This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bengtson, S. Articles by LÅngström, N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bengtson, S. Articles by LÅngström, N. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Unguided Clinical and Actuarial Assessment of Re-offending Risk: A Direct Comparison with Sex Offenders in Denmark

Department of Psychology, University of Aarhus, Jens Chr. Skous Vej 4, 8000, Arhus, Denmark, bengtson{at}psy.au.dk

Niklas LÅngström

Centre for Violence Prevention, Karolinska Institute, Box 23000, 104 35, Stockholm, Sweden

Meta-analyses suggest that actuarial risk assessments outperform unguided clinical judgment for prediction of recidivism in criminal offenders. However, there is a lack of direct comparisons of the predictive accuracy of clinical judgment and actuarial risk scales for sexual offenders. We followed up 121 male sex offenders (18 years) subjected to pre-trial forensic psychiatric assessment in Denmark in 1978-1992 (mean post-detainment time=16.4 years) to compare the predictive validity of unstructured clinical judgment of recidivism risk with that of the well-established Static-99 (Hanson and Thornton, Law and Human Behavior 24:119-136, 2000) and an extension of the Static-99, the Static-2002 (Hanson and Thornton, Notes on the development of Static-2002 (Rep. No. 2003-01), Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 2003). The predictive accuracy of unguided judgment did not exceed chance for any sexual, severe sexual or any violent (sexual or non-sexual) reconviction (AUCs of the ROC curve=0.52, 95%CI=0.41-0.63; 0.50, 95%CI=0.34-0.67; and 0.57, 95%CI= 0.40-0.73, respectively). In contrast, all three outcomes were predicted significantly better than chance by the Static-99 (AUC=0.62, 95%CI=0.52-0.72; 0.72, 95%CI= 0.59-0.84; and 0.71, 95%CI=0.56-0.86) and the Static-2002 (AUC=0.67, 95%CI= 0.57-0.77; 0.69, 95%CI=0.56-0.83; and 0.70, 95%CI=0.55-0.86). Static-99 out-performed clinical judgment for sexual recidivision (²=5.11, df=1, p<.05). The Static-2002 was significantly more accurate for the prediction of any sexual recidivism as compared to unguided clinical judgment but its advantage fell just short of statistical significance for severe sexual recidivism (²=3.56, df=1, p=0.06). When tested for recidivism within 2 years, none of the three prediction methods yielded results significantly better than chance for any outcome. This direct trial of the unguided clinical method argues against its continued use for risk assessment of sexual offenders.

Key Words: Sex offenders • Risk assessment • Prediction ·Criminal recidivism • Clinical judgement • Actuarial instrument • Static 99 • Static 2002

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Vol. 19, No. 2, 135-153 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/107906320701900205


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?