Four Lessons from Risk Assessment (and Other Forensic Assessment) Meta-Analyses

ABSTRACT I read the Williams, Wormith, Bonta, and Sitarenios (2017) critique of the Singh, Grann, and Fazel (2011) meta-analysis as someone who has struggled with conceptual and methodological issues when conducting risk assessment meta-analyses. I offer four lessons for risk assessment meta-analysts, based on my experiences as a risk assessment meta-analyst and consumer of risk assessment research. Lesson 1: We should accept the Dodo bird verdict in risk assessment instrument research and then move forward. Lesson 2: If you must compare, compare within samples. Lesson 3: Meta-analyses are often more useful for showing how much we don't know than how much we do know. Lesson 4: There are not enough risk assessment instrument studies examining the predictive validity of commonly used score interpretations.

[1]  D. K. Marcus,et al.  Is There an Allegiance Effect for Assessment Instruments? Actuarial Risk Assessment as an Exemplar , 2008 .

[2]  Daniel C. Murrie,et al.  Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised. , 2013, Psychological assessment.

[3]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  The Researcher's Own Therapy Allegiances: A "Wild Card" in Comparisons of Treatment Efficacy , 1999 .

[4]  J. Edens,et al.  Personality Assessment Inventory scores as predictors of misconduct, recidivism, and violence: A meta-analytic review. , 2015, Psychological assessment.

[5]  G. Harris,et al.  Allegiance or Fidelity? A Clarifying Reply , 2010 .

[6]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  The Dodo Bird Verdict Is Alive and Well—Mostly , 2002 .

[7]  R. K. Hanson,et al.  Improving Risk Assessments for Sex Offenders: A Comparison of Three Actuarial Scales , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[8]  Robert D. Hare,et al.  The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised , 1996 .

[9]  Daniel C. Murrie,et al.  Field validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in sex offender risk assessment. , 2012, Psychological assessment.

[10]  P. Howard.  The Effect of Sample Heterogeneity and Risk Categorization on Area Under the Curve Predictive Validity Metrics , 2017 .

[11]  Daniel C. Murrie,et al.  Field validity of the STATIC-99 and MnSOST-R among sex offenders evaluated for civil commitment as sexually violent predators. , 2009 .

[12]  Daniel C. Murrie,et al.  Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance? , 2015, Law and human behavior.

[13]  J. Bonta,et al.  The Use of Meta-Analysis to Compare and Select Offender Risk Instruments: A Commentary on Singh, Grann, and Fazel (2011) , 2017 .

[14]  Jay P. Singh,et al.  A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. , 2011, Clinical psychology review.

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

[16]  Daniel C. Murrie,et al.  Do the Static-99 and Static-99R Perform Similarly for White, Black, and Latino Sexual Offenders? , 2013 .

[17]  S. Hawes,et al.  Detection of overreporting of psychopathology on the Personality Assessment Inventory: a meta-analytic review. , 2009, Psychological assessment.

[18]  Saul Rosenzweig,et al.  Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. , 1936 .