Training to see risk: Measuring the accuracy of clinical and actuarial risk assessments among federal probation officers

Federal Probation

Volumn 75, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 52-56

  Oleson, J C ^a   Van Benschoten, Scott W ^b   Robinson, Charles R ^b   Lowenkamp, Christopher T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b United States Courts   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 82055207070     PISSN: 00149128     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Aeisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., Cohen, G., & Rush, J. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341-382. (Pubitemid 43537136)
2. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17,19-52.
3. Ansbro, M. (2010). The nuts and bolts of risk assessment: When the clinical and actuarial conflict. Howard Journal, 49(3), 252-68.
4. Austin, J. (2006). How much risk can we take? The misuse of risk assessment in corrections. Federal Probation, 70(2), 58-63.
5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
6. Bonta, J. (2008). Offender risk assessment and sentencing. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(4), 519-529.
7. Buddress, L.A.N. (1997). Federal probation and pretrial services-a cost-effective and successful community corrections system. Federal Probation, 61(1), 5-12.
8. Bullock, K. (2011). The construction and management of risk management technologies in contemporary probation practice. British Journal of Criminology, 51,120-135.
9. Burgess, E.W. (1928). Factors determining success or failure on parole. In Bruce, A. A., Harno, A. J., Burgess, E. W, & Landesco, J. (eds.). The workings of the indeterminatesentence law and parole system in Illinois (pp. 221-234). Springfield, IL: State Board of Parole.
10. Clem, C. (2003). Topics in community corrections: Annual issue 2003: Offender assessment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
11. Dawes, R. M., Faust, D. & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, New Series, 243(4899), 1668-1674.
12. Eaglin, J. B. amp; Lombard, P. A. (1981). Statistical risk prediction as an aid to probation caseload classification. Federal Probation, 45,25-32. (Pubitemid 12186273)
13. Feeley, M. & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30,449-474.
14. Fitzgibbon, W., Hamilton, G, & Richardson, M. (2010). A risky business: An examination of Irish probation officers' attitudes towards risk assessment. Probation Journal, 57(2), 163-174.
15. Flores, A.W., Lowenkamp, C.T., Smith, P., & Latessa, E.J. (2006). Validating the Level of Service Inventory-Revised on a sample of federal probationers. Federal Probation, 70(2), 44-48.
16. Fong, G.T., Lurigio, A.J., & Stalans, L.J. (1990). Improving probation decisions through statistical training. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(3), 370-388.
17. Gottfredson, M.R., & Tonry, M. (1987). Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Gottfredson, S.D. & Moriarty, L.J. (2006). Clinical versus actuarial judgments in criminal justice decisions: Should one replace the other? Federal Probation, 70(2), 15-18.
19. Grove, W.M., & Meehl, RE. (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. (Pubitemid 126408878)
20. 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(1), 19-30. (Pubitemid 30414105)
21. Hannah-Moffat, K., Maurutto, P., & Turnbull, S. (2009). Negotiated risk: Actuarial illusions and discretion in probation. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 24(3), 391-409.
22. Hanson, R. K. (2009). The psychological assessment of risk for crime and violence. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 172-182.
23. Harcourt, B. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling policing and punishing in an actuarial age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. Harris, P. (2006). What community supervision officers need to know about actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment. Federal Probation, 70(2), 8-14.
25. Hemple, W.E., Webb, WH. Jr., & Reynolds, S.W. (1976). Researching prediction scales for probation. Federal Probation, 40(1), 33-37.
26. Hilton, N.Z., Harris, G.T., & Rice, M.E. (2006). Sixty-six years of research on the clinical versus actuarial prediction of violence. Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 400-409. (Pubitemid 43537139)
27. Horsefield, A. (2003). Risk assessment: Who needs it? Probation Journal, 50(4), 374-379.
28. Judicial Conference (2006). September proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
29. Kemshall, H. (1998). Defensible decisions for risk: Or "it's the doers wot get the blame,;quot; Probation Journal, 45(2), 67-72.
30. Litwack, T.R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7,409-443.
31. Lombard, P., & Hooper, L. (1998). RPIfacts bulletin. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
32. Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Holsinger, A.M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77-93. (Pubitemid 43058885)
33. Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders, in Topics in community corrections (pp. 3-8). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
34. Lynch, M. (1998). Waste managers? The new penology, crime fighting, and parole agent identity. Law and Society Review, 32(4), 839-869. (Pubitemid 128371657)
35. Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus mechanical prediction. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
36. Monahan, J. (1981). Predicting violent behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
37. Monahan, J., Steadman, H.J., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P.S., Clark Robbins, P., Mulvey, E.P., Roth, L.H., Grisso, T., & Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,783-792. (Pubitemid 24268721)
39. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
40. O'Malley, P. (2004). The uncertain promise of risk. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(3), 323-343. (Pubitemid 39383351)
41. Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68(2), 4-8. (Pubitemid 40427622)
42. Pew Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
43. Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Cormier, CA. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
44. Robinson, G. (2002). Exploring risk management in probation practice. Punishment and Society, 4(1), 5-25.
45. Schneider, A.L., Ervin, L., Snyder-Joy, Z. (1996). Further exploration of the flight from discretion: The role of risk/need instruments in probation supervision decisions.Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(2), 109-121. (Pubitemid 126163837)
46. Selective incapacitation: Reducing crime through predictions of recidivism (note). (1982). Harvard Law Review, 96,511-533.
47. Sjostedt, G., & Grann, M. (2002). Risk assessment: What is being predicted by actuarial prediction instruments? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1(2), 179-183.
48. Sreenivasan, S., Kirkish, P., Garrick, T., Weinberger, L E., & Phenix, A. (2000). Actuarial risk assessment models: A review of critical issues related to violence and sexoffender recidivism assessments. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28,438-448. (Pubitemid 32115062)
49. Tastle, W J., Wierman, M.J., & Dumdum, U.R. (2005). Ranking ordinal scales using the consensus measure. Issues in Information Systems, 6(2), 96-102.
50. Taxman, F.S., Shepardson, E.S., Byrne, J.M., Gelb, A., & Gornik, M. (2004). Tools of the trade: A guide to incorporating science into practice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
51. VanBenschoten, S. (2008). Risk/needs assessment: Is this the best we can do? Federal Probation, 72(2), 38-42.
52. Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice, 1950-1990. New York: Oxford University Press.
53. Wandall, R.H. (2006). Actuarial risk assessment: The loss of recognition of the individual offender. Law, Probability, and Risk, 5(3-4), 175-200.
54. Yang, M., Wong, S.C.P., & Coid, J. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A metaanalytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 740-767.