contact McPherson. or sanity. psychopathy level. For Deceptive behaviors often include projection of example. tion refers to any data that are not self-reported by Additionally. Gacono. psychiatric and psychological records. school and military records. 1983). & Roske. and 1990). motivation. 1995. and includes such things as other able information for treatment planning with offen. and/or conscious denial: all important or jury. position in relation to his objects. siblings. & Greenwood. 2000). when com. Gacono. and in some cases essential. medical ders (Gacono. change. in addressing potential deception and combines to 1984. 1992). such as behaviors to be noted as part of the assessment intent. Loving. and so forth). 1997. person. function of the evaluation (Bodholdt. 2000a. obtained from antisocial and psychopathic offenses (Hare & Jutai. 1989). that provide objective reference Forensic Assessment and Issues points to further understand the psychology or psy- In all cases the forensic psychologist. 1987). & Bodholdt. Gacono. Meloy. neuropsy- Loving. & Cormier. assess specifically targeted areas intervention (Ogloff. an increase in their subsequent arrest rates for violent Additionally. 1989. Richards. & Wong. Speth. Testing refers to psychological. 1998. 2003) has demonstrated that. & lie to and mislead the assessor at every turn. Speth. as chobiology of the examinee. Justice. in some cases. & Grey. sadism. is involve severity of antisocial personality disorder. sexual 568 ASSESSING ANTISOCIAL AND PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:568 . historical or contemporary. Confusion between these two fundamen. section of the evaluation (Kosson et al. prisoners with high PCL-R 1988. and to a lesser questions stem from institutional concerns and may degree the nonpsychopathic antisocial patient. Erdberg. 2000). (parents. The psychologist must have a pathy level or the presence or absence of a clear conception of his or her role before the psychopathic syndrome. Hare. process (Kosson. independent his- in which predatory violence (Meloy. and medical tests. patients. the psychologist must have a clear under- tion and unethical behavior (Meloy. Gacono. & Jumes. Young. The Subsequent to institutional commitment. Wong. tool for clinical/ ical and contemporary observers of the examinee forensic examiners evaluating antisocial and/or psycho. 2000). and the interviewer with adumbrations of possible trans- • are at high risk for problematic and disruptive ference and countertransference reactions. Jumes. sionals). Williamson. • have lengthier criminal careers (Hare. and health care profes- pathic patients (Gacono & Bodholdt. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF (see Hare. & pathic individuals are chronically deceptive and will Gacono. The need to ‘‘assess’’ psycho- assessment begins. Gathering data from three different • commit a greater frequency of violent offenses sources—face-to-face interviews. legal. prior to sentencing the psychologist is blame.. patients.

2003). 2000. problem occurs when • Have a clear rationale for assessing inferences are formed about psychopathy from sam- psychopathy level ples that contain no primary or severe psychopaths. validation 2002). their knowledge of PCL-R reliability and validity priate assessment domains and methods (Gacono. 2006. essentially describing a bad person into opinions that address the referral question. methods what at first appear to be discrepant research findings In this chapter we focus on several methods and are easily explained as artifacts of the divergent meth- instruments. In these contexts. 2005). sion. information is needed to address the referral issues A growing body of research has demonstrated the and which methods are most efficacious in obtaining PCL-R’s reliability and validity for prison and for- the desired information. 40-point scale completed fol- and other issues related to diagnosis. it is essential to understand that ‘‘psycho- value when assessing antisocial and psychopathic pathy’’ is used as both a categorical (PCL-R  30) patients. & Holaway. 2006. it is very important instruments for obtaining data from each (Acklin. Several caveats which domains are relevant to the referral question are essential to these ends (see Gacono. and simple explanations of the test to the trier of fact. 2002a). 2006). Harwood. 2003). Gacono... methodological issues. (2001) emphasized gathering groups. Gacono. the demographics of these studies. criticism of the positional factors. and clear and tors. and unfortunately include collateral information too frequently occurring. Having clarified the psycholegal issue and context Additional psychological testing is not necessary of the evaluation. 2000). 1991. Psychologists must be able to educate the court chologist assessing antisocial and psychopathic concerning the relevance of these distinctions. that are of considerable Finally. and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Nieberding et al. Gacono & Dimensional uses are idiographically favored in the Hutton. 2003). studies. Gacono. Hare.2 The who obtain moderate or high PCL-R scores exhibit GACONO AND MELOY 569 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:569 . patients include: Second. and a dimensional construct (Gacono & Gacono. odologies (Gacono & Gacono. psychopathic. 2008). normative scores with male.. straightforward (Gacono. psychopathy is con- psychopathic ‘‘designation (taxon)’’ with adult ceptualized on a continuum. severely impact the generalizability of studies • Be skeptical and evaluate the validity of all data and make cross-study comparisons problematic (particularly self-report) (Gacono & Gacono. With this in mind. 2001). 2000. test and its psychometric properties. 1994. Rorschach. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF sadism.. Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). and sociopathic Weiner. clinical or psychopathological fac. the forensic psychologist will next to determine a patient’s psychopathy level or to have to determine what historical and personality arrive at a designation of psychopathy. ensic psychiatric populations (Hare. 2002. • Have a clear rationale for choosing assessment Given multiple problems in the published literature. Results are subsequently integrated as synonymous. for whom they have little empathy and less compas- Key forensic issues essential for the forensic psy. the terms antisocial. 2000a. such that individuals patients is the PCL-R (Hare. such as the PCL-R (Hare. Monahan and Steadman’s (1994) risk assessment Psychologists may be called upon to demonstrate model provides a useful guide for matching appro. 2001).. contextual factors. and then chooses reliable and valid methods and/or Gacono & Gacono. Nieberding • Gather data from multiple sources and always et al. delinquent incarcerated samples. semistructured interview (see Gacono. 2002). recommendation for outpatient treatment. and data from four primary domains that included dis. historical or case history variables. Jumes et al. Categorical designations are appropriate and The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised preferred for comparative research when the concern With specialized experience and training. Beutler. b. 1991). PCL-R is a 20-item. 2000a. The psychologist determines judge or jury (Gacono et al. 1991. treatment. such as the use of lowered PCL-R cutoffs or use of an instrument • Be clear as to one’s professional role and the other than the PCL-R for designating psychopathy referral question groups. Monahan et al. or lowing a review of independent historical and con- risk management (Bodholdt et al. 2006). temporaneous data and completion of a 1998. First. female. The most glaring. the is how psychopaths (PCL-R  30) nomothetically forensic evaluation of psychopathy is relatively differ from nonpsychopaths (PCL-R < 30). to remember that the lay person may misconstrue 2002. Gacono. The only published vast majority of clinical/forensic settings (Bodholdt reliable and valid method to date for arriving at a et al.

