Although actuarial risk assessments have the potential to improve forensic decision making, clinicians neither prefer nor use them. Effective communication is an important next step for study. The decisions of 60 forensic clinicians (from a range of disciplines) were examined for possible effects related to case information, a likelihood of violent recidivism statement, and actuarial risk level. When no likelihood statement was provided, participants reported using case information containing risk factors to appraise risk. A summary likelihood statement, however, improved communicationof risk. Participants were more likely to defer a security decision when there was no likelihood statement. Participants made little distinction between likelihood of violence and comparative risk. These findings suggests trategies for improving violence risk communication.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990).Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
2.
Bélanger, N., & Earls, C. (1996). Sex offender recidivism prediction. Forum on Correctional Research, 8, 22-24.
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.
Brace, G. L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1998).Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: The role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 3-21.
5.
Fuller, J., & Cowan, J. (1999). Risk assessment in a multi-disciplinary forensic setting: Clinical judgment revisited. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 10, 276-289.
6.
Grann, M., Belfrage, H., & Tengström, A. (2000). Actuarial assessment of risk for violence: Predictive validity of the VRAG and the historical part of the HCR-20. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 97-114.
7.
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 12, 19-30.
8.
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2000).Where shouldwe intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual assault recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6-35.
9.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000).Improvingrisk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
10.
Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (1997). Mentally disordered offenders: What research says about effective service. In C. D. Webster & M. A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 361-393). New York: Guilford.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumière, M., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15, 413-425.
14.
Heilbrun, K., Philipson, J., Berman, L., & Warren, J. (1999). Risk communication: Clinicians’ reported approaches and perceived values. Journal of the Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 27, 397-406.
15.
Heilbrun, K., O’Neill, M. L., Strohman, L. K., Bowman, Q., & Philipson, J. (2000). Expert approaches to communicating violence risk. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 137-148.
16.
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.
17.
Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2000).The Spousal Assault Risk Appraisal (SARA) Guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 101-118.
18.
Litwack, T. R. (2001).Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 409-443.
19.
Mamuza, J. (2001). Do actuarial assessments fall victim to base rate neglect? Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(10), 5617B.
20.
Manktelow, K. (1999). Reasoning and thinking. Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
21.
Monahan, J. (1996). Violence prediction: The past twenty and the next twenty years. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 107-120.
22.
Monahan, J., Heilbrun, K., Silver, E., Nabors, E., Bone, J., & Slovic, P. (2002). Communicating violence risk: Frequency formats, vivid outcomes, and forensic settings. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1, 121-126.
23.
Monahan, J., & Silver, E. (2003). Judicial decision thresholds for violence risk management. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2, 1-6.
24.
Monahan, J., & Steadman, H. J. (1996).Violent storms and violent people: How meteorology can inform risk communication in mental health law. American Psychologist, 51, 931-938.
25.
Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P. S., Clark Robbins, P., Mulvey, E. P., et al. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Polvi, N. H. (2001). The relative efficacy of statistical versus clinical predictions of dangerousness (Simon Fraser University, Department of Psychology, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(7).
27.
Price, R. (1997). On the risks of risk prediction. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 8, 1-4.
28.
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.
29.
Quinsey, V. L., Coleman, G., Jones, B., & Altrows, I. E. (1997). Proximal antecedents of eloping and reoffending among supervised mentally disordered offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 794-813.
30.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
31.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
32.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1997). Cross validation and extension of an actuarial instrument for the prediction of violent recidivism. Law and Human Behaviour, 21, 231-241.
33.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93-105.
34.
Slovic, P., & Monahan, J. (1995). Probability, danger, and coercion: A study of risk perception and decision making in mental health law. Law & Human Behavior, 19, 49-65.
35.
Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 271-296.
36.
Sykes, D. L., & Johnson, J. T. (1999). Probabilistic evidence versus the representation of an event: The curious case of Mrs. Prob’s dog. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 199-212.
37.
Taylor, P. J., Goldberg, E., Leese, M., Butwell, M., & Reed, A. (1999).Limits to the value of mental health review tribunals for offender patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 164-169.
38.
Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. (1997). HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence, Version 2. Burnaby, BC: Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute.
