Citation

A comparative study of risk assessment tools: A meta-analysis of 71 studies involving 29,095 participants

Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Similar Titles



Abstract:

There are a large number of structured instruments that assist in the assessment of antisocial, violent and sexual risk, and their use appears to be increasing in mental health and criminal justice settings. However, little is known about which commonly used instruments produce the highest rates of predictive validity, and whether overall rates of predictive validity differ by gender, ethnicity, outcome, and other study characteristics. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine commonly used risk assessment instruments following PRISMA guidelines. We collected data from 71 studies based on 29,095 participants in 91 separate samples. For 61 of the samples, new tabular data was provided directly by authors. We used four outcome statistics to assess rates of predictive validity, and analysed sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analysis and metaregression. Overall, we found tools aimed at specific populations to have higher rates of predictive validity. In addition, instruments produced higher rates of predictive validity in older and in predominantly White samples, and for certain outcomes. Risk assessment procedures and guidelines by mental health services and the criminal justice system may need review in light of these findings.
Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

Association:
Name: American Psychology - Law Society / 4th International Congress of Psychology and Law
URL:
http://www.ap-ls.org/


Citation:
URL: http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p483051_index.html
Direct Link:
HTML Code:

MLA Citation:

Singh, Jay. "A comparative study of risk assessment tools: A meta-analysis of 71 studies involving 29,095 participants" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology - Law Society / 4th International Congress of Psychology and Law, Hyatt Regency Miami, Miami, FL, Mar 02, 2011 <Not Available>. 2014-11-26 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p483051_index.html>

APA Citation:

Singh, J. P. , 2011-03-02 "A comparative study of risk assessment tools: A meta-analysis of 71 studies involving 29,095 participants" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology - Law Society / 4th International Congress of Psychology and Law, Hyatt Regency Miami, Miami, FL <Not Available>. 2014-11-26 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p483051_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: There are a large number of structured instruments that assist in the assessment of antisocial, violent and sexual risk, and their use appears to be increasing in mental health and criminal justice settings. However, little is known about which commonly used instruments produce the highest rates of predictive validity, and whether overall rates of predictive validity differ by gender, ethnicity, outcome, and other study characteristics. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine commonly used risk assessment instruments following PRISMA guidelines. We collected data from 71 studies based on 29,095 participants in 91 separate samples. For 61 of the samples, new tabular data was provided directly by authors. We used four outcome statistics to assess rates of predictive validity, and analysed sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analysis and metaregression. Overall, we found tools aimed at specific populations to have higher rates of predictive validity. In addition, instruments produced higher rates of predictive validity in older and in predominantly White samples, and for certain outcomes. Risk assessment procedures and guidelines by mental health services and the criminal justice system may need review in light of these findings.


Similar Titles:
Using Digital Tools for Writing Instruction in K-12 Schools: A Meta-Analysis Study on Student Achievement

What Judges Do: A Comparative Analysis and Proposed Tool for Assessment

Rates of violence in patients classified as “high risk” by structured risk assessment instruments: A meta-analysis of 49,283 participants in 140 samples

Underlying Risk in Spatial Analysis: Comparing the Suitability of Densities, Rates, and Cumulative Counts in the Ecological Study of Homicide Victimization


 
All Academic, Inc. is your premier source for research and conference management. Visit our website, www.allacademic.com, to see how we can help you today.