Thursday, September 5, 2013

Risk assessment tools plagued by 'authorship bias,' study finds

Original Article


By Karen Franklin, Ph.D.

Reported predictive validity higher in studies by an instrument's designers than by independent researchers

The use of actuarial risk assessment instruments to predict violence is becoming more and more central to forensic psychology practice. And clinicians and courts rely on published data to establish that the tools live up to their claims of accurately separating high-risk from low-risk offenders.

But as it turns out, the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments such as the Static-99 and the VRAG depends in part on the researcher's connection to the instrument in question.

Published studies authored by tool designers reported predictive validity findings around two times higher than investigations by independent researchers, according to a systematic meta-analysis that included 30,165 participants in 104 samples from 83 independent studies.

See Also:

1 comment :

Mark said...

What better way to obtain notoriety to make tests and then make sure the governments use them for assessments especially against sexual offenders. After all, all these tests are allegedly designed by so-called top psychological, and psychiatric "experts." Pecuniary interests? Conflict of interests?