Do risk measure scores and diagnoses predict evaluator opinions in sexually violent predator cases? It depends on the evaluator
Field research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in ways that likely reflect something about themselves, not just the persons evaluated. This study used data from sexually violent predator (SVP)...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Law and human behavior Ročník 48; číslo 5-6; s. 531 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
United States
01.10.2024
|
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 1573-661X, 1573-661X |
| On-line přístup: | Zjistit podrobnosti o přístupu |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | Field research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in ways that likely reflect something about themselves, not just the persons evaluated. This study used data from sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to examine whether evaluator differences in making intermediate decisions (e.g., instrument scoring, assigning diagnoses) might explain their different patterns of final opinions.
Although this study was generally exploratory and not strongly hypothesis driven, we expected that there might be evidence for a simple form of bias in which some evaluators would be more likely than others to consistently "find" indications of SVP status (i.e., consistently assigning higher risk scores and more SVP-relevant diagnoses) and, therefore, be more likely to find behavioral abnormality, the legal construct qualifying someone for commitment as an SVP.
The study used data from 745 SVP evaluations conducted by 10 different evaluators who were assigned cases from the same referral stream. Potential evaluator difference variables included behavioral abnormality opinions, paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder diagnoses, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Static-99 scores.
Evaluator differences explained a statistically significant (
< .001) amount of variance in behavioral abnormality opinions (17%), paraphilia diagnoses (7%), and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores (16%). Contrary to our expectation of a simple tendency for some evaluators to find all indicators of SVP status more often than others, evaluators differed in the ways that underlying diagnoses and scores corresponded with their conclusions. The overall pattern was one in which different evaluators appeared to base their final opinions on different factors.
Findings reveal further evidence of substantial forensic evaluator differences in patterns of assigning instrument scores and reaching forensic conclusions. But these findings are the first to also reveal wide variability in their patterns of reaching forensic conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved). |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Field research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in ways that likely reflect something about themselves, not just the persons evaluated. This study used data from sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to examine whether evaluator differences in making intermediate decisions (e.g., instrument scoring, assigning diagnoses) might explain their different patterns of final opinions.
Although this study was generally exploratory and not strongly hypothesis driven, we expected that there might be evidence for a simple form of bias in which some evaluators would be more likely than others to consistently "find" indications of SVP status (i.e., consistently assigning higher risk scores and more SVP-relevant diagnoses) and, therefore, be more likely to find behavioral abnormality, the legal construct qualifying someone for commitment as an SVP.
The study used data from 745 SVP evaluations conducted by 10 different evaluators who were assigned cases from the same referral stream. Potential evaluator difference variables included behavioral abnormality opinions, paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder diagnoses, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Static-99 scores.
Evaluator differences explained a statistically significant (
< .001) amount of variance in behavioral abnormality opinions (17%), paraphilia diagnoses (7%), and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores (16%). Contrary to our expectation of a simple tendency for some evaluators to find all indicators of SVP status more often than others, evaluators differed in the ways that underlying diagnoses and scores corresponded with their conclusions. The overall pattern was one in which different evaluators appeared to base their final opinions on different factors.