Since the ASPD criteria are primarily beha- • The patient is similar to a sample upon which vioral. will elevate on the PCL-R scoring bias and halo effects (Gacono. respectively) and Factor II correlates more strongly with ASPD. than whether or not a given individual’s score preconceived notions of psychopathy meets the traditional threshold for a designation of • Frequently refer directly to the PCL-R Rating psychopathy (PCL-R  30. Kosson et al. the adequacy of tion and scoring are also worth highlighting collateral information available for scoring. 2005). 2002). Psychopathy level or degree prototype (Gacono. One is more clinically letting speculation about the total score influence interested in finding out the psychopathy ranges and individual item scoring (confirmatory bias) scores that are best at predicting behavior in a given • Avoid introspection about etiology or setting. of the instruments used with this particular patient Several key issues related to PCL-R administra. Other 570 ASSESSING ANTISOCIAL AND PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:570 . 2000).3 relates with severity of psychopathy as measured by to aid in systematically recording essential the PCL-R (Hare.. 2000c. professional with forensic experience (the exception 2000. Additionally. Booklet (Hare. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF more serious and pervasive behavioral problems than • Focus on scoring each item separately. while not ducting the interview. 2000) or severe (30) (Meloy. 1992). 1994).. chopathy checklists. on the other hand. such for describing existing traits and behaviors (Gacono. 1998). Prior to administering the psy. The ASPD the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and criteria. 2003). Gacono. Gacono & Hutton. more trait-based. 2000c. cor- Screening version (CFIS. when conceptualized as an ordinal scale. Most criminal psy- to this is the P-SCAN. the following should be Loving et al. The patient’s clinical • Conduct the PCL-R interview as a separate picture is further clarified in the report’s finding sec- part of the overall psychological evaluation tion by using factor scores and item analysis as a basis • Use a semistructured interview schedule... 2003) to maintain the scoring Rice. This parallels • The evaluator is familiar with the current what is used in the DSM-IV diagnosis of conduct psychopathy research (Patrick. also see Quinsey. geared toward reducing necessarily psychopathic. with ranges designating the ability to reliably score the instrument (see Bodholdt ASPD diagnosis as mild (19). Loving his qualifications and training. rationale for arriving at conclusions (Gacono. et al. as the Clinical and Forensic Interview Schedule for 1998. 2000a). the evaluator factors in clinical and forensic decision making should be prepared to provide evidence concerning (Gacono. 1988. 2006) disorder. the use of secondary. a nonclinical measure of chopaths meet the criteria for ASPD and should be psychopathy developed for law enforcement) diagnosed as such. Meloy & Gacono. or defendant (normative samples)... & Cormier. Harris. but some will not be. 2002). a patient The examiner establishes a mind set for con- who is diagnosed with ASPD and NPD. when testifying. 2000a) (dimensional) rather than a ‘‘diagnosis’’ of psycho- pathy (categorical) becomes one of several weighted Additionally. research information has demonstrated that PCL-R Factor I items correlate • Collateral information is always reviewed with narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders before the interview (Gacono. The severity • The evaluator has participated in adequate of the ASPD diagnosis can be determined by the training which has included his or her demonstrated patient’s PCL-R score. information and facilitating the development of Although the PCL-R alone suffices to determine rapport with. Nieberding et al. it is recommended that it be defined as a • The evaluator is a licensed mental health constellation of behaviors and traits (Bodholdt et al. 2000. avoid those with lower PCL-R scores.. 2000a) (NPD and HPD. Throughout the PCL-R administration process An ASPD patient. Consequently. 2001. assessment • Rate items based on lifelong patterns and generally involves more than arriving at a simple typical functioning label (Gacono. ensured: Since the term psychopathy is not an official diag- nostic label. with a concur- the following should be foremost in the evalua- rent avoidant personality disorder diagnosis will likely tor’s mind: carry an ASPD (mild) diagnosis. 2001). 2000a). Gacono. the appropriateness et al. Axis II the instrument has been validated diagnoses allows the clinician to more accurately • There is available independent historical reflect the patient’s personality. the patient the presence or absence of psychopathy. moderate (20–29). and the (Gacono. and a sense of empathy for. Nieberding et al. and likely have a severe or moderate ASPD diagnosis.

1992. Cooper. with a median of . if 2008. and not surprisingly fail to Comprehensive System (Exner. Lilienfeld & Andrews. 2002). While the Rorschach is generally scored in a Gacono. 1999. 1994. 1992. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF personality instruments such as the MMPI-2 frequencies (Gacono & Meloy. most commonly seen in psychopathic Rorschach to measure the internal structure and protocols. Butcher. & Viglione. 1993. tocol (Gacono. patient and clinical norms (Exner & Erdberg. & Evans. Singer. was . 2008. Meloy. Rorschachs taken for for- Tellegen. We have found that findings to conduct-disordered adolescents). may still yield worthwhile psychodiagnostic Loving & Russell. moves to a determi. informing the colleague that his or her 2008. 2007).81. & Greene. pathic ASPD and nonpsychopathic ASPD subjects chometrically invalid protocol (Exner. other do so (Gacono. Gacono. 2000) have validated by the antisocial or psychopathic patient who suffi. however. Gacono. and is further refined through the as a group. and ASPD males in general produce normative response supported the assertion that these individuals GACONO AND MELOY 571 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:571 . 2003. 1992. the use of the Rorschach as a nomothetically sensi- ciently constricts his response frequency (Ganellan. Exner & Erdberg. 1988. Despite the mind how these samples differ from Exner’s non- importance of reliable scoring. 1991. reliable manner (Viglione & Meyer. dynamics of the particular patient. according to 1942) add to our clinical understanding of the Exner’s (2003) guidelines). 2008). keeping in consultant before the talk begins. least in research settings. Gacono. for an extension of these information (Weiner. & Hare.. 1994. & Kaemmer. how. 1990). Gacono. 1996). Although the Rorschach can be malingered. Graham. sought. Gacono & Meloy. Such a psy. While Although the clinician should administer and these instruments were not specifically designed to interpret the Rorschach according to the ‘‘diagnose’’ psychopathy. 2001). Gacono & Gacono. Meloy & Gacono. & Walters. as it avoids the face validity of self-report diagnosis of ASPD may be too psychodynamically measures. 1991. 2006. Lerner & Lerner. Exner & Erdberg. frequencies in forensic settings (50–75%). however. 2008. 2005. Meloy. about the individual’s personality structure and Evaluators should also be familiar with a growing function (Exner. Inter-rater reliability for borderline defenses (PCL-R). 1995. ment the Comprehensive System are an object rela- pathy (Hare. Cox. Two methods (PCL:SV. 2000. Gacono. neither do psychoanalytically informed empirical measures of the Psychopathy Checklist-Screening Version the Rorschach are also quite valuable. the examiner should aggres- (Exner. & Heaven.and gender-matched control sample of The Rorschach patients’ Rorschachs. Olesen. at (Butcher. 2003). and ever. 1943) and Rorschach Inkblot method constricted.62 (intraclass correlation coeffi- nation of the degree of psychopathic disturbance cients). Gacono & Meloy. & Evans. 2008. Perry & Kinder. 2003. & Bridges. patients (Gacono. Gacono.4 tions measure (Kwawer. Kwawer (1979) found that his 10 categories and intrapsychic characteristics (dimensional aspects) of ‘‘primitive interpersonal modes’’ (1980) were able of antisocial and psychopathic subjects. sively pursue a valid protocol (R  14. Young et al. Gacono. tration rather than scoring issues are more likely to A series of studies with antisocial and psychopathic impact the validity of an individual Rorschach pro. Gacono. antisocial behavior (DSM-IV). Gacono & scoring questions arise. & Kaufman. 1986. Hart. The authors did not. to further delineate the individualized behavioral 1980). improper adminis. 1995) nor the having acceptable interrater reliability that comple- newer experimental self-report measures of psycho. Rorschach. to significantly differentiate between a borderline and an age. Meloy. 1998). yet provides reliable and valid information heterogeneous. 2008. name may be referenced in pending litigation as a Hoppe. Dahlstrom. ASPD diagnosed or psychopathic individual. tive instrument in discriminating between psycho- 1994. 1994. Evans. consultations should be Meloy. Lee. 1990. 1994). (also see Smith. 1980) and two measures of We recommend that several other tests be employed defenses (Cooper & Arnow. Nieberding et al. and Arnow The assessment of antisocial and psychopathic (1988) reported interrater reliabilities for each of patients begins as a gross categorization of chronic their 15 defense categories ranging from . (DSM-III-R). 2005). Perry. 1989. & have found that the test is usually only ‘‘beaten’’ Kenney.45 to . 2005). Hathaway & ensic purposes in pre-trial criminal cases may be McKinley.80. that the 1988).. and speculated. Meloy. consistent with high 1994. 2000. Cunliffe & Gacono. database of forensic Rorschach samples (Bannatyne. 2008. The Rorschach find any particular defense mechanism related to is ideally suited for contributing to this assessment the presence of antisocial personality disorder (Cunliffe & Gacono. 1988). we 1990.

