Science Current Directions in Psychological Current Directions in Violence Risk Assessment on Behalf Of: Association for Psychological Science

Over recent years, a variety of instruments that improve clinicians' ability to forecast the likelihood that an individual will behave violently have been published. Increasingly, these instruments are being applied in response to laws that require specialized risk assessments. In this article, we present a framework that goes beyond the “clinical” and “actuarial” dichotomy to describe a continuum of structured approaches to risk assessment. Despite differences among validated instruments, there is little evidence that one predicts violence better than another. We believe that these group-based instruments are useful for assessing an individual’s risk and that an instrument should be chosen based on an evaluation’s purpose (i.e., risk assessment vs. risk reduction). The time is ripe to shift attention from predicting violence to understanding its causes and preventing its (re)occurrence.

[1]  E. L. Kelly.  Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and review of the evidence. , 1955 .

[2]  K. Abraham.  Distributing Risk: Insurance, Legal Thory, and Public Policy , 1986 .

[3]  R. Keeney,et al.  Improving risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  P. Danzon,et al.  Distributing Risk: Insurance, Legal Theory, and Public Policy , 1987 .

[5]  E. Mulvey,et al.  The accuracy of predictions of violence to others. , 1993, JAMA.

[6]  P. Meehl,et al.  Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. , 1996 .

[7]  H. Kraemer,et al.  Coming to terms with the terms of risk. , 1997, Archives of general psychiatry.

[8]  Kirk Heilbrun,et al.  Prediction Versus Management Models Relevant to Risk Assessment: The Importance of Legal Decision-Making Context , 1997, Law and human behavior.

[9]  K. Heilbrun.  Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. , 1998 .

[10]  A. Buchanan,et al.  HCR‐20. Assessing risk for violence, version 2. By C. Webster, K. Douglas, D. Eaves and S. Hart. Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, British Columbia. 1997. 98 + vii pp , 2001 .

[11]  A. Maden.  Rethinking Risk Assessment. The MacArthur study of Mental Disorder and Violence , 2003 .

[12]  Jennifer L. Skeem,et al.  VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT: Getting Specific About Being Dynamic , 2005 .

[13]  Daryl G Kroner,et al.  A coffee can, factor analysis, and prediction of antisocial behavior: the structure of criminal risk. , 2005, International journal of law and psychiatry.

[14]  Catherine A. Cormier,et al.  Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk, 2nd ed. , 2006 .

[15]  S. Hart,et al.  Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the 'margins of error' of group v. individual predictions of violence. , 2007, The British journal of psychiatry. Supplement.

[16]  G. Harris,et al.  The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. , 2009, Psychological assessment.

[17]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Fast and frugal forecasting , 2009 .

[18]  Christopher W. Baird.  A Question of Evidence: A Critique of Risk Assessment Models Used in the Justice System , 2009 .

[19]  D. Cooke,et al.  Limitations of Diagnostic Precision and Predictive Utility in the Individual Case: A Challenge for Forensic Practice , 2009, Law and human behavior.

[20]  P. Howard,et al.  Individual Confidence Intervals Do Not Inform Decision-Makers About the Accuracy of Risk Assessment Evaluations , 2010, Law and human behavior.

[21]  Stephen C. P. Wong,et al.  The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  J. Skeem,et al.  Correctional Policy for Offenders with Mental Illness: Creating a New Paradigm for Recidivism Reduction , 2011, Law and human behavior.