Findings reveal further evidence of substantial forensic evaluator differences in patterns of assigning instrument scores and reaching forensic conclusions. But these findings are the first to also reveal wide variability in their patterns of reaching forensic conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved). Field research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in ways that likely reflect something about themselves, not just the persons evaluated. This study used data from sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to examine whether evaluator differences in making intermediate decisions (e.g., instrument scoring, assigning diagnoses) might explain their different patterns of final opinions.OBJECTIVEField research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in ways that likely reflect something about themselves, not just the persons evaluated. This study used data from sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to examine whether evaluator differences in making intermediate decisions (e.g., instrument scoring, assigning diagnoses) might explain their different patterns of final opinions.Although this study was generally exploratory and not strongly hypothesis driven, we expected that there might be evidence for a simple form of bias in which some evaluators would be more likely than others to consistently "find" indications of SVP status (i.e., consistently assigning higher risk scores and more SVP-relevant diagnoses) and, therefore, be more likely to find behavioral abnormality, the legal construct qualifying someone for commitment as an SVP.HYPOTHESESAlthough this study was generally exploratory and not strongly hypothesis driven, we expected that there might be evidence for a simple form of bias in which some evaluators would be more likely than others to consistently "find" indications of SVP status (i.e., consistently assigning higher risk scores and more SVP-relevant diagnoses) and, therefore, be more likely to find behavioral abnormality, the legal construct qualifying someone for commitment as an SVP.The study used data from 745 SVP evaluations conducted by 10 different evaluators who were assigned cases from the same referral stream. Potential evaluator difference variables included behavioral abnormality opinions, paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder diagnoses, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Static-99 scores.METHODThe study used data from 745 SVP evaluations conducted by 10 different evaluators who were assigned cases from the same referral stream. Potential evaluator difference variables included behavioral abnormality opinions, paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder diagnoses, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Static-99 scores.Evaluator differences explained a statistically significant (p < .001) amount of variance in behavioral abnormality opinions (17%), paraphilia diagnoses (7%), and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores (16%). Contrary to our expectation of a simple tendency for some evaluators to find all indicators of SVP status more often than others, evaluators differed in the ways that underlying diagnoses and scores corresponded with their conclusions. The overall pattern was one in which different evaluators appeared to base their final opinions on different factors.RESULTSEvaluator differences explained a statistically significant (p < .001) amount of variance in behavioral abnormality opinions (17%), paraphilia diagnoses (7%), and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores (16%). Contrary to our expectation of a simple tendency for some evaluators to find all indicators of SVP status more often than others, evaluators differed in the ways that underlying diagnoses and scores corresponded with their conclusions. The overall pattern was one in which different evaluators appeared to base their final opinions on different factors.Findings reveal further evidence of substantial forensic evaluator differences in patterns of assigning instrument scores and reaching forensic conclusions. But these findings are the first to also reveal wide variability in their patterns of reaching forensic conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).CONCLUSIONSFindings reveal further evidence of substantial forensic evaluator differences in patterns of assigning instrument scores and reaching forensic conclusions. But these findings are the first to also reveal wide variability in their patterns of reaching forensic conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved). |
| Author | Boccaccini, Marcus T Harris, Paige B Murrie, Daniel C |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Marcus T orcidid: 0000-0002-1590-4905 surname: Boccaccini fullname: Boccaccini, Marcus T organization: Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State University – sequence: 2 givenname: Daniel C orcidid: 0000-0002-4195-1238 surname: Murrie fullname: Murrie, Daniel C organization: Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, University of Virginia – sequence: 3 givenname: Paige B orcidid: 0000-0001-6116-0786 surname: Harris fullname: Harris, Paige B organization: Cumberland School of Law, Samford University |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39133608$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkEtPwzAQhC1URB9w4QcgH7kE7DixkxNC5VWpEheQuEWOvaEG1w52UtETf52oFMFedkb6dqTZKRo57wChU0ouKGHi0q5qMkzO6QGa0FywhHP6Mvqnx2ga49vAlAXJj9CYlZQxTooJ-rrxOJj4jtcgYx8AR-UDRCydxtrIV-fj4NoA2qgOw0baXnY-YN8aZ7yL2Dgc4bOX1m7xxngLrtvhO0rJ4foKLzqsoQWnI_YOdyv4CzpGh420EU72e4ae726f5g_J8vF-Mb9eJpLlrEsE06QmuaK5Uk2ZEgq0EGWRZUWjua6zGiRrGl6C0FzUVGlChn5CAYDkqmjSGTr_yW2D_-ghdtXaRAXWSge-jxUjZcq44Fk2oGd7tK_XoKs2mLUM2-r3aek3gNByxA |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1080_00223891_2024_2433513 crossref_primary_10_1080_24732850_2025_2551644 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1037/lhb0000561 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Psychology Sociology & Social History Law |