1990. Select Rorschach variable means from a zation (Kernberg. see Gacono & Gacono. Young et al. & Sciara. 1998). elevated affective ratio (Afr). The deception or willful distortion. NJ: Erlbaum. a low H+A:Hd+Ad ratio. 1992). Psychologists empirically abnormal 572 ASSESSING ANTISOCIAL AND PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:572 . 1992). Table 29. 2000). Their Rorschach Adj D 0 protocols indicate a virtual absence of idealization Affects and higher-level neurotic defenses. & Berg. On the other hand. T 0 Y 0 1992). 1988. pathic ASPDs exhibit more pathological narcissism Responses 21 (Gacono et al. 1990. A psychopathic patient with schizo. the MMPI-2 Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Assessment should be used with other instruments in the assess- (Gacono. 1991). the admissibility of Rorschach data • To measure self-report of psychopathology in court (Weiner. turns to the psychometric workhorse of the profes- Forensic evaluators should be thoroughly familiar sion. J. elevated Dd responses.1). For example. depart from the above-identified structural charac- teristics. R. the MMPI-2. Pure H 2 boundary disturbance. 1996).. Afr <. B. Although self-report measures in with recent Rorschach studies (Weiner. 2001). omnipotence.50 denial.. and a positive hypervigilance should be thoroughly familiar with these resources index (HVI). 2008. Exner. less Core characteristics anxiety. less capacity for attachment (Gacono & Lambda >. and Pure C >0 splitting (Gacono. Object relations are also preoedipal. with Space >2 psychopathic ASPDs evidencing significantly more Interpersonal relations Rorschach measures of narcissistic mirroring. Rf 1 Deviations from these typical findings should PER >2 deepen the understanding of the individual differ. coupled with a FC:CFþC 1:4 reliance on primitive defenses such as devaluation. a color projec- tion (CP) response. 1996) and criminal populations must be interpreted with a their relationship to legal standards for admissibility keen awareness of the possibility of attempts at of scientific evidence (McCann. a paranoid psychopath might produce a constricted protocol. and may instead produce severe reality dis. & Weiner. Gacono. Other arti- cles have guided the manner in which Rorschach • To provide convergent validity for the other data can be presented in court (Meloy. and the with an instrument that is sensitive to distortion weight of Rorschach data in court (Meloy. sample of 33 male prisoners identified as Compared to nonpsychopathic ASPDs. a Fþ% 56 more histrionic psychopath might produce a pro. Evans. & Gacono. 1997). when using the Rorschach in the assessment of anti- phrenia or bipolar disorder might significantly social and psychopathic personalities. 2008). 2008) ment of antisocial and psychopathic patients for the provides essential guidelines for the use of the following reasons: Rorschach in various forensic contexts. and violent symbiosis when (H)þHdþ(Hd) 2. 1991. C. Meloy. W:M >3:1 Cognitions ences within any one patient. Rorschach assessment of aggressive and psychopathic personalities. (1994).99 Meloy. psycho.1. Hillsdale. Hansen. 2008). a low lambda (L). X–% 22 tocol with some idealizing defenses. & Meloy. Meloy. and an Note: From Gacono.5 compared to nonpsychopathic ASPD Rorschachs Good COP 0 (Gacono & Meloy. and some indications of increased D 0 sadism (Meloy & Gacono. • To measure domains of behavior that are not Meloy. projective identification. Kaser-Boyd. but do not necessarily Xþ% 54 rule out a psychopathic disturbance.. A typical psychopathic Ag 0 Rorschach protocol can be expected to reflect these Sx 1 findings and contain a certain number of abnormal Self-perception structural characteristics (see Table 29. The MMPI-2 tortion (X-% > 30) and an elevated PTI (for SCZI Our overview of psychopathy assessment next data. psychopathic. 1984. sources of data Weiner. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF function at a borderline level of personality organi.

1944). social imperturbability. 70 on Scale 4 was achieved by 59% of a sample of Lilienfeld. best capture the social aggression of antisocial and sonal deficiencies). 2002)—antisocial practices (ASP). lying. is not affected by educational level in The clinical scale most sensitive to ‘‘a variation in either the MMPI-2 male or female normative sam- the direction of psychopathy’’ (McKinley & ples (Butcher. no matter how scale reliability has declined as a function of these extreme. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF • To support evidentiary standards for interpretation of Scale 4 (Butcher. but item eliminations. This original criterion group ship to psychopathy as measured by the psychopathic was already incarcerated and had been selected for personality inventory (PPI) in a large sample of male psychiatric study. is met The Scale 4 items underwent virtually no changes through the court’s determination that the measure between the MMPI and the MMPI-2. Sellbom. 1988). and (NEGE). Nichols. sence or absence of psychopathy. the instrument is unreliable. 1993) calls insouciance has received consis- behavior or social deviancy) and ASPD than to tently high negative loadings on anxiety and may Factor I (aggressive narcissism or affective-interper. 1980). of whom the majority were the attitudes and predictable behaviors of antisocial girls. 113 2001.. Temporal reliability of this scale and female college students. Ben-Porath. and 4 were reworded. lost half its items. Scale 4. were. Hathaway. 2786) 2001). 1980. Dahlstrom admissibility as a scientific method or procedure et al.71 in normals (McKinley & PPI (essentially equivalent to Factor 1 and Factor 2 of Hathaway. Norms for the court uses the term reliable when it actually means revised scale show a drop of 10 T-score points for valid). These young adults had a long that relate to external aggressive tendencies (Butcher. Patrick. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. may have affected the subscales’ meanings. and better organized the content of Scale 4 into tive groups. 1944). The Harris and Lingoes (1955) Pd subscales help to further understand Scale 4 nuances The latter standard. 17–22) referred by the Minnesota courts to a psy. 172) is. tive-interpersonal and social deviance factors of the 1975). (Daubert v. and is more related to Factor II (chronic antisocial April. Greene. Although these subscales were does correlate with the more heterogeneous ASPD compromised and may be less adequate than they diagnosis. & Dahlstrom. Most criminal populations will show homo. anger (ANG). 1990). 1978. hypersensitivity. some state jurisdictions in the United States.49 to . The evaluator must always remember that if males and 5 T-score points for females. The Pd3 subscale.61 for intervals up to a year in and DISC both significantly correlated with the affec- this population (Dahlstrom. In the Sellbom et al. tially changed on the MMPI-2. moreover. Several texts are relevant for validation and (2005) study. and neuroticism (Greene. of course. compared to . and cynicism (CYN). Further. negative emotionality deviant response is answered ‘‘true’’ on 24 items. attitudes and antisocial behaviors. p. alcohol abuse. Friedman. The ASP content scale has two facets: antisocial quency. MMPI-2 Scale 4 alone should psychopathic personalities. Factor analysis has generally correlations with Factor 1 of the PPI. Nichols. geneity by elevating on this scale. There were no homicide offenses in the straint (DISC)—may also be useful in understanding histories of these subjects. impulse control. sure of what Nichols (personal communication. respectively). the PCL-R. & Webb. This mea- does not significantly correlate with PCL-R scores. They found that AGG ranges from . we still think they deserve clinical attention McKinley and Hathaway (1944) developed the since the MMPI-2 changes eliminated off scale items original MMPI Scale 4 by contrasting two norma. The MMPI-2 deletions never be used in isolation for determining the pre. married adults and college applicants. of which the introversion (INTR). and discon- forgery. Cross-validation indicated that a T-score of and psychopathic patients. delin. Several MMPI-2 content and component scales chiatric setting. applicable in all federal and (Caldwell. homogeneous subscales to aid in interpretation. 1944. truancy. however. Sup. it significantly correlated with the social GACONO AND MELOY 573 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:573 . sexual promiscuity. aggression (AGG). Scale 4 The Harris and Lingoes subscales were substan- (Pd). Ct. it cannot be valid. and fears (FRS) also had significant negative ‘‘false’’ on 26 items. Scale 4 is not measuring psychopathy. Graham. 2006. history of minor criminal behavior: stealing. yielded five factors: shyness. Certain scales measuring Scale 4 is composed of 50 items. 1975. Welsh. Lewak. & Graham (2005) examined var- 100 male federal prisoners (McKinley & ious MMPI-2 scales and subscales and their relation- Hathaway. The Pd scale. The 50 items is relevant to the case and scientifically valid (the remained. with a sample of female and male delinquents (ages Further research is necessary.

