Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

4 results

  • 3.8 - Risk and Dangerousness in Adults

  • from Part III - Assessment
  • Edited by Jennifer M. Brown, London School of Economics and Political Science, Miranda A. H. Horvath
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
    Published online:
    02 December 2021
    Print publication:
    09 December 2021, pp 474-490

  • Summary

    In order to assess the recidivism risk of adults who have been convicted of violent and/or sexual offenses, there exist two kinds of formal assessments: an actuarial risk assessment approach and a nonactuarial approach which is usually called “structured professional judgment” (SPJ). The actuarial risk assessment approach could be further divided into risk assessment instruments which are using predominantly static (i.e., biographical, criminological, and unchangeable) or dynamic (i.e., changeable by, for example, treatment-related processes) risk factors. The SPJ approach is a research-based professional guideline approach to decision-making which provides bench marks for integrating information from a broad range of risk factors associated with recidivism. These instruments are based on considerations of the relevant scientific, professional, and legal literature. The present chapter provides an overview about the main characteristics of both risk assessment approaches as well as about the internationally most commonly used and best validated actuarial and SPJ instruments.

  • 2.21 - Risk and dangerousness in adults

  • from Part II - Assessments
  • Edited by Jennifer M. Brown, London School of Economics and Political Science, Elizabeth A. Campbell, University of Glasgow
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
    Published online:
    06 July 2010
    Print publication:
    29 April 2010, pp 299-306

  • Summary

    Many forensic psychologists appraise the risk of future violence for criminal offenders or psychiatric patients involved in the criminal justice system. There are several systems to be relied upon for adult forensic cases, and the impetus for this work began more than fifty years ago with the recognition that formulaic, mechanical or actuarial methods are more accurate than informal clinical judgement, experience and intuition, especially for violence. There are two kinds of formal (formulaic, mechanical) assessments for violence risk: actuarial and non-actuarial. The non-empirical methods, typical of such non-actuarial schemes, used in developing the HCR-20 contrast with actuarial techniques. No evidence supports the HCR-20 manual's requirements to render a final three-category judgement based on idiosyncratic factors, include a clinical interview, or regard perceived changes in so-called clinical and risk-management items as indicating altered risk.

  • Shall evidence-based risk assessment be abandoned?

  • Grant T. Harris, Marnie E. Rice, Vernon L. Quinsey
  • Journal:
    The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 192 / Issue 2 / February 2008
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    02 January 2018, p. 154
    Print publication:
    February 2008
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation