The Taxonic Latent Structure and Taxometrics in Forensic Mental Health

Abstract

Recently, researchers in the field of forensic mental health have attempted to address the technical, empirical question of whether important clinical problems, such as psychopathy or malingering, constitute taxa (i.e., discrete conditions). In this paper, we provide a detailed elucidation of the foundational logic of the quantitative methods employed to answer this question, focusing on the taxometric procedures developed by Paul Meehl and colleagues. We attempt to demonstrate that research on taxonicity is hampered by (a) researchers' unfamiliarity with or misunderstanding of the logic underlying latent variable technologies and (b) the fundamental incapacity of Meehlian procedures to provide a test of taxonicity. We conclude by discussing the utility of taxometric procedures to research in forensic mental health and, more broadly, in the field of applied psychological measurement.

How much does that cost? Examining the economic costs of crime in North America attributable to people with psychopathic personality disorder.

“…Psychopathy is often conceptualized as a dimensional construct (Maraun & Hart, 2016; Sellbom & Drislane, 2021); however, in clinical practice and field settings, categorical classifications (i.e., PPD vs. non-PPD) are used, often based on a PCL-R cutoff score of approximately 30 (Hare, 2003). From this categorical perspective, the prevalence of PPD has been crudely estimated at approximately 1% of the general population (Blair et al, 2005; Hare, 1991).…”