Whereas the data suggest that there is a positive The most useful MMPI typology for classifying relationship between elevations on MMPI and criminals was developed by Megargee and Bohn MMPI-2 Pd and the PCL-R. The Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales were and MMPI-2 Scale 4 scores were compared in two developed by Tellegen et al.20 . social imperturbability. 1983. ranges between . which we mentioned originally developed with the MMPI are quite earlier as a measure of guilt. Pearson product-moment correlations cant relationship to the affective-interpersonal factor between PCL-R scores and MMPI. 2000). who found that correlations (Megargee. puter-based software program (Megargee. 1993. 2006). authority pro- 10 neutrally worded types (Able. Most of these called demoralization. and instrumental Pd1 Family discord .07).619 inmates) and women (N ¼ 797 inmates) Hare (1991. This is consistent with similar to the findings with the MMPI-2.28 and . virtually nonexistent. the psychopath’s lack of guilt. Hutton. Baker. These findings also suggest that correlations offenders (Megargee.05 and . Nieberding et al. Hosford. 1991). the product moment (1979).17 .23 dates other research indicating that psychopaths are Pd4 Social alienation . The data are presented in Table 29. 2003). and pro. 1988. 2001). MMPI Scale 4. 2006a. are etc. In their original sample of 1. The classification system is available in a com. instrumental and reactive violent offenders were significantly different from nonviolent offenders on Scale 4.25. & Langfeldt.19 to . 1989. ASP. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF deviance factor of the PPI (0. self-alienation. The revised typology represents a substantial The Harris and Lingoes subscale correlations improvement.22 (Meloy. MMPI MMPI-2 The AGG scale was specifically designed to Pd . but had no signifi. & Moss. but increases slightly and provides both concurrent and predictive validity on the MMPI-2 version. although modest. Many of the dependent find. the ASP did demonstrate incremental validity for N = 40 N = 34 global indices of psychopathy in undergraduate stu- dents utilizing the PPI over and above Scale 4. 96% of the MMPI profiles could ranged from . are highest. self-blame. negative correlation between the PCL-R and the ings that emerged when the classification system was MMPI-2 Pd5.05 (one-directional test). b). dominance.10 (predatory) aggression (Nichols. 1983).214 between the MMPI Pd scale and the PCL-R federal inmates.. 2006a).). Charlie. In an earlier study. and classifies 95% of inmates across with the PCL-R indicate that Pd2. (2003) to improve samples of male subjects who had been found not the convergent and discriminant validity of the ori- guilty by reason of insanity and were committed to ginal Clinical Scales. point and 2-point profile interpretations for criminal 2003). Pd3 Social imperturbability . DiFrancesca & Factor I (interpersonal and affective deficiency). family discord.2.31 (Hare. & Schiller.21 . Hare. 2003).52). MMPI-2 Pd (–0. blems. is not significantly correlated.34* .2). measure of psychopathy. concerning his antisocial acts (Caldwell. All of these scales subjects were Caucasian males diagnosed with para- need further research with psychopathic subjects noid schizophrenia. and Pd1. and CYN.00 .2. psychiatric samples? The PCL-R.05 .10 more predatorily violent than other criminals Pd5 Self-alienation .20 measure grandiosity. do How do Scale 4 and its subscales contribute to a not appear to change between criminal and forensic clinical understanding of psychopathy in forensic psychiatric samples. Early due to the Pd scale’s measurement of Factor II of the research supported the typology’s concurrent PCL-R (chronic antisocial behavior) rather than validity (Booth & Howell. and may Pd2 Authority problems . Our findings are consistent with (N ¼ 2. Items were removed which an involuntary outpatient treatment program measured a common affect-laden construct they (Meloy. or remorse vide a superior interpretation system to the typical 1. and had committed a violent in prison utilizing the PCL-R as the independent crime. Lilienfeld (1996) found scores in samples of NGI acquittees.31* show promise as an important measure that vali. We think this is primarily be assigned to one of their 10 subtypes. Haroun. Most compelling is the data for each subtype.11 and Factor II tive validity (Louscher. Williams (2002) found that both Note:* p < . but questioned its predic. Factor I ranges between . The RC Scales are more 574 ASSESSING ANTISOCIAL AND PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:574 . Miner. Table 29. If Meloy. Pd3. and has been reformulated utilizing the correlations are modest and nonsignificant (as noted MMPI-2 in a large sample of incarcerated men in Table 29. between the PCL-R and Pd. the PCL-R factors are separately correlated with Pd. 1990).

Ds. 1997) for their interpretive genuine. 1999. form worse than the expected norms for neurologic Butcher. 1982. to the extensive work of both Butcher et al. 1991. The correlate with psychopathy (Hare. sence of neuropsychological impairment does not and F(p). a validated measure of sub. between the RC Scales and the mate of intelligence. with PCL-R scores—the RC scales in criminal clinicians are frequently called upon to assess mal- populations appear to be problematic as measures ingering when evaluating antisocial and psycho- of both psychopathology in general and antisocial pathic personalities.. Ciula. 2003). and may in fact be consistent criminal infrequency scale (Fc) which may prove with cognitive and emotional deficits already estab- to be helpful in identifying problematic profiles lished in research with psychopaths (Hare. and distortion should be assumed in all for. Sweeney & Richards. the MMPI-2 psychopathy.99. sample of male and female inmates. Randolph. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF homogeneous and less intercorrelated than the original Measures of Cognition and Intelligence Clinical Scales. The clinician is referred 2003). but attention must be paid to the personal responsibility. Megargee (2006b) has also developed a rule out psychopathy. Fb. and psychopathic sing psychopathy. Rogers (1988) and Rogers & Cruise (2000) for a Since response style should be considered more detailed discussion of assessing malingering. & tribute to their ‘‘disability’’ and perhaps avoidance of Watts. 1989). among criminal offenders. impairment than observed behavioral functioning ship between RC4 and psychopathy—again. & Williams. Nichols. Over half of Randolph. & Cuneo. Psychopathic malingerers will often per- Pd only ranged from . Padget. Dependent on the context of the emphasize that Pd has a nonsignificant relationship examination and nature of the referral question. Graham. 1988). (1989) Neuropsychological impairments that appear and Caldwell (1988. and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV or the when coupled with low scores on RC2 and RC7 Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test. however. An estimate MMPI-2 normative sample. RC4 correlations with AAS suggesting malingering because of their limited face ranged from . In a large analysis of multiple criminal Some neuropsychological tests are also useful for forensic samples. 1991. are subject to motivational factors. Sellbom et al. jects have yet to be consistently demonstrated stance abuse (. findings that are grossly inconsistent with what is although IQ has repeatedly been shown to not to known about psychopathology among inmates. First.82. (2005) found that RC4 Although not central to the assessment of person- and RC9 were optimal predictors of the social deviance ality. It appears that Scales L and F patients may quickly realize that decrements in their remain the most useful in classifying fake-bad and performance on neuropsychological tests will con- fake-good profiles (Timbrook. The reader is referred to behavior in particular. ropsychological instruments in the assessment of ensic evaluations (Meloy.74 and for Neuropsychological measures may provide useful female inmates was 53. and none of the RC of general intelligence provides a baseline for Scale scores reached clinical significance (T > 65): interpretive performance on other instruments. Gacono & Gacono. any measures of performance validity scales take on special importance when asses. but RC4 correlations with validity.61 (Rouse. we would suggest. they accounted for nearly all sing psychopathy. may warrant further neurobio- refinements concerning deviant responding to the logical workup with methods that eliminate motiva- MMPI-2.68 to . but instead Addiction between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic sub- Admission Scale (AAS). complete intelligence battery. TRIN. Second. Greene.78). Two points are most salient to the use of neu- 2008). the RC Scales also fell below the mean of the 1980. but gross differences for RC4 was not Pd. 1977) gives a reliable esti- dancy. was 0. a standardized measure of intelligence. (Ammons & Ammons. and Megargee (2006a). 1993). tional factors and measure brain structure or Nichols (2001). and the texts of Friedman et al. (purportedly measuring the affective-interpersonal should be incorporated into the battery when asses- factor of psychopathy). (Bannatyne et al.52. 2003). Keillor. In the absence of time to do a of the PPI variance predicted by the MMPI-2. mean RC4 score for male inmates was 55. moreover. 2008). The RC4 correlation with Scale 4 (Hare.51 to . the Quick Test Megargee (2006a) found considerable redun. function (these procedures could include magnetic GACONO AND MELOY 575 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:575 . They will also evidence more Although these data do not address the relation. 1991. (2001). such as factor of psychopathy among college students. and it has been validated in MMPI-2 content and PSY-5 scales in his large forensic settings (Husband & DeCato. or psychiatric patients. the genuine pre- relative configurations of VRIN. The highest correlation information to the clinician.

