Monahan John, Skeem Jennifer L
1School of Law,University of Virginia,Charlottesville,Virginia,USA.
2School of Social Welfare & Goldman School of Public Policy,University of California-Berkeley,Berkeley,California,USA.
CNS Spectr. 2014 Oct;19(5):419-24. doi: 10.1017/S1092852914000145. Epub 2014 Mar 28.
Many instruments have been published in recent years to improve the ability of mental health clinicians to estimate the likelihood that an individual will behave violently toward others. Increasingly, these instruments are being applied in response to laws that require specialized risk assessments. In this review, we present a framework that goes beyond the "clinical" and "actuarial" dichotomy to describe a continuum of structured approaches to risk assessment. Despite differences among them, there is little evidence that one instrument predicts violence better than another. We believe that these group-based instruments are useful for assessing an individual's risk, and that the instrument should be chosen based on the purpose of the assessment.
近年来，已发表了许多工具，以提高心理健康临床医生评估个体对他人实施暴力行为可能性的能力。越来越多的此类工具被用于响应要求进行专门风险评估的法律。在本综述中，我们提出了一个框架，该框架超越了“临床”和“精算”二分法，以描述风险评估结构化方法的连续体。尽管它们之间存在差异，但几乎没有证据表明一种工具比另一种工具能更好地预测暴力行为。我们认为，这些基于群体的工具对于评估个体风险是有用的，并且应根据评估目的选择工具。
