In their meta-analysis of clinical versus statistical prediction models, Ægisdóttir et al. (this issue) extended previous findings of statistical-method superiority across such variables as clinicians’ experience and familiarity with data. In this reaction, the authors are particularly interested in violence prediction, which yields the greatest support for actuarial models. In the past decade, actuarial prediction has continued to improve, but clinicians have not readily adopted these models, and new models have emerged that encourage reliance on unaided clinical judgment. Psychologists have made progress developing and disseminating actuarial risk assessments and should use the most accurate available measure suited to the task.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., et al. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 341-382.
2.
Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk–20.Burnaby, BC, Canada: Simon Fraser University.
3.
Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-142.
4.
Cattaneo, L. B. (in press). Contributors to assessments of risk in intimate partner violence: How victims and professionals differ. Journal of Community Psychology.
5.
de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., van Beek, D., & Mead, G. (2004). Predictive validity of the SVR-20 and Static-99 in a Dutch sample of treated sex offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 235-251.
6.
Douglas, K. S., Yeomans, M., & Boer, D. P. (2005). Comparative validity analysis of multiple measures of violence risk in a sample of criminal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 479-510.
7.
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
8.
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.
9.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism(User Report 97–04). Ottawa, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
10.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
11.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis(User Report 2004-02). Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
12.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2002). Prospective replication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 377-394.
13.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 315-335.
14.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumière, M. L., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multi-site comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15, 413-425.
15.
Hilton, N. Z., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Predicting wife assault: A critical review and implications for policy and practice. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 6, 3-23.
16.
Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rawson, K., & Beach, C. (2005). Communication of risk information to forensic decision-makers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 97-116.
17.
Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Lang, C., Cormier, C. A., & Lines, K. J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 16, 267-275.
18.
Hilton, N. Z., & Simmons, J. L. (1999). Adverse effects of poor behavior management of an inpatient's difficult behaviors. Psychiatric Services, 50, 964-966.
19.
Hilton, N. Z., & Simmons, J. L. (2001). The influence of actuarial risk assessment in clinical judgments and tribunal decisions about mentally disordered offenders in maximum security. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 393-408.
20.
Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2000). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 101-118.
21.
Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (1995). Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide(2nd ed.). Vancouver, Canada: The British Columbia Institute on Family Violence.
22.
Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P. S., Clark Robbins, P., Mulvey, E. P., et al. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Quinsey, V. L., & Ambtman, R. (1979). Variables affecting psychiatrists’ and teachers’ assessments of the dangerousness of mentally ill offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 353-362.
24.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
25.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26.
Seto, M. C. (2005). Is more better? Combining actuarial risk scales to predict recidivism among adult sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 17, 156-167.
27.
Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. D. (1997). HCR-20 assessing risk for violence(Version 2). Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser University.