. and corollary the rigors of cross-examination (Gacono. A recent meta-analysis of 43 2001. The habitually violent criminal. the evaluator should treat the neurobiolo. In evalu- tality) problems are present. as well as data relevant to the manage- derers referred for neuromaging to various compar. refocusing the examiner on the facts of the (Yang. overstate the importance of the history and clinical Raine and his colleagues originally conducted a interview and their usefulness to validate. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF resonance imaging [MRI]. institutional miscon- broadly or discretely defined. 1997. or electroencephalography behavior relationships within psychopathy.. 2008. Integration of Findings gical test results due to malingering. Raine et al. 1998) which investigated differences in the support or refutation of developing clinical prefrontal cortical function when comparing mur. examiner before work begins on the case. one sexual murderer (PCL-R ¼ 37) produced generally invalid psycholo. & behaviors. role in the psychodiagnosis of psychopathy.’’ The tests we have emphasized—the PCL-R. date. and the MMPI-2—are central to under- logical trait of chronic cortical underarousal in the standing antisocial and psychopathic patients. he received an additional Axis I diagnosis Viglione. 1993). Meloy. such as behavior are not probative of criminal responsibility depression. test results relationship between neurobiology and criminal that address unstable emotional conditions. Raine. however. Perhaps the most difficult task of the psychologist nosed with both ASPD and NPD on Axis II. & LaCasse. Then again. neuroimaging studies of psychopathic. but provide directions for future retrospective hypothesis formulation. moreover. PCL-R is based on observed attitudes and docu- Research findings such as these extend the ori. antisocial. the including physiological measures that indicate a bio. functional MRI [fMRI]. 2005). predatory murderers. 1998). refers to as ‘‘habitually violent criminality. 2002). findings will also need to withstand midbrain. 2007). PCL- ginal work of Hare (1970) which found peripheral R total scores nomothetically inform conclusions autonomic hypo-reactivity to aversive stimuli among due to their correlations with risk for recidivism. psychopaths. mented behavior (history) of the individual. Meloy. explosive type Pope. Research interest is focusing in determining whether or not there is a mental upon the orbital-frontal area and middle gyrus of disease or defect. Again. and when comparing affective and (Gacono & Evans. 1994. 1997. Butcher. and then questions of responsi- the prefrontal cortex. Based on these findings. or invali- series of studies (Raine & Buchsbaum. but functional abnorm. positron emission but will eventually help us further understand brain– tomography [PET]. provide Buchsbaum. a diagnosis may be only the first step alities predominate. and poor treatment outcome. hypotheses.. Loving et al. moreover. to have an abnormal visual evoked procedures into an empirically accurate and theore- potential test using EEG technology and an tically consistent clinical picture of the patient abnormal PET scan indicating decreased metabolic (Gacono. [EEG] studies). He was is to integrate the findings from various assessment found. Hansen. contemporaneous and objective reference points for Raine et al. Rorschach. 2008). & Raine. refute certain states of mind in the perpetrator at Studies such as these which empirically support a the time of the criminal act.. In most research and the possible use of neuroimaging in cases. 1996. In forensic evaluations the specific psycholegal and criminal subjects indicated that both structural question(s) to be addressed should be clear to the (reduced gray matter) and functional (hypofron. Glenn. Raine (1993) has also reviewed and sonality disorder has the temporal stability to cast contributed to a substantial body of work that an illuminating light on the historical propensities strongly suggests biological loadings for what he of the individual. Until PCL-R item analysis is useful to understand specific that time. and suggest that biological measures. Test results. Combined with findings 576 ASSESSING ANTISOCIAL AND PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:576 . and was diag. In the case of the psychopath in a uptake in certain areas of his prefrontal cortex and forensic setting. will eventually play a duct. patchwork quilt that is just beginning to be woven. of organic personality syndrome. crime and any test findings that might support or ability for severe psychopathy (Viding et al. & Seelen. Evans. vulnerabilities to risk and areas to target for inter- gical findings concerning psychopaths as a large vention (Gacono. may be irrelevant to prospective or in any one case. including violent recidivism. There is a large effect size for bility or culpability are the next step in the causal the differences between such samples and normals chain. ating insanity. Gacono. computed tomography [CT]. test findings. psychopathy as a character or per- forensic cases. we cannot (DSM-III-R). For example. and a large herit. Idiographically. ment of psychopathic patients in an institution ison groups. 2008. & Weiner.

The Quick Test: Provisional and management of these patients. not establishing it (see Friedman standing that is at once broader and more mean. 111–161 (Originally published 1962). MMPI-2 indicates a Pd2 (authority problems) 2000). tical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Although the majority of compares these findings with his clinical interview MMPI Clinical Scales were developed by extracting items with the patient and recalls his countertransferential endorsed differentially by psychiatric patients belonging to feelings of anxiety as the patient aggressively ques. independent battery. as informing diagnosis. et al. C. Diagnostic and statis- always linked to a psycholegal issue or forensic treat. (1999).). DC: Author. with considerably Taken together. which is further 3. Diagnostic and sta- tistical manual of mental disorders. is best suited Bannatyne. employment records indicates several incidents of 4. tical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Washington. the replacement of allow for a more incisive and individualized under.. sociopathy included (which measures conscious self-report of psycho. manual of mental disorders (2nd ed. however. 11(I–VII). Washington. 1952). OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF from the Rorschach (which accesses personality Notes structure and functioning) and the MMPI-2 1. providing insight into one of the with younger patients. is S > 2 (H: chronic anger). 55. Journal of Clinical Psychology. a variety of conditions such as sexual deviation. While only the antisocial reaction was similar to traditional conceptualizations vide both discriminant and convergent data and of psychopathy (Jenkins. Appearing in the first DSM (APA. The CFIS (Gacono. DC: pathic personalities is a complex task that involves Author. trained clinical psychologist... The and FC:CF þ C of 1:4. distinct diagnostic groups.. M. R. lack of realistic or long-term goals. ‘‘Sociopathy’’ with ASPD in DSM-II (APA. Diagnostic and statistical neation. these approaches to understanding greater assessment information. subsequent increased focus on behavioral criteria widened the For example. Clinical personality assessment: historical and contemporaneous data. (2002). (1968). purchase multiple forms (use with PCL-R and PCL:SV). Item 13. Kosson. Washington. It is the culmination of inference building (both convergent and divergent findings) across the three primary References Acklin. Rev. pathology and its distortion). & Bodin. where an assessment is almost American Psychiatric Association. Gacono. Forth. American Psychiatric Association. 1995) is diagnostically useful as a screening instru- long sought after military record also indicates a ment. it is equally important to remember Author. forensic. both nomothetic comparison and idiographic deli. pp. L. reasons for frequent job changes. it is most appropriately used in acute care settings and should not be utilized by itself in forensic evaluations less than honorable discharge. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statis- that these disorders may also appear in any health. a patient is scored 2 on the PCL-R gap between ASPD and psychopathy. The forensically manual. The clinical assessment of antisocial and psycho. Differential to assess psychopathy. The evaluator then due to its high false-positive rate. The psychopathic traits in children (Frick. 13–23). Barry. alcoholism. It links data to individual records. DC: ment planning. health settings. care practice and require nonforensically oriented DC: Author. and ‘‘dyssocial’’ and ‘‘antisocial’’ reactions. thus. the correspondence between tioned his credentials before the interview began. A look at the et al. While it is most frequently needed in crim. 1968) and the standing of antisocial and psychopathic patients.99 (H: a tailored to individual evaluations. clinicians to have some familiarity with the detection Ammons.). these instruments pro. In J. American Psychiatric Association.. (1994). and research settings. C. (2000). & Ammons. Butcher (Ed. New York: results. inal forensic settings. (1977). and Hare (2003) have developed a Psychopathy Checklist Youth version (PCL:YV) and Paul arrived at on the basis of a series of frequent job Frick and others have developed instruments for assessing changes in the subject’s employment record. R. Psychological Reports Monograph Supplement. item-by-item approach to problem solving). Further study of the author developed this semistructured interview. 1960). The first emotional explosiveness). Clinical Scale elevations and formal diagnosis was found to be less than originally promised. 2005) facilitates a rapid accumulation of PCL:SV and PCL-R data similar to the format of other semi- confirmed through the subpoena of employer structured interview schedules. These instruments show promise of applied usage T-score of 75. (1952).). partially 2. and eliminates the need to simple. Hathaway & McKinley. GACONO AND MELOY 577 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:577 . Lambda > . 1943). and test Practical approaches (2nd ed.. with two Pure C responses CFIS reduces administration time by a third to a half of what is accomplished with the existing PCL-R schedule and is appro- (H: unmodulated affect with a marked propensity to priate for clinical. Washington. How to select personality tests for a test sources of data: the clinical interview. a task that historically has patterns of responding among three groups of chronic psy- been overlooked or avoided in traditional mental chotic forensic outpatients.. 2001. While the Psychopathy Checklist-Screening version (Hart angry outbursts toward employers. The Rorschach is scrutinized and yields items. allows for an easy check of inter-rater reliability. the MMPI-2 can be seen this hypothetical patient provide clinical under. & Greene. Oxford University Press. ingful than the yield from any one test. 1553–1565. ).

