Content area
Full text
This article provides an overview of the current practices and challenges in psychological risk assessment for crime and violence. Risk assessments have improved considerably during the past 20 years. The dismal predictive accuracy of unstructured professional opinion has largely been replaced by more accurate, structured risk assessment methods. Consensus has not been achieved, however, on the constructs assessed by the various risk tools, nor the best method of combining factors into an overall evaluation of risk. Advancing risk assessment for crime and violence requires psychometrically sound evaluations of psychologically meaningful causal risk factors described using nonarbitrary metrics.
Keywords: risk assessment, violence, recidivism
Risk assessments for crime and violence are different from other forms of psychological assessment because the presenting problem is not directly observed. Therapists working with depression and anxiety routinely see clients who are visibly depressed and anxious. In contrast, therapists working with criminals may never see a crime. Risk assessment involves estimating the probability of a future event based on secondary, indicator variables. The general principles of assessment for the indicator variables are the same as for other areas of psychology (e.g., reliability, validity, observed, and latent constructs); the special concerns of violence risk assessment are the selection of factors to assess, and the methods for combining the factors into an overall evaluation of risk.
Psychological risk assessments are frequently requested for individuals who have violated social norms or displayed bizarre behavior, particularly when they appear menacing or unpredictable. Crucial decisions in the criminal justice, mental health, and child protection systems are predicated on the risk of harm. Individuals can even be detained involuntarily for risk assessment should they be suspected of being dangerous (see the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 752.1(1), and the mental health legislation for all the provinces and territories).
Some knowledge of risk assessment is required for all mental health professionals. The famous 1976 Tarasoff decision established the duty to protect third parties from the risk presented by mental health cUents (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 1974, 1976). Although the Tarasoff case was based in California, almost every jurisdiction in the United States and Canada have followed its legal reasoning (Truscott, 1993; Truscott & Crook, 2004), and the basic recommendations are enshrined in the Code...