Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
G. Harris, M. Rice (2003)
Actuarial Assessment of Risk among Sex OffendersAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989
E. Elbogen (2002)
The process of violence risk assessment: A review of descriptive researchAggression and Violent Behavior, 7
D. Mcniel, J. Lam, R. Binder (2000)
Relevance of interrater agreement to violence risk assessment.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 68 6
W. Lindsay (2002)
Integration of Recent Reviews on Offenders with Intellectual DisabilitiesJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 15
A. Beech, C. Friendship, M. Erikson, R. Hanson (2002)
The Relationship Between Static and Dynamic Risk Factors and Reconviction in a Sample of U.K. Child AbusersSexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14
R. Borum (1996)
Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment. Technology, guidelines, and training.The American psychologist, 51 9
J. Monahan (2002)
The MacArthur studies of violence riskCriminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 12
Harris Harris, Rice Rice (2003)
Actuarial assessment of risk among sex offendersSexually Coercive Behaviour: Understanding and Management Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989
G. Harris, M. Rice, V. Quinsey, Martin Lalumière, D. Boer, Carol Lang (2003)
A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders.Psychological assessment, 15 3
G. Sjöstedt, Niklas Långström (2002)
Assessment of risk for criminal recidivism among rapists: A Comparison of four different measuresPsychology, Crime & Law, 8
R. Hanson, A. Harris (2000)
Where Should We Intervene?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27
D. Kroner, J. Mills (2001)
The Accuracy of Five Risk Appraisal Instruments in Predicting Institutional Misconduct and New ConvictionsCriminal Justice and Behavior, 28
D. Thornton (2002)
Constructing and Testing a Framework for Dynamic Risk AssessmentSexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14
Rebecca Dempster, S. Hart (2002)
The Relative Utility of Fixed and Variable Risk Factors in Discriminating Sexual Recidivists and NonrecidivistsSexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14
T. Litwack (2001)
Actuarial Versus Clinical Assessments Of DangerousnessPsychology, Public Policy and Law, 7
S. Banks, P. Robbins, E. Silver, R. Vesselinov, H. Steadman, J. Monahan, E. Mulvey, P. Appelbaum, T. Grisso, L. Roth (2004)
A Multiple-Models Approach to Violence Risk Assessment Among People with Mental DisorderCriminal Justice and Behavior, 31
H. Barbaree, M. Seto, Calvin Langton, E. Peacock (2001)
Evaluating the Predictive Accuracy of Six Risk Assessment Instruments for Adult Sex OffendersCriminal Justice and Behavior, 28
Borum Borum (1996)
Improving the clinical practice of violent risk assessmentAmerican Psychologist, 51
Darci Bartosh, Tina Garby, Deborah Lewis, Steven Gray (2003)
Differences in the Predictive Validity of Actuarial Risk Assessments in Relation to Sex Offender TypeInternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47
John Taylor, R. Novaco, B. Gillmer, I. Thorne (2002)
Cognitive-behavioural treatment of anger intensity among offenders with intellectual disabilitiesJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 15
Hanson Hanson, Harris Harris (2000)
Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offence recidivismCriminal Justice & Behaviour, 27
Paul Werner, Terrence Rose, Jerome Yesavage (1990)
Aspects of consensus in clinical predictions of imminent violence.Journal of clinical psychology, 46 4
R. Novaco, John Taylor (2004)
Assessment of anger and aggression in male offenders with developmental disabilities.Psychological assessment, 16 1
Background Research on prediction of violent and sexual offending behaviour has developed considerably in the mainstream criminological literature. Apart from one publication (Quinsey (2004)Offenfers with Developmental Disabilities, pp. 131–142) this has not been extended to the field of intellectual disabilities. Methods Work on actuarial instruments, dynamic variables, clinical judgement and structured clinical judgement is reviewed. Results A number of studies comparing actuarial instruments in terms of their predictive validity are reviewed. Relative effectiveness and applicability to intellectual disability is considered. A framework for dynamic variables is outlined and the importance of dynamic variables for inclusion in risk prediction is established. Strengths and limitations of clinical judgement are reported and the importance of reliability is noted. Finally, structured clinical judgement is reviewed in terms of the way in which it combines the other three groups of variables. Conclusions The information regarding different methods of risk assessment is integrated with research and opinion contained in the Special Issue. Risk prediction will always be a judgement and as such there will always be errors in judgement. As clinicians, researchers and policy makers it is our duty to employ the latest research information to make predictions that are as accurate as possible. However, we must also help to promote a culture that can be tolerant of inevitable errors.
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.