A. C. Frick. Nichols. B. Minneapolis. C.). R. Kaemmer. Gacono. A. Kissen (Ed. H. The clinical Gacono. pp. Gacono. II: Research applications (Rev. (2008).. D. R. (2006). D. (2008). & Howell. Welsh. Mahwah. The clinical and forensic assessment of Butcher. S. C. (2002). C. & L. N. Practice. NJ: The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. Journal of Personality Assessment. Mahwah. F. 54. J. B. New York: Multi-Health Systems.). J.. Evans. & Evans. and psychopathy in a group of antisocial offenders Booth.. V. Washington. B. C. Bodholdt. Mosby (pp. MN: University of Minnesota Press. & psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp.. & L. J. In J. Journal of Personality Assessment. (1975). handbook. Classification of prison inmates (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. & Gacono. 143–171). (2001). Personality Assessment. (1989). Mahwah. & Bodin. (2008). Graham.. In C. J. A. 1: Rorschach assessment (pp. C. Mahwah. J.. New York: John Wiley & Sons. The psychopathy to children: Implications for the assessment of Rorschach and antisocial personality disorder. A Rorschach under.. 407–422. Evans. 33–53. (1986). and profiles. B. (1983). B. Los Angeles: Caldwell Report.).). New York: John evaluating the research on psychopathy. New York: Oxford University Press. International University. N. In C. Evans.. 3–24). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. A. pathy: A practitioner’s guide. & Webb.. R. B. Some caveats for Basic foundations of interpretation (4th ed. Clinical forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide personality assessment: Practical approaches (2nd ed. 361–378). Reliability and pre. Butcher (Ed. (2000c). New York: of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. S. B.. (2000b). In C. MMPI supplemental scale manual. B. J. 76–95). Gacono (Eds. The Rorschach: A comprehensive system.. (2005). 409–421). M. 42. Forensic questions and answers on the MMPI-2. Mahwah. Mahwah.. G. G. 3–20). 7–9. (2001). of the psychopathy checklists in forensic and clinical practice. & Bodholdt. B. Vol. C. T. L. The clinical and clients in pretreatment planning. (2000a). In C. Gacono. B. In M. Kaser-Boyd. L. & Arnow. NJ: psychopathy in adults: The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Lawrence Erlbaum. Journal of Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in risk assessment. 1. 52. 396–403. The Psychopathy The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. In John Wiley & Sons. interview schedule. B. (2002). scoring. 1–10. (1990). 2: Advanced interpretation (3rd ed. C. In C. N. 421–444). Some considerations for system. D. & Gacono.. Kaser-Boyd. C. Mahwah. C. Item content in the interpretation of the Revised (PCL-R) and Rorschach in treatment planning with MMPI-2. Journal of Forensic Psychology borderline defenses: A Rorschach analysis. & Holaway. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Journal chopathology: A case of negligible influence. xi–xix). C. J. (1988). Vol. Friedman. (1976). An object relations view of the psychodiagnostic testing. defensive operations in antisocial personality disorder. Gacono.. The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment. Dahlstrom. R. Mahwah. Gacono (Ed. forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide Cleckley. & Gacono. How to assess antisocial youth. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Erlbaum. & L. investigation of the ‘‘How’’ and ‘‘Charlie’’ MMPI subtypes. & Evans. Introduction to a special series: Forensic Cooper. Gacono. Kaser-Boyd. 2. (1989). Gacono. Clinical personality assessment: antisocial personality disordered patients. B.. Journal of Threat Assessment. (2008). Assessing object relations phenomena (pp. In C.. (1993). to the study of defense mechanisms: I. B.). B.. D...) (2006). Kaser-Boyd. 2. B. Gacono (Ed. The Rorschach: A comprehensive Gacono. P. 319–334). and Screening version. (1988). standing of antisocial and psychopathic women. A. & Gacono. D. Minneapolis. B. C. ed. Tellegen. & Viglione. MMPI-2: The practitioner’s handbook. Gacono (Eds.. (2000). R. A comparative clinical in forensic practice.. J. (Ed.). B. A Rorschach analysis of object relations and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide and defensive structure and their relationship to narcissism (pp. (2003). pp. Lewak. C. An empirical approach version. Essential issues in Exner. Kaser-Boyd. Forth. Gacono. of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. Appendix A: PCL-R clinical and forensic Caldwell. Gacono (Eds. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cunliffe.. Mahwah. (2000). International Journal Practical approaches (2nd ed.).. C. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Applying the concept of Gacono. Kosson.. (1988). St Louis: C. An empirical study of object relations and Butcher. In 578 ASSESSING ANTISOCIAL AND PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:578 .). S. New York: the Rorschach assessment of forensic psychiatric patients. 52. G. The clinical and forensic assessment of psycho- Caldwell. Gacono. The handbook of forensic Exner. for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Revised and Screening Cooper. H. Mahwah.. B. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. L. 1. The handbook C. (2002). Gacono. R. Gacono. Gacono.. Checklist: Youth version. The clinical and forensic interview schedule CT: International Universities Press. Evans. 187–203. B. Mahwah. & L. Richards. 55–86). R.. Evans. K. Problems with brief Rorschach protocols. (2003). Gacono (Ed. The mask of sanity. J. Exner. Barry C.Assessing Psychological assessment with the MMPI-2.). C. B. & Dahlstrom. (pp. (1998). The Rorschach DiFrancesca. B... L. Lawrence Erlbaum. R. L. A.). Vol. B. (2008). OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF Beutler. Preface. MMPI-2 manual for administration and NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gacono. A. B. 175–202). C. In J. The role of the liminary validity of the Rorschach defense scales. C. The Correctional Wiley & Sons. C. (1997). An MMPI (2008). B. Gacono (Ed. 3. B. N. J. B. D.. B. B. Vol... & Arnow. Gacono (Eds. 49–64.). Education level and MMPI-2 measured psy.. L. & Viglione. A.. DC: American Psychological Association. 589–600. P. B. United States with the MMPI: An extension and validation of the typology. C. San Diego. Dahlstrom. Perry. 1: Gacono.. (2002). MMPI-2 news of Personality Assessment. Evans. Gacono. CA). & Hare.. 65–79. J. In B. (1988). (1990). 38. (2005). Evans. Butcher (Ed. Psychologist. the forensic use of the Rorschach. & Meloy. Suggestions for implementation and use Butcher.). B. N. 640–647. MN: University of Minnesota Press. 53.). 7. Exner. Criminal Justice and Behavior. The clinical and Los Angeles: Caldwell Report. (Originally published 1941).). J. Gacono. A. Madison. Gacono. Mahwah.. Oxford University Press.. Harwood.). Gacono. The use of the Psychopathy Checklist- Butcher.. & Gacono. & Erdberg. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gacono. NJ: Lawrence Interpretation (3rd ed.

