Actuarial risk assessment: Commentary on Berlin et al.

Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 383-388

  Hart, Stephen D ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Actuarials; Admissibility; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

GROUP DYNAMICS; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGAL ASPECT; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VIOLENCE; ARTICLE; CRIMINOLOGY; EXPERT WITNESS; FORECASTING; METHODOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK FACTOR; SEXUAL CRIME; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS; CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FORECASTING; HUMANS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SEX OFFENSES; UNITED STATES; VIOLENCE;

EID: 3543117988     PISSN: 10790632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107906320301500413     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
2. Dawes, R., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674.
3. Doren, D. (2000). Evidentiary issues, actuarial scales, and sex offender civil commitments. Sex Offender Law Report, 1, 65/66, 78-79.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Federal Rules of Evidence, 28 USC. §§ 101-1103 (1976).
7. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923).
8. 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.
9. 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, 5-21.
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.