Desmarais Sarah L
North Carolina State University.
Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2017;16(1):18-22. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2016.1266422. Epub 2017 Jan 31.
Risk assessment has come to be recognized as a key component of evidence-based practice and policy in psychiatric and correctional agencies. At the same time, however, there is significant debate in scientific, policy, and public arenas regarding the role of risk assessment instruments in mental health and criminal justice decision-making, and questions regarding the level of evidence supporting their usefulness. It is in light of these conflicting realities that the current commentary considers Williams, Wormith, Bonta and Sitarenios' (2017) re-examination of the Singh, Grann, and Fazel (2011) meta-analysis and recommendations made in "The Use of Meta-Analysis to Compare and Select Offender Risk Instruments." Additional limitations in the extant risk assessment research are identified and their implications for evidence-based practice and policy are discussed.
风险评估已被视为精神病学和惩教机构循证实践与政策的关键组成部分。然而，与此同时，在科学、政策和公共领域，关于风险评估工具在心理健康和刑事司法决策中的作用，以及支持其效用的证据水平存在重大争议。鉴于这些相互冲突的现实情况，本评论文章考量了威廉姆斯、沃米思、邦塔和西塔雷诺斯（2017年）对辛格、格兰和法泽尔（2011年）荟萃分析的重新审视，以及在《运用荟萃分析比较和选择罪犯风险评估工具》中提出的建议。同时，还指出了现有风险评估研究中的其他局限性，并讨论了其对循证实践与政策的影响。
