The current study examined the relationship between psychopathic traits, emotional intelligence, and professional success in finance. The literature suggests that possessing certain psychopathic personality traits and emotional intelligence can be conducive to advancing professionally in the financial sector. It was hypothesized that interpersonalaffective psychopathic traits and emotional intelligence would be associated with one another and would also show positive associations with professional success. Fifty-five individuals employed at financial institutions in the New York metropolitan area completed the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, and answered questions about their employment and income. The current sample showed significantly higher levels of interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits than those reported in other community samples and significantly lower levels of emotional intelligence than those found in a comparison sample. Although interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits were not significantly related to emotional intelligence, impulsivebehavioral traits were negatively related to emotional intelligence. Interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits were related to higher annual incomes and were predictive of higher corporate ranks.

No abstract

Techniques to assess violence risk are increasingly common, but no systematic approach exists to help clinicians decide which psychiatric patients are most in need of a violence risk assessment. The Fordham Risk Screening Tool (FRST) was designed to fill this void, providing a structured, systematic approach to screening psychiatric patients and determining the need for further, more thorough violence risk assessment. The FRST was administered to a sample of 210 consecutive admissions to the civil psychiatric units of an urban medical center, 159 of whom were subsequently evaluated using the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, version 3, to determine violence risk. The FRST showed a high degree of sensitivity (93%) in identifying patients subsequently deemed to be at high risk for violence (based on the Case Prioritization risk rating). The FRST also identified all of the patients (100%) rated high in potential for severe violence (based on the Serious Physical Harm Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, version 3, summary risk rating). Sensitivity was more modest when individuals rated as moderate risk were included as the criterion (rather than only those identified as high risk). Specificity was also moderate, screening out approximately half of all participants as not needing further risk assessment. A systematic approach to risk screening is clearly needed to prioritize psychiatric admissions for thorough risk assessment, and the FRST appears to be a potentially valuable step in that process. (PsycINFO Database Record

This study provides both a structural analysis of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management–20 (HCR-20) Version 3 and an examination of the correspondence between the HCR-20 Versions 2 and 3. HCR-20 Versions 2 and 3 risk ratings were completed for 64 psychiatric inpatients. Moderate to good interrater reliability was observed for the Version 3 subscales and summary risk ratings. Subscale scores and summary risk ratings on the Version 2 were significantly correlated with the corresponding scales and indices on the Version 3, although correlations were stronger when ratings were completed by the same rater as opposed to different raters. Version 3 items corresponding to Violence, Violent Attitudes, Violent Ideation or Intent, and Insight were the strongest predictors of the summary risk ratings, although some differences emerged when risk factor presence ratings were weighted by relevance ratings. The implications of these findings for risk assessment practice are discussed.

No abstract