Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:28:56.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Author's response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Adrian Feeney*
Affiliation:
Blackberry Hill, Stapleton, Bristol BS16 1ED, UK. Tel: 0117 958 3678; fax: 0117 958 5477; e-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Correspondence
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2003 

Assessment for the PCL–R without interview is indeed not standard procedure, but may be done if interview is impossible. Such file-only assessments affect the scoring of interpersonal/affective items, leading to overestimates of low scores and underestimates of high scores (Reference WongWong, 1988). The DSM–IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder are based on observable behaviours (irresponsibility and delinquency), whereas the PCL–R considers not only behaviour, but also the interpersonal and affective symptoms (callousness, grandiosity and deceitfulness). There is a subgroup (approximately 10%) of those who reach the threshold of 30 on the PCL–R who do not fulfil the DSM–IV antisocial personality criteria on the basis of observed behaviours only. This group is generally made up of ‘white collar’ criminals (R. Hare, personal communication, 2003). Most Hare psychopaths do meet the criteria for DSM–IV antisocial personality disorder, but most offenders with antisocial personality disorder do not score greater than 30 on the PCL–R (Reference Hare, Clark and GrannHare et al, 2000).

Regarding Dr Al-Adwani’s third point, I take issue with this use of the acronym DSPD. ‘DSPD’ does not fulfil the criteria for a diagnostic entity, rather it is the name of a programme. The present interpretation of the treatability clause in the Mental Health Act 1983 has left the psychiatric profession open to criticism that it has abandoned those with severe personality disorder who prove difficult to engage. Arguably this was the basis on which the present DSPD proposals were drawn up. The recent Government guidance proposed that personality disorder should be seen as core work of mental health teams (National Institute for Mental Health in England & Department of Health, 2003). Adequately resourced, this is an admirable aim. Furthermore, it appears likely that the treatability clause will be omitted in the forthcoming Mental Health Bill. However, psychiatrists should not be involved in the detention of the unconvicted purely on the grounds of perceived risk to the public.

References

Hare, R., Clark, D., Grann, M. et al (2000) Psychopathy and the predictive validity of the PCL–R: an international perspective. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 18, 623645.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Mental Health in England & Department of Health (2003) Personality Disorder: No Longer a Diagnosis of Exclusion. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Wong, S. (1988) Is Hare's Psychopathy Checklist reliable without the interview? Psychological Reports, 62, 931934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.