Dieser in Kanada hergestellte „Psychopathentest“ funktioniert nicht und hat vor Gericht keinen Platz, so das Ergebnis einer großen Studie

This is the entire article:

“A made-in-Canada test to detect whether a criminal is a “psychopath” is outdated, unreliable, and a poor predictor of recidivism, says a University of Toronto researcher who is calling for an end to its use in criminal courts.

“We should probably consider a complete moratorium on these types of assessments,” says Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen, the lead author of the largest study yet of how psychopathy tests are used in legal settings.

Betsy Powell
Betsy Powell is a Toronto-based reporter covering crime and courts for the Star.”

That’s it. Nothing else. A single sentence paragraph followed by a quote and a byline. No context, no rationale no history no nothing. Why even link to something like this?

EDIT: Thank you folks for posting the rest of the article.

Different source on this study, from the university where it originates – Toronto Metropolitan: https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/main-news/industrial-scale-misapplication-utm-research-questions-use-psych-assessments-courts

That article includes a link to the journal with the full study (paywalled/access by request), here’s a researchgate link to a free version (Creative Commons license): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394855609_The_Use_of_Psychopathy_Assessments_in_Canadian_Case_Law_A_Quantitative_and_Qualitative_Survey_of_Court_Records_from_1980-2023

I didn’t dive into the full study, but there were a couple of contextual details from the TMU article I found interesting – first being that court usage of psychopathy tests in general increased over 800% between 2000 and 2013, second being that Dr Robert Hare, the creator of the test, published cautioning limited effectiveness in a criminal court scenario, in 1998: 

*“Hare warned that to be reliable, a PCL-R must be conducted by a professional with significant training and clinical experience, based on high-quality information and include ratings from two independent clinicians.*

*In a 1998 article, Hare stressed that it is difficult to meet all of those conditions in a court setting because of “adversarial allegiance:” clinicians giving different scores depending on whether they were hired by the prosecution or the defense.“*

There’s also this paper, originally from 2007 but not published until 2010, while they settled legal issues – Hare sued them, claiming his views/work was being misrepresented. It was eventually published, alongside a comment from Hare.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20528069/