L. J. Use of the Graham. (1960). B. Miner. In J. of attachment and anxiety in antisocial personality disorder. Van Dusen & Gacono. R. D. Gacono.. Lawrence Erlbaum. & Bridges. (1994). J. Sheppard. & McKinley. Treating adult and juvenile offenders with special needs (pp. B. B. R. (1991). C. (1978). Hare. 179. & Heaven.). C. 270–279... 43. (1994).. (PCL-R). 387–397..). In J.). Evans. (1992).. sexual homicide with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale as measures of intel- perpetrators. ON: Multi-Health Systems.. Kaser-Boyd. (2002). & Lerner. B. 211–232). tive defenses in borderline personality structure. S. psychopathy checklist-revised: PCL-R testimony and forensic Hare. D. Lerner. Borderline 99–129). & Forth. Ganellan.. Evans. Ganellan. The MMPI: A practical guide. 89–120). J. 23. Object relations. 303–317. R. J. and nonviolent pedophiles. R. New York: Gacono. B. R. B. Mahwah.. B. interpersonal rela- Gacono.. R. J. psychopath: Some preliminary data.. (2008). MN: Psychology. C. 50. Gacono. Harris. C. lectual functioning in a prison clinical setting. CT: Yale University Press. Evans. borderline personalities.. 35–50. (2001). B. D. 323–360). Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Attempting to conceal psychological distur. Sales. Mahwah. H. A Health Systems. (1955). Gacono (Eds. Journal of Clinical phasic personality inventory manual. Bulletin of the Menninger Bodholdt. Meloy. Evans.. & L. S. investigation of narcissism and hysteria in antisocial person. B.. In C. & Langfeldt. Manual for the Psychopathy Personality Assessment. R. Meloy. B. 56. Gacono (Eds. Kaser- Mahwah. A.. R. sexual homicide per. (1980). Journal of Consulting and aggressive and psychopathic personalities. R. Hare. & Meloy. Hillsdale. and the Rorschach test. Rorschach comparison of psychopaths. NJ: Hutton. N. R. pathy in hospitalized insanity acquittees.. Journal of the American Academy NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gacono. Evans. R. J.. R. Checklist: Screening version (PCL:SV). Subscales for the MMPI: An aid Gacono. (1991). R. New York: Rorschach in forensic treatment planning. 63.. The Rorschach John Wiley & Sons. Washington. Gacono (Eds. the research findings.. 757–777.). Meloy.. (1992). The handbook Greene. New York: Association. C. Journal of Personality Assessment. ders with conduct-disorder. 48. Lerner. Lerner. 393–405. C. The handbook of forensic Rorschach Gacono. (1980). NJ: Clinical Psychology. C. Criminal history of the male practice. D. & Hare. Jumes. (1970). Hare. 2. bor. J. M. (1982). (1988). A. (1984).. The MMPI: An interpretive manual. 7. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. and psychopathy: Toward a more accurate understanding of Hare. Assessing American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. J. (2008).. Psychological B. Mahwah. Loving. S. J. Severe personality disorders. H.. 710–714. Rubel. Primitive interpersonal modes. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice.). A Rorschach investigation S. Kwawer...). Minneapolis. The minnesota multi- petrators.). & L. Treating juvenile and adult offen. (1995). Boyd. Journal of Personality Assessment. J. M. (1995). Manual for the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Gacono. Prospective studies of crime and delinquency. (2008). & McPherson. Kaser-Boyd. 515–524. (2007). J. (1994). O. 379–402). Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. R. B. In C. A clinical investigation of malingering and psycho. B. B.. M. (1997). Oxford University Press. H. 546–552. R. 547–550. B.. A. B.. 11–32. Borderline phenomena. (1993). phenomena and Rorschach content. R.). & Roske. C. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF C. and antisocial personality disorder. Male psycho- Gacono. B. Violent and aggressive Gacono. R. & Grey. & Jutai. of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 17. Psychopathy: Theory and research. R. C.). J. & L. (2000). The clinical and forensic assessment of Above the law: Escapees from maximum security forensic psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. Kernberg. and nonviolent pedophiles.. Borderline GACONO AND MELOY 579 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:579 . T. Jenkins. Cox. 56. hospital and psychopathy. antisocial. A Rorschach Journal of Personality Assessment. Sugarman (Eds.. J. Boston: Kluner Mijhoff. Gacono (Eds. 32–49.. Suggestions for the clinical assessment (pp. Erlbaum. C. N. & Meloy. (2001). expanding roles. In C. L. C. A Husband. R. and affective states in narcissistic. & Bodholdt. J. DC: American Psychological phenomena and the Rorschach test (pp. Goldstein. N. Journal of Hart. C. derline. A. J.. In C. NJ: York: Grune & Stratton. & Jumes.. Speth. S. 423–437. (1943). Rorschach assessment of paths and their criminal careers. & Lingoes.. Meloy. R.). Kwawer. Rorschach assessment of malingering and The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. & Hutton. T. 25. & A. & A. & Meloy.. R. C. & L. Forensic psychology: Emerging topics. & Bodholdt. & Bridges. Mednick (Eds. New of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. N. R. 318–334. The (2nd ed. K.. Gacono. Reid (Eds. J. & tions. University of Minnesota Press. B. C. Manual for the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. A. Journal of Personality Assessment. (1979). 572–587.). S. University defensive operations. Mahwah. Kaser-Boyd. Bulletin of the Kosson. 89–109). psychopathy: interpersonal aspects and clinical interviewing. Speth. New Haven. P. (1990). ality disorder. The Quick Test compared Rorschach understanding of psychopaths. ON: Multi- Gacono. International Journal of DSM-III-R antisocial personality: A tribute to Robert Law and Psychiatry. B. R. & Roske. 16–38.New York: John Wiley & Sons... Toronto. The Rorschach and the behavior by criminal psychopaths. D. to profile interpretation (Unpublished manuscript.. & DeCato. Lindner. R. R. Gacono. Journal of Clinical Psychology. P. C. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 55.. In J. H.. The handbook Reports. & W. R. M. Megargee–Bohn typology in a forensic psychiatric hospital. Hathaway. of Psychiatry and the Law. Gacono. Toronto. V. 60. ON: Multi-Health Systems. B. D. Loving. Lerner. (1984). 203–230). Owen. McPherson. 167–170.. Meloy. of California). Gacono. and psychopathic Kwawer. & Berg. (1980). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and forensic use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Publishers. Rorschach assessment of primi- bance: MMPI defensive response sets and the Rorschach. Gacono. The psychopathic or antisocial personality. Kwawer.. Gacono. Clinic. R. International Universities Press. 77(1). D. M. R. J. Ashford. J. C. (Ed. Gacono. J. H. P. defensive response sets. (2003). The utility of the Lawrence Erlbaum.. Hare. In K. C. D. Lerner. (2000). 131. Meloy. Nieberding. 59. Gacono (Ed. Sugarman (Eds. (1983). Toronto.

CA: Sage. Washington. R. 59. Butcher. C. Padget. Biological Psychiatry. Meloy. Louscher. J. & Kinder. Gacono maximum security therapeutic community for psychopaths (Ed. Gabbard’s treatments of psychiatric disorders (4th ed. DC: American Psychiatric Press. and other mentally disordered offenders. Behavioral In C.. MMPI-2: The practitioner’s and MMPI-A in court. (1992). Rice. J. G. L. 231–250). B. 327–460).. Journal of Clinical Psychology. M. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pope. Buchsbaum.. (1993). Psychological Assessment.. The susceptibility of the correctional settings: An empirical approach. S. A. (1990). New York: Meloy. Australian and New Zealand frontal glucose metabolism in murderers. 1–17). M. 1175–1178. (2000). Haroun. NJ: The graphy. & LaCasse. Journal Lilienfeld. Stanley. B. Violent Megargee. Lottenberg. J. (2000). C... J. Cairns (Eds. A.. Mulvey. Hillsdale. Butcher (Ed. K. J. MN: Pearson/NCS Patrick. Randolph.. (1993). (1988). (1990). M. (2001). Assessment. B. Pirie. and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide Nichols. 495–508. Meloy. 399–412. A. 323–344). alities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomo- Meloy. hypomania. & Kenney.. J. (1994).. V. Bannatyne. The MMPI-2 antisocial practices content scale: Assessment. (1983). A. Toward a rejuvenation of gerous behavior in a penitentiary using the Megargee risk assessment research. P. Academic Press. Ciula. Bihrle. Guilford Press. T..) (2006). Raine. R.. R. 53–62. & Cuneo. In R. 269–284. Hosford. Cooper. Washington. M. Washington. & Moss. J. Northvale. Gacono (Ed. Classifying criminal offenders. 10. (2007). Harris. 104–114.. dynamics.. 62. The Minnesota Multiphasic study. American Psychological Association. 42. Viglione. R. Meloy. & Gacono. C. B. Rorschach testimony. J. Biological Journal of Psychiatry.. & Hathaway. E. NJ: Jason Aronson. J. C. 8. M. Behavioral Megargee. E. Authority of the Deviate Scale. Psychological Association. R. New York: Assessments.. Behavior. Stoff & R. (1997). (1998). (2008). 40. Monahan. Personality Inventory V. Journal of MN: University of Minnesota Press. D.. Psychological Reports. Empirical basis and forensic application of L. E. J. 66. 