| EISSN | 1573-661X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 39133608 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- -Y2 -~C -~X .4L .86 0-V 0R~ 1SB 2.D 28- 29L 2JY 2P1 2VQ 4.4 53G 5GY 5QI 5VS 67Z 6NX 78A 7RZ 7WY 7X7 85S 88E 8AO 8FI 8FJ 8FL 8G5 8TC 8UJ 8VB AACLI AAIAL AARHV AAYZH ABACO ABFSG ABIVO ABMNI ABNCP ABQSL ABUWG ABVOZ ACBXY ACHQT ACNCT ACOMO ACPQG ACSTC ACYUM ADBBV ADEPB ADHKG ADIMF ADKPE ADMHG ADNFJ ADRFC ADUOI ADXHL AEFIE AEGNC AEHFB AEZWR AFACB AFBBN AFEXP AFFNX AFGCZ AFHIU AFKRA AFLOW AFXCU AGJBK AGQPQ AGQRV AHBYD AHEHV AHKAY AHMBA AHQJS AHSBF AHWEU AIXLP AKVCP ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALSLI AMKLP AQUVI ARALO AWKKM AZQEC AZXWR BA0 BBWZM BENPR BEZIV BGNMA BGRYB BHRNT BPHCQ BVXVI CAG CCPQU CGNQK CGR COF CS3 CSCUP CUY CVF DL5 DU5 DWQXO D~- EBS EBU ECM EHE EIF EJD EKAWT EPA F5P FEDTE FM. FRNLG FTD FYUFA GNUQQ GROUPED_ABI_INFORM_RESEARCH GUQSH GXS H13 HF~ HG5 HG6 HGD HISYW HLICF HMCUK HVGLF HZ~ I09 IHE ISO IXC IZQ I~X K1G K60 K6~ KDC KOV KOW LAK LXHRH M0C M0O M0T M1P M2M M2O M4Y M86 N2Q NB0 NDZJH NPM NU0 O-J O9- O93 O9G O9I OAM OPA OVD P19 P2P PADUT PHGZM PHGZT PJZUB PPXIY PQBIZ PQBZA PQQKQ PROAC PRQQA PSQYO PSYQQ PUEGO Q2X QF4 QN5 QN7 QOK QOS QWB R4E R9I RHO RNI ROL RPX RRX RWL RXW RZC RZD S1Z S26 S27 S28 SBS SDH SDM SOJ T13 T16 TAA TAC TAF TEORI TH9 TSK U2A UKHRP VC2 W2G W48 WHG WIP WK6 WK8 YQR YQT YZZ ZCA ZCG ZL0 ZMU ZPI ~8M ~EX 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-a353t-73d0b05c15ccf9201e18798448fd6db4bea3ff69e7d67b1cd003607ceeea6c8f2 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 5 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=001300807500001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1573-661X |
| IngestDate | Thu Sep 04 17:00:37 EDT 2025 Fri Sep 26 01:52:56 EDT 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 5-6 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a353t-73d0b05c15ccf9201e18798448fd6db4bea3ff69e7d67b1cd003607ceeea6c8f2 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-4195-1238 0000-0002-1590-4905 0000-0001-6116-0786 |
| PMID | 39133608 |
| PQID | 3092367644 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_3092367644 pubmed_primary_39133608 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2024-10-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2024-10-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 10 year: 2024 text: 2024-10-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | Law and human behavior |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Law Hum Behav |
| PublicationYear | 2024 |
| SSID | ssj0009805 |
| Score | 2.4397967 |
| Snippet | Field research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 531 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Antisocial Personality Disorder - diagnosis Female Forensic Psychiatry Humans Male Paraphilic Disorders - diagnosis Risk Assessment Sex Offenses - legislation & jurisprudence Sex Offenses - psychology Violence |
| Title | Do risk measure scores and diagnoses predict evaluator opinions in sexually violent predator cases? It depends on the evaluator |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39133608 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3092367644 |
| Volume | 48 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos001300807500001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Nb9NAEB1RwqEXPgKUpoCmEuK26jobe-1TVAERSDTKAaTcov0UlVo7xAaUU_96Z3ed5ISExMWSpV3L8o5n3u7MvAfwLp-YouTSsyqfWBYUjVlltGfcEpgdh8wQ11FsQs7n5XJZLfoDt7Yvq9z5xOiobWPCGfmF4FUgG6PwPV3_ZEE1KmRXewmNIxgIgjLBquXywBZelbGEMculYBSHljt6UiEvbn5EeJQX2d-hZQwxsyf_-3JP4XEPLvEyWcMzeODqIRx9VX-GcLz3dNshjPZtKvgeU4MuJr6Q7XO4-9hgKDjH23R8iG1gumxR1RZtKsyju_UmZHg67NnCmw2Gzqtgw3hdYxuJnG-2mPL-XRweRxmKmu0Uv3SY5HdbbGokEHp40Av4Pvv07cNn1ss0MCVy0TEpLNc8N1lujK8IULigYF7Svs8HtaqJdkp4X1RO2kLqzNjAgcMlRWenClP68Ut4WDe1ewWYS8W19eNMGT7xZaa00-SuCRN6rpUsTuF89_1X9BuE3IaqXfOrXR1W4BRO0iKu1omvYyUq2ogXvBz9w-wzOB4TbEnleq9h4MkJuDfwyPzurtvN22hfdJ0vru4B5ULdVg |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do+risk+measure+scores+and+diagnoses+predict+evaluator+opinions+in+sexually+violent+predator+cases%3F+It+depends+on+the+evaluator&rft.jtitle=Law+and+human+behavior&rft.au=Boccaccini%2C+Marcus+T&rft.au=Murrie%2C+Daniel+C&rft.au=Harris%2C+Paige+B&rft.date=2024-10-01&rft.eissn=1573-661X&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=5-6&rft.spage=531&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037%2Flhb0000561&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F39133608&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F39133608&rft.externalDocID=39133608 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1573-661X&client=summon |