Dahle Klaus-Peter
Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, Limonenstr. 27, 12203 Berlin Germany.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2006 Sep-Oct;29(5):431-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.001. Epub 2006 Jun 15.
Unlike many other countries, for many years, Germany disregarded structured instruments for assessing the risk of criminal reoffence. However, this negative attitude now seems to be gradually changing. An increasing number of contributions regarding structured instruments have been published in the German literature in the last years, and some instruments have already found their way into practice. However, studies that systematically examine the applicability of the mostly Anglo-American instruments to German criminals are still lacking. Therefore, the major objective of the current study was to test some internationally established procedures in a larger unselected sample from the German penal system. The following were included in the study: the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R), the HCR-20 Scheme, and the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R). On the whole, the instruments proved to be applicable to German criminals with only a few adaptations to the German situation, and they achieved a predictive accuracy comparable to the values reported internationally. However, there were only minor differences in the predictive performance between the measures. Moreover, some basic limitations became apparent. Firstly, we found quite high percentages of criminals with medium scores and a correspondingly ambiguous prognosis. Furthermore, the predictive accuracy seemed to be dependent on demographic, criminological and psychopathological characteristics of the offenders. Finally, the instruments appeared to only partially utilize the empirical store of knowledge available regarding factors influencing the recidivism of criminals, since even a simple predictive model that only added a few further aspects besides the tested instruments (e. g. treatment yes or no) achieved systematically better predictions than the instruments alone. Altogether, the tested measures turned out to be useful instruments for risk assessments and may be conducive for a more systemized practice. However, due to the limitations inherent, they should be seen as a complement to a careful and clinically informed appraisal and not a substitute.
与许多其他国家不同，多年来德国一直忽视用于评估再次犯罪风险的结构化工具。然而，这种消极态度现在似乎正在逐渐改变。近年来，德国文献中发表了越来越多关于结构化工具的文章，一些工具已经在实践中得到应用。然而，系统检验大多数源自英美的工具对德国罪犯适用性的研究仍然缺乏。因此，本研究的主要目的是在德国刑罚系统中一个未经过筛选的较大样本中测试一些国际上公认的程序。本研究纳入了以下工具：修订版服务水平量表（LSI-R）、HCR-20方案和修订版心理变态检查表（PCL-R）。总体而言这些工具被证明适用于德国罪犯，只需对德国的情况做一些调整，并且它们所达到的预测准确性与国际上报道的值相当。然而，这些测量方法在预测性能上只有细微差异。此外，一些基本的局限性也变得明显。首先，我们发现中等分数的罪犯比例相当高，其预后相应地也不明确。此外，预测准确性似乎取决于罪犯的人口统计学、犯罪学和心理病理学特征。最后，这些工具似乎只是部分利用了现有的关于影响罪犯累犯因素的经验知识储备，因为即使是一个简单的预测模型，除了所测试的工具之外只增加了一些其他方面（例如是否接受治疗），其预测效果也系统地优于单独使用这些工具。总的来说，所测试的方法被证明是用于风险评估的有用工具，可能有助于更系统化的实践。然而，由于其固有的局限性，它们应被视为对仔细的、基于临床知识的评估的补充，而不是替代品。