81–90. 153–174. NJ: Aronson.. Gacono. 28. Megargee. B... N. J. et al. T. B. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 54. The clinical Oxford University Press. & Schiller. Personality Assessment. 319–332. (2001). (1996). Analytic Press... 365–373. MMPI-2. forensic psychiatric outpatients: An exploratory cluster analytic McKinley. FL: Professional Personality Assessment. Retrospective comparison of Quick Test IQs of new Meloy. (2006b). 221–235. Minneapolis. Appelbaum. Journal of Personality Lilienfeld. 79–87). The forensic interview.. Antisocial personality disorder. & Ogloff.. (2006a). J.. Rorschach: Legal citations during the past fifty years. (1994). Raine. P. Meloy. DC: Beverley Hills. Meloy. Assessing psychopathy: Rice. psychopaths in a therapeutic community program. J. 58–67. Clinical Psychology. The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp.. P. Criminal Justice and Behavior. & Cormier. (2006). Meloy.. C.). D. & Buchsbaum. of Personality Assessment. Raine. MMPI-2 based classification of Journal of Personality Assessment. S. R. H. 36. Psychiatry. 48. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. tomography in predatory and affective murderers. A. 16. L. Violence and mental disorders: Developments in risk assessment Loving. R. ging. R. E. S. & Steadman. & Andrews... D. pp. LaCasse. J. E. Law and Human tioner’s guide (pp. & Greenwood.. L. Resource Exchange.). Handbook of psychopathy. Essentials of MMPI-2 assessment. M. CA: and treatment. 539–547. security mental hospital.. J. 907–920. (1989). Predicting dan. Buchsbaum. J. and Law. J.. Journal of Psychiatry Mahwah. tings. S. 47–57. In C. J. 257–274). Treating criminal deviate. J. psychopathic juvenile offenders.. E. minary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic Meloy. DC: American handbook (pp. Meloy. (1998). analysis of admissibility using legal and professional standards. Clinical guidelines personality traits in noncriminal populations. Brain abnorm- Meloy.. Monahan & H. McCann.. (2000). Hysteria. J. Using MMPI-2 in criminal justice and Perry. & Gacono. Northvale. R. The aggression response admissions and a random sample of patients in a maximum and the Rorschach. The psychopathic mind: Origins. NJ: Erlbaum. Quinsey.. J. Gacono (Eds. 125–144. Stoddard. Wong. Kaser-Boyd. Steadman. & (Ed. S. et al.) Sciences and the Law. Northvale. R. C. Rorschach to malingering: A critical review. & Weiner. 126–142. Gabbard Raine. (2000). investigation of sexual homicide. In J. 8.). 19. Sarasota. J. 580 ASSESSING ANTISOCIAL AND PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:580 .). In G. Steadman (Eds. B. R.. (2001). approaches to clinical aggression research (pp. J. Journal of Personality Monahan. C. S.. Randolph. & Stoddard. W. correctional report for men. (1992). In J. R. and psychopathic Ogloff. Megargee. Raine. D. A. R. Silver.). C. Gacono.. Harris. Buchsbaum.. & L.. In C.. (1980). J. The authority of the Rorschach: An update. L.. (1944). (2003). T. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. Robbins. Minneapolis. 70. 69. In D. B. I. Neurobiological NJ: Jason Aronson. R. J. (1996). M.. A Rorschach International Universities Press. J. The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practi.). The mark of Cain. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press... (1998).. G. C. John Wiley & Sons. Mahwah. M. R. R. (1996).. DC: American Psychological Association. 46. The MMPI.. Legal and ethical issues in MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. (1994). Defending the Rorschach in court: An Nieberding. 488–534. Selective reductions in pre- affective and predatory violence. S. (Ed.. The psychopathology of crime. Craig (Ed.. 139–174). (1992). H. User’s guide: MMPI-2 criminal justice and Sciences and the Law.. E.. B. A. Gacono. Washington. (1979). B. & Bohn. Journal of for involuntary outpatient treatment. N. Violence and brain ima- Clinical and diagnostic interviewing (pp. Abel. Reduced prefrontal and increased 775–790). typology. 281–293. 16. (1997). OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF phenomena and the Rorschach test (pp. Evans. Violent attachments. (1990). San Diego. subcortical brain functioning assessed using positron emission Meloy. & Cormier. Rethinking risk assessment: The Lyon. Mahwah. (1991). Development and preli. G. & Russell.). Use of the MMPI-2 in correctional set.. An evaluation of a Psychological testing and report writing. Construct validity and comparison with the Psychopathic Meloy. & Seelen. 75. Mahwah. B. New York: (pp. Hansen. 195–218).. Selected Rorschach variables of (pp. offenders: Appraising and managing risk. New York: psychopathy assessment..

Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Psychological Assessment. The handbook of forensic among psychopaths. M. Child custody litigants: Rorschach data from a large Erlbaum. J. (1995). 53. M. March).. Assessing psychopathic personality traits Weiner. pp. Gacono. 313–332). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Mahwah. Criminal psychopaths and their victims. B. Graham. D. In C.. personality assessments. C. N. (2007). Moffitt.. Mahwah. Gacono (Ed. Hare. Malingering and deception N... & L. Butcher (Ed. 435–442. R. Gacono. assessment (pp. M. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. NJ: Lawrence MMPI-2 profiles. for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year olds. MN: University of Minnesota Press. S. E. J. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 592–597. Lee. & Raine. A. C. New Orleans. NJ: Lawrence (2008). Canadian Journal of Paper presented at the midwinter meeting of the Society for Behavioral Science. The handbook of forensic Rorschach Singer. The clinical and Rorschach assessment Mahwah. Rorschach Inkblot method. L. A. Kaser-Boyd. 121–137). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive parison of psychopathic and nonpsychopathic conduct disor. The incarcerated psychopathy in psychiatric treatment: Timbrook. Graham. (1942). A. Justice. 90. Evans. Yang. R. Scales: Development. R. Y.). GACONO AND MELOY 581 9780195366877_0567-0581_Butcher_XHP_ch29 25/3/2009 18:11 Page:581 .. Kaser-Boyd. Arbisi. Kaser-Boyd.. Ben-Porath. G.. New York: The Guildford Press. L. Management or treatment? In C. MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Sciences and the Law. P. The Quick Test. Some observations on the validity of the (pp. (2008). Y. In C. A Rorschach com. Greene. 8. P. Erlbaum. T. 19. Journal of Personality Assessment. (2002). N. (2005). 46.. & Kaufman. C. Gacono (Eds.. Smith. Gacono. New York: Grune & 206–213. Exner. Graham. OUP s UNCORRECTED PROOF Robins. Psychodiagnostics. Blair. cultural bias. Y. Personality Assessment. J. N. (1996). B. 126–134). A. 422–424. & Gacono.. L. I. In C.. S. Mahwah. Nichols. D. J.. S. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Louisville. S. McNulty. S..). Erdberg. Baltimore. Gacono (Ed. & L. 445–464). I. D. 85. & New York: Oxford University Press. Weiner.. Sellbom. R. 269–284). Keillor. H. In C. Behavioral & Kraemmer. Evans.. and interpretation. J. D... 5. A. M.). 454–462. Young. D. J.. Gacono (Eds.. Viglione. WAIS and the WAIS-R: Normative data.). Rogers. KY: Spalding Sweeney. C. Ben-Porath. (1998). B. & Wong. Is the Rorschach Gacono (Eds. (1988. I.. K. I. Gacono. 53–61. Violence: psychometric properties in a forensic psychiatric population. The Comparison of the Wiener–Harmon subtle-obvious scales clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practi- and the standard validity scales in detecting valid and invalid tioner’s guide (pp.. mony. C. Lilienfeld. the University). B.. sample. 65–84.. & Sciara. Glenn. & Williams. (2000). and Williamson. & 334–343.). What do the MMPI-2 restructured clinical scales Weiner. J.. B.. & Plomin. (pp. Rouse. Mahwah. Minneapolis. (2005). violent offenders using MMPI-2 scales as predictors dered adolescents. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. J.. & Meyer. R.. N. (2008). (2002). R. Rogers. Brain abnormalities in Tellegen. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Principles of Rorschach interpretation. Clinical personality Journal of Personality Assessment. assessment: Practical approaches (2nd ed.. Williams. How to anticipate ethical and legal challenges in reliably measure? Answers from multiple research settings. Patrick. Olesen.. 26.. Butcher. R... MD: Viding. (2003). validation. Mahwah. In J. Psychological Assessment.. (1987). Weiner. The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment welcome in the courtroom? Journal of Personality Assessment. 289–300. forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide Weiner.). J. Deviant children grownup. B. (1988). antisocial individuals: Implications for the law. (2000). & Walters. (2008). Rorschach. Hoppe.. & Watts.. Evans. H.. Presenting and defending Rorschach testi- with the MMPI-2. & Richards. Stratton.. Evidence Williams & Wilkins. (1993). (1966). (1996). & Cruise. 67. I.