Sex offenders and actuarial risk assessments: Ethical considerations

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 269-279

  Campbell, Terence W ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; ETHICS; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; RECIDIVISM; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; SEXUAL CRIME; STANDARDIZATION;

ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMANS; RECURRENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEX OFFENSES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037245575     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.530     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allison, S. T., Jordan, M. R., & Yeatts, C. E. (1992). A cluster-analytic approach toward identifying the structure and content of human decision making. Human Relations, 45, 116-130.
2. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
3. Becker, J. V., & Murphy, W. D. (1998). What we know and do not know about assessing and treating sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 116-137.
4. Campbell, T. W. (2000). Sexual predator evaluations and phrenology: Considering issues of evidentiary reliability. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 111-130.
5. Campbell, T. W. (2001). Assessing sexual offender recidivism risk: Static-risk variables alone? American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(4), 15-22.
6. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
7. Doren, D. M. (2000, November). Being accurate about the accuracy of commonly used risk assessment instruments. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego, CA.
8. Doren, D. M. (2002). Evaluating sex offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Faust, D. (1989). Data integration in legal evaluations: Can clinicians deliver on their premises? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 469-483.
10. Friedlander, M. L., & Stockman, S. J. (1983). Anchoring and publicity effects in clinical judgment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 637-643.
11. Garb, H. N. (1998). Studying the clinician. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D.A. (1991). The representation of fictional information. Psychological Science, 2, 336-340.
13. Grisso, T. (1987). The economic and scientific future of forensic psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 42, 831-839.
14. Hanson, R. K. (1998). What do we know about sex offender risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 50-72.
15. Hanson, R. K. (2000). Will they do it again? Predicting sex-offense recidivism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 106-109.
16. Hanson, R. K. (2002, June). Sexual offender recidivism risk: What we know and what we need to know. Presented to the Symposium on Understanding and Managing Sexually Coercive Behavior. Sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
17. Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
18. Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. (1998). The Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR): A method for measuring change in risk levels. Ottawa, ON: Department of Solicitor General of Canada.
19. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessment for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
20. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1998). Appraisal and management of risk in sexual aggressors: Implications for criminal justice policy. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 73-115.
21. 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.
22. Hjelt, S. (2000). Professional psychology: A view from the bench. Register Report, 26(1), 8-13.
23. Janus, E. S., & Meehl, P. E. (1997). Assessing the legal standard for predictions of dangerousness in sex offender commitment proceedings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 33-64.
24. Kupfersmid, J. (1988). Improving what is published: A model in search of an editor. American Psychologist, 43, 635-642.
25. La Fond, J. Q., & Winick, B. J. (1998). Forward: Sex offenders and the law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 3-24.
26. Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 783-792.
27. Prentky, R. A., Lee, A. F. S., Knight, R. A., & Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 635-659.
28. Quinsey, V. L., Khanna, A., & Malcolm, P. C. (1998). A retrospective evaluation of the regional treatment centre sex offender treatment progam. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 621-644.
29. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
30. Rock, D. L. (1994). Clinical judgment survey of mental-health professionals: I. An assessment of opinions, ratings, and knowledge. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 941-950.
31. Rogers, R. (2000). The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 595-605.
32. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
33. Sawyer, J. (1966). Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 178-200.
34. Sjostedt, G., & Langstrom, N. (2001). Actuarial assessment of sex offender recidivism risk: A cross-validation of the RRASOR and the Static-99 in Sweden. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 629-645.
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 and Human Behavior, 24, 271-296.
36. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 1069-1079.
37. Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Supplement to Psychological Science, 1, 1-26.
38. Turner, S. M., DeMers, S. T., Fox, H. R., & Reed, G. M. (2001). APA's guidelines for test user qualifications: An executive summary. American Psychologist, 56, 1099-1113.
39. Tversky A. Kahneman D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainity: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1123-1131.