From group data to useful probabilities: The relevance of actuarial risk assessment in individual instances

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 93-102

  Mossman, Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PRISONER; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; VIOLENCE;

ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS; AGGRESSION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMANS; PRISONERS; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; VIOLENCE;

EID: 84924756938     PISSN: 10936793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL: Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: the development of a statistical prediction instrument. Crim Just & Behav 20:315–35, 1993.
2. Hanson RK, Thornton D: Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: a comparison of three actuarial scales. Law & Hum Behav 24:119–36, 2000.
3. Helmus L, Thornton D, Hanson RK, et al: Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: revised age weights. Sex Abuse 24:64–101, 2012.
4. Monahan J, Steadman H, Robbins P, et al: An actuarial model of violence risk assessment for persons with mental disorders. Psychiatr Serv 56:810–15, 2005.
5. Hart SD, Michie C, Cooke DJ: Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the “margins of error” of group v. individual predictions of violence. Br J Psychiatry 190:s60–5, 2007.
6. Mossman D: Another look at interpreting risk categories. Sex Abuse 18:41–63, 2006.
7. Singh JP, Fazel S, Gueorguieva R, et al: Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments. Br J Psychiatry 204:180–7, 2014.
8. Quinsey VL, Harris GT, Rice ME, et al: Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk (ed 2). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2006.
9. Harris AJ, Phenix A, Hanson RK, et al: STATIC-99 coding rules revised. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, 2003.
10. Rogers R: The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law & Hum Behav 24:595–605, 2000.
11. Silver E, Miller LL: A cautionary note on the use of actuarial risk assessment tools for social control. Crime & Delinq 48:138–61, 2002.
12. Campbell TW, DeClue G: Flying blind with naked factors: problems and pitfalls in adjusted-actuarial sex-offender risk assessment. Open Access J Forensic Psychol 2:75–101, 2010.
13. Hart SD, Cooke DJ: Another look at the (im-)precision of individual risk estimates made using actuarial risk assessment instruments. Behav Sci & L 31:81–102, 2013.
14. Franklin K: Showdown looming over predictive accuracy of actuarials: large error rates thwart individual risk prediction. In the News by Karen Franklin, PhD, January 27, 2013. Available at http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2013/01/showdownlooming-over-predictive.html. Accessed November 17, 2014.
15. Skeem JL, Monahan J: Current directions in violence risk assessment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:38–42, 2011.
16. DeClue G, Zavodny DL: Forensic use of the Static-99R: Part 4. Risk communication. J Threat Assess Manage 1:145–61, 2014.
17. Wilson EB: Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 22:209–12, 1927.
18. 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.
19. Boer DP, Hart SD, et al: Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20: Professional Guidelines for Assessing Risk of Sexual Violence. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Institute Against Family Violence, 1997.
20. Quinsey VL, Harris GT, Rice ME, et al: Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998.
21. Jaynes ET. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
22. Jeffrey R: Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
23. de Finetti B: Foresight: its logical laws, its subjective sources. (La prèvision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives.) In French. Ann Instit Henri Poincarè (Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincarè) 7:1–68, 1937.
24. Ramsey FP: Truth and probability, in The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays. Edited by Braithwaite RB. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1929, pp 156–98.
25. Savage LJ: The Foundations of Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1954 (ed 2, 1972, New York: Dover).
26. Nau RF: De Finetti was right: probability does not exist. Theory Decis 51:89–124, 2001.
27. Henderson R, Keiding N: Individual survival time prediction using statistical models. J Med Ethics 31:703–6, 2005.
28. N.J.S.A. § 30:4-27.26.
29. In re Commitment of W. Z., 801 A.2d 205 (N.J. 2002).
30. Brooks V. Franklin, 36 P.3d 1034 (Wash. 2001).
31. People V. Ghilotti, 44 P.3d 949 (Cal. 2002).
32. Singh J: Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: a methodological primer. Behav Sci & L 31:8–22, 2013.
33. Helmus L, Hanson RK, Thornton D: Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: a meta-analysis. Crim Just & Behav 39:1148–71, 2012.
34. Buchanan A: Violence risk assessment in clinical settings: being sure about being sure. Behav Sci & L 31:74–80, 2013.
35. Borna S, Lowry J: Gambling and speculation. J Bus Ethics 6:219–24, 1987.
36. Rogers R, Salekin RT: Beguiled by Bayes: a reanalysis of Mossman and Hart’s estimates of malingering. Behav Sci&L 16:147–53, 1998.
37. Hald A: A History of Probability and Statistics and Their Applications Before 1750. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
38. Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A: Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Stat Sci 16:101–33, 2001.
39. Mossman D, Berger JO: Intervals for post-test probabilities: a comparison of five methods. Med Decis Mak 21:498–507, 2001.
40. Berger JO: The case for objective Bayesian analysis. Bayesian Anal 3:385–402, 2006.
41. Lunn D, Jackson C, Best N, et al: The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2013.