Actuarial Risk Assessment: Commentary on Berlin et al

Abstract

F. S. Berlin, N. W. Galbreath, B. Geary, and G. McGlone (this issue) have raised some important questions regarding the use of actuarial risk assessment instruments in sex offender civil commitment proceedings, also known as sexually violent predator or SVP proceedings. Their primary point is that interpreting the findings of existing actuarial risk assessment instruments is a tricky business because it is not certain whether the extent to which probability estimates derived from group data can be applied to individual cases. I agree completely with Berlin et al. on this point, but disagree with them concerning the extent to which probability estimates—and, therefore, actuarial instruments— are legally relevant in SVP proceedings. I outline some potential problems with respect to the legal admissibility of actuarial instruments, including their legal relevance.

Keywords

actuarials risk assessment admissibility.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Dawes, R. , Faust, D. , & Meehl, P. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674.

Doren, D. (2000). Evidentiary issues, actuarial scales, and sex offender civil commitments. Sex Offender Law Report, 1, 65/66, 78-79.

Dvoskin, J.A. , & Heilbrun, K. (2001). Risk assessment and release decision-making: Toward resolving the great debate. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 6-10.

Faigman, D.L. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge? Psychology , Public Policy, and Law, 1, 960-971.

Federal Rules of Evidence , 28 USC . § § 101-1103 (1976).

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923).

Grove W. , & Meehl, P. (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.

Grove, W.M. , Zald, D.H. , Lebow, B.S. , Snitz, B.E. , & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis . Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.

10.

Hanson, R.K. (1998). What do we know about sex offender risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 50-72.

11.

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.

12.

Hart, S.D. , Laws, D.R. , & Kropp, P.R. (2002). The promise and the peril of sex offender risk assessment. In T. Ward & D. R. Laws (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Issues and controversies. (pp. 223-235) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13.

Janus, E.S. (2000). Sexual predator commitment laws: Lessons for law and the behavioral sciences. Behavioral Sciences and the Law , 18, 5-2 1.

14.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

15.

Litwack, T.R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 409-443.

16.

Meehl, P.E. (1996). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the literature. Northvale, NJ : Jason Aronson. (Original work published in 1954)

17.

Monahan, J. , Steadman, H.J. , Silver, E. , Appelbaum, P.S. , Robbins, P.C. , Mulvey et al. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence . New York: Oxford University Press .

18.

Otto, R.K. (2000). Assessing and managing violence risk in outpatient settings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 1239-1262.

19.

Petrila, J. , & Otto, R. (2001). Admissibility of expert testimony in sexually violent predator proceedings. In A. Schlank (Ed.), The sexual predator (pp. 313-325). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

20.

Quinsey, V.L. , Harris, G.T. , Rice, M.E. , & Cormier, C.A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

21.

Shafer, G. (1993). Can the various meaning of probability be reconciled? In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.). A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences, Vol. 1: Methodological Issues (pp. 165-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.