Risk Assessment-Cheat Sheet, Cheat Sheet of Forensics

Download Risk Assessment-Cheat Sheet and more Cheat Sheet Forensics in PDF only on Docsity!

Prediction to risk

assessment

What is Risk Assessment?

Risk assessment refers to the process of identifying potential dangers and estimating: ● How likely a harmful event is to occur ● How serious the consequences would be ● When the risk might occur ● Whether preventive action is needed Examples from everyday life: ● Weather forecasting (chance of floods or storms) ● Medicine (risk of disease, side effects of treatment)

• In forensic psychology, risk assessment focuses on future harmful or criminal behavior.

Risk Assessment as Prediction

At its core, psychological assessment aims to predict future behavior using

information about:

● Past behavior

● Personality traits

● Mental health

● Environmental factors

In legal settings, predictions are made about:

● Future violence

● Risk of reoffending (recidivism)

● Whether someone is safe to release into the community

● Parole, probation, and sentencing decisions

● Death penalty decisions

Types of Predictive Approaches (Morris & Miller, 1985)

• Clinical Prediction : in which the prediction is based on clinical experience and judgment;
• Actuarial prediction: in which the prediction is based on a statistical scheme or formula
• Anamnestic prediction, in which the prediction is based on a specific analysis of how a particular person has acted in the past in similar situations

“Dangerousness” to Risk Assessment

Traditional idea: Dangerousness

● Viewed people as either: Dangerous or Not dangerous ● Rooted mainly in legal thinking , not science ● Focused on labeling individuals , not understanding patterns

New framework: Risk Assessment

● Influenced by public health , not criminal law ● Violence seen as: ○○ ASomething that can be health-related problem managed and reduced (like heart disease or cancer, not just punished ○○ Continuous (low to high)Dynamic and changes with person and environment

History

Earlier view (Monahan, 1981):

● Predicting violence was largely inaccurate and Professionals only slightly better than chance

Shift in the 1990s:

● Researchers realized:

The problem wasn’t prediction itself but how predictions were being made

Second-generation studies (Otto, 1992):

● Focused on risk factors , not global judgments

● Asked: What increases risk? Under what conditions does violence occur?

B. Dynamic Risk Factors (Changeable)

These fluctuate over time : ● Current psychotic symptoms ● Impulsivity ● Anger and hostility ● Lack of insight ● Poor treatment response Crucial for: ● Monitoring risk ● Intervention ● Clinical decision-making

C. Risk Management Factors (Contextual)

These concern the environment : ● Level of supervision ● Access to victims or weapons ● Social support ● Medication compliance ● Stressors (family, work, peers)

Emphasizes that risk is situational , not just personal.

Clinical vs Actuarial Prediction

Clinical Judgment

● Based on experience and intuition ● Subject to bias ● Accuracy: modest

Actuarial Prediction

● Uses statistical combinations of variables ● More consistent ● More accurate overall Research consensus: Actuarial methods outperform clinical judgment in predicting violence.

Development of Risk Assessment Instruments

Purpose:

● Replace vague opinions with structured decision-making

● Improve reliability and transparency

● Base Rate: What It Means and Why It Matters in Risk Prediction

Base rate = how often an event actually occurs in the general population.

● In suicide prediction, the base rate is very low , even in high-risk groups such as psychiatric

inpatients.

If you ignore how rare an event is, your predictions will almost certainly be wrong because its fails

to adjust predictions based on how rare e.g suicide actually is

Two kinds of errors:

● False positive: Predict suicide → it does not occur

● False negative: Predict no suicide → suicide occurs

Because suicide is rare:

● Most predictions of suicide will be false positives

● Clinicians end up being “wrong” most of the time

To be noted:

● Risk assessment should guide monitoring and intervention , not certainty claims