Throwing the baby out with the bath water: Is it time for clinical judgment to supplement actuarial risk assessment?

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 222-230

  Abbott, Brian R ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; NOTE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEXUAL CRIME; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VIOLENCE;

ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS; HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX OFFENSES; VIOLENCE;

EID: 79959406103     PISSN: 10936793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Sreenivasan S, Weinberger LE, Frances A, et al.: Alice in actuarial land: through the looking glass of changing Static-99 norms. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 38:400-406, 2010
2. Hanson RK, Thornton D.: Improving risk assessment for sex offenders: a comparison of three actuarial scales. Law Hum Behav 24:119-136, 2000
3. Helmus L, Hanson RK, Thornton D.: Reporting Static-99 in light of new research on recidivism norms. Forum 21:38-45, 2009
4. Hanson RK, Phenix A, Helmus L.: Static-99 and Static-2002: how to interpret and report scores in light of recent research. Workshop presented at the ATSA (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers) 28th Annual Research and Treatment Conference, Dallas, TX, September 2009
5. Hanson RK: Does the Static-99 predict recidivism among older sexual offenders? Sex Abuse J Res Treat 18:343-355, 2006
6. Helmus L, Thornton D: Static risk assessment: understanding and applying the 2009 norms. Workshop presented at the California Department of Mental Health Sex Offender Commitment Program, Sacramento, December 2009
7. Barbaree HE: The effects of aging on sexual offender recidivism. Workshop presented at the California Department of Mental Health Sex Offender Commitment Program, Monterey, March 2010
8. Helmus L, Babchishin KM, Hanson RK, et al: Static-99R: revised age weights. Available at http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99randage20091005.pdf. Accessed on January 10, 2009
9. Barbaree HE, Blanchard R: Sexual deviancy over the lifespan, in Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. Edited by Laws DR, O'Donohue WT. New York: Guildford Press, 2008, pp 37-60
10. Barbaree HE, Langton C, Blanchard R, et al: Aging versus stable enduring traits as explanatory constructs in sex offender recidivism: partitioning actuarial prediction into conceptually meaningful components. Crim Just Behav 36:443-465, 2009
11. Janus ES, Prentky RA: Forensic use of actuarial risk assessment with sex offenders: accuracy, admissibility, and accountability. Am Crim L Rev 40:1-59, 2003
12. Helmus L: Re-norming Static-99 recidivism estimates: exploring base rate variability across sex offender samples. Unpublished master's thesis, Ottawa, ON, Canada: Carleton University, 2009
13. Knight RA, Thornton D: Evaluating and improving risk assessment schemes for sexual recidivism: a long-term follow-up of convicted sexual offenders. Unpublished document submitted as a final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, Document 217618, March 2007
14. Detailed recidivism tables for Static-99R. Available at http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/detailed_recid_tables_static99r_2009-11-15.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2009
15. Vrieze SL, Grove WM: Predicting sex offenders' recidivism: I. correcting for item overselection and accuracy overestimation in scale development. II. sampling error-induced attenuation of predictive validity over base rate information. Law Hum Behav 32: 266-78, 2008
16. Doren D: Stability of the interpretative risk percentages for the RRASOR and Static-99. Sex Abuse J Res Treat 16:25-36, 2004
17. Abbott BR: Applicability of the new Static-99 experience tables in sexually violent predator risk assessments. Sex Offend Treat 1:1-24, 2009
18. Mossman D: Another look at interpreting risk categories. Sex Abuse J Res Treat 18:41-63, 2006
19. Donaldson T, Wollert R: A mathematical proof and example that Bayes's Theorem is fundamental to actuarial estimates of sexual recidivism risk. Sex Abuse J Res Treat 20:206-17, 2008
20. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education: Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2003
21. Wollert R: Low base rates limit expert certainty when current actuarials are used to identify sexually violent predators. Psychol Public Pol Law 12:56-85, 2007
22. Cooke DJ, Michie C: Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: a challenge for forensic practice. Law Hum Behav 34:259-74, 2010
23. Donaldson T, Abbott, BR: Prediction in the individual case: an explanation and application of its use with the Static-99R in sexually violent predator risk assessments. J Am Coll Forensic Psychiatry 29:5-35, 2010
24. Vrieze SI, Grove WM: Multidimensional assessment of criminal recidivism: problems, pitfalls, and proposed solutions. Psychol Assess 22:382-395, 2010
25. Hanson RK, Bussiere MT: Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol 66: 348-362, 1998
26. State of New Hampshire v. Thomas Hurley. Case No. 07-E-0236. 2009. Available at http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/hurley-orderondaubert_nh.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2010
27. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE: The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychol Assess 21:1-21, 209
28. Meehl PE: Symposium on clinical and statistical prediction (with McArthur CC, Tiedeman DV). J Consult Psychol 3:163-173, 1956
29. Grove WM, Meehl PE: Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical-statistical controversy. Psychol Public Policy Law 2:293-323, 1996
30. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE: Predictors of sexual recidivism: an updated meta-analysis. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General, 2004
31. Kingston DA, Seto MC, Firestone P, et al: Comparing indicators of sexual sadism as predictors of recidivism among adult male sexual offenders. J Consult Clin Psychol 78:574-584, 2010
32. Prentky RA, Janus E, Barbaree H, et al: Sexually violent predators in the courtroom: science on trial. Psychol Public Policy Law 12:357-393, 2006
33. Campbell TW: Assessing Sex Offenders: Problems and Pitfalls. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 2007
34. Mann RE, Hanson RK, Thornton D: Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sex Abuse J Res Treat 22:191-217, 2010
35. Beggs SM, Grace RC: Assessment of dynamic risk factors: an independent validation study of the violence risk scale: sexual offender version 2010. Sex Abuse J Res Treat 22:234-251, 2010
36. Hanson K, Harris AJR, Scott TL, et al: Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project. Available at http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/crp2007-05-en.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2007
37. Eher R, Rettenberger M, Matthes A, et al: Dynamic risk assessment in sexual offenders using Stable-2000 and the Stable-2007: an investigation of predictive and incremental validity. Sex Abuse J Res Treat, in press
38. Eher R, Rettenberger M, Matthes A, et al: Stable dynamic risk factors in child sexual abusers: the incremental predictive power of narcissistic personality traits beyond the Static-99/Stable-2007 priority categories on sexual reoffense. Sex Offend Treat 5:1-12, 2010
39. Jackson R, Travia T, Schneider J: Annual survey of sex offender civil commitment programs. Sexual Offender Civil Commitment Network Research Committee. Available at http://www.soccpn.org/images/2008_20Annual_20Survey_20of_20Programs.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2009
40. Wollert R, Waggoner J: Bayesian computations protect sexually violent predator evaluations from the degrading effects of confirmatory bias and illusions of certainty: a reply to Doren and Lev-enson. Sex Offend Treat 1:1-23, 2009