Psych 101: The Case Against the Hare Psychopath Checklist

"The Psychopathy Checklist, previously known as the Hare Psychopathy  Checklist or simply the Psychopathy Checklist, became popularized among  the public through the bestselling book The Psychopath Test: A Journey  Through the Madness Industry by Jon Ronson.  A main concept of the book  is that according to the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, many well-known  corporate leaders fall under the official definition of a psychopath.   However, instead, it appears that Ronson accidentally proved that the  checklist itself is a flawed mechanism for evaluating for psychopaths. 

In its simplest form, the checklist is composed of 20 items which result  in one of three positions on a continuum that details how likely  someone is to be a psychopath.  The checklist is to be filled out by an  interviewer who, in ideal circumstances, meets face-to-face with the  patient while also having extensive information about his or her  background.  However, this system inherently has flaws that lead to  inaccurate and damaging results. 

 
One of the biggest flaws with the checklist is based on how it's  administered.  First, you must consider the fact that the interviewers  are not necessarily unbiased.  It is common for interviewers to have  read through case studies on the individual they're evaluating, during  which it is highly likely that they have developed preconceived notions  on how the individual will act.  This will result in a skewed result for  the patient.  Admittedly, this roadblock is difficult to avoid, as a  psychiatrist-based evaluation is currently the only method for  evaluating individuals for psychopathology.  However, an issue that  should not be ignored is that in its most extensive form, interviews  with individuals take three hours at most.  Sometimes there is no  interview at all, and a result that is garnered purely through case  studies is considered a valid conclusion!  Clearly, three hours is not  enough time to learn much basic information about an individual, let  alone diagnose them with an illness as serious as being a psychopath. 

Another flaw in the Hare Psychopath Checklist is its propensity for  oversimplification.  Many of the questions asked on the checklist do not  take into account the context of the answers provided, and instead  operate solely in a vacuum.  This reduces the answers provided by  individuals to a nearly binary existence, wherein there is no ability to  justify answers appropriately.  In addition, aside from the inherent  imprecise nature of language, there could be interpretation errors on  behalf of all involved.  For example, one of the questions is asked as  "I was a problem child."  This could mean many different things  depending on who is asking and answering, and to leave the patient with  such limited responses is impractical. 

Finally, it has been noted that many of the criteria that would pass off  individuals as psychopaths according to the checklist are also  significant symptoms in other illnesses, such as frontal lobe  dysfunction.  Many of the characteristics outlined by the results of the  checklist, such as poor behavioral controls or superficial charm, can  be found across a wide range of disorders.  This provides a ripe  opportunity for misdiagnosis. 

Overall, the Hare Checklist has, at best, a spotted history.  There have  been several examples in which it has notably produced a result  indicative of a healthy mind, when in reality, all the signs seemed to  show the patient was a psychopath.  In addition, there are other cases  wherein the test results point toward psychopathy for a seemingly  healthy individual.  While initially the checklist received a positive  reception for its performance in the psychiatric field, it has since  been subjected to proper meta-analysis that seems to suggest it is  inefficient at best.  It is dangerous to simplify a diagnosis as serious  as psychopathology down to a single checklist, especially when the  ramifications of such a diagnosis can be so damaging. "

Moving these articles to my main Psych 101: Account for better management. 

Yes,  This article is mine.