A comparison of the predictive accuracy of structured and unstructured risk assessment methods for the prediction of recidivism in individuals convicted of sexual and violent offense.

Abstract

One of the most commonly replicated results in the research area of recidivism risk assessment is the superiority of structured and standardized prediction methods in comparison to unstructured, subjective, intuitive, or impressionistic clinical judgments. However, the quality of evidence supporting this conclusion is partly still controversially discussed because studies including direct comparisons of the predictive accuracy of unstructured and structured risk assessment methods have been relatively rarely conducted. Therefore, we examined in the present study retrospectively N = 416 expert witness reports written about individuals convicted of violent and/or sexual offenses in Germany between 1999 and 2015. The predictive accuracy of different methodological approaches of risk assessment (subjective clinical [i.e., unstructured clinical judgment; UCJ], structured professional judgment [SPJ], actuarial risk assessment instruments [ARAIs], and combinations of ARAIs-/SPJ-based risk assessments) was compared by analyzing the actual reoffenses according to the Federal Central Register (average follow-up period M = 7.08 years). In accordance with previously published results, the results indicated a higher predictive accuracy for structured compared to unstructured risk assessment approaches for the prediction of general, violent, and sexual recidivism. Taken together, the findings underline the limited accuracy of UCJs and provided further support for the use of structured and standardized risk assessment procedures in the area of crime and delinquency. Public Significance StatementIn order to prevent sexual and violent offenses, it is crucial to use instruments, which could assess the risk of reoffending in individuals already convicted of violent and/or sexual offenses. The present results confirmed previously published evidence for the superiority of structured risk assessment approaches compared to unstructured and intuitively made judgments. Furthermore, the combination of different (structured) risk assessment approaches seemed to be particularly promising.

The predictive validity of the V-RISK-10 and BVC among involuntarily admitted patients

“…In modern psychiatry, the purpose of risk assessment is to identify and prevent potential harmful events, such as suicidality or violence. Risk assessment strategies can be divided into unstructured professional judgement (UPJ), and structured methods, that is, actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAI’s) and structured professional judgements (SPJ) ( 1 ). While UPJ reflects a personal intuition or opinion, structured methods use observable static and dynamic risk factors ( 2 , 3 ).…”

The limited value of machine learning approach to improving predictive performance: The Ministry of Justice Case Assessment Tool.

“…It was found that the predictive validity using a checklist format with actuarial statistical methods produced better results than clinicians' predictions without checklist format (Desmarais et al, 2018;Howell et al, 2014). Recent analyses have also reconfirmed the superiority of insurance statistics over unstructured clinical judgment in predicting recidivism (Wertz et al, 2023).…”

The complex link between mental disorders and re‐offending in sexual offenders: Why we need to learn more

“…5 In relation to treatment of ICSO it is essential to address the psychosocial sequelae posed by comorbid mental disorders as well as specific criminogenic needs, particularly in treatment aiming to reduce reoffending. 3,6,7,11 Evidence of the effect of various treatment approaches of criminogenic needs in other patient groups (offenders/psychiatric samples) could guide the development of specific treatment approaches for ICSO. The subgroup-analysis in the Biedermann study 8 also points to the importance of conducting such an analysis given the fact that the ICSO group is heterogenic, necessitating different treatment approaches for the respective subgroups, especially specialized treatment of paraphilic disorders in ICSOC.…”

“…The finding that adding information about mental disorders did not increase the predictive value of the wellestablished structured risk assessment tools points to the importance of implementing validated risk assessment tools/checklists in the assessment and management of ICSO reoffending risk. Unstructured clinical judgment (UCJ) still appears to be the frequently applied risk assessment method in clinical practice, 11,12 despite several studies showing low predictive accuracy of UCJ across cultural and clinical contexts. 11,13 Yet, there is still a need for ecological field studies evaluating the accuracy of risk assessments conducted by experienced clinicians in real-world settings.…”

“…Unstructured clinical judgment (UCJ) still appears to be the frequently applied risk assessment method in clinical practice, 11,12 despite several studies showing low predictive accuracy of UCJ across cultural and clinical contexts. 11,13 Yet, there is still a need for ecological field studies evaluating the accuracy of risk assessments conducted by experienced clinicians in real-world settings.…”