Litwack T R, Kirschner S M, Wack R C
Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, N.Y.C., N.Y. 10019.
Psychiatr Q. 1993 Fall;64(3):245-73. doi: 10.1007/BF01064602.
Recent research on clinical and actuarial assessments of dangerousness leaves many important questions unanswered regarding the relative validity and utility of such assessments. Moreover, the focus that has existed on determining the false-positive and false-negative rates of predictions of violence may be fundamentally misplaced. Clinical evaluations of dangerousness should be viewed as assessments of risk rather than as predictions of violence; and future research should focus on understanding and evaluating how clinical assessments of dangerousness-regarding truly representative types of possibly dangerous patients--are (or should be) made. In the meantime, the research to date on clinical assessments of dangerousness cannot properly be taken to conflict with the Supreme Court's recent affirmations of the admissibility of such assessments in courtroom proceedings.
近期关于危险性的临床评估和精算评估的研究，留下了许多关于此类评估的相对有效性和实用性的重要问题未得到解答。此外，一直以来对确定暴力预测的假阳性率和假阴性率的关注可能从根本上就放错了地方。对危险性的临床评估应被视为风险评估，而非暴力预测；未来的研究应聚焦于理解和评估，对于真正具有代表性的可能危险患者类型，如何（或应该如何）进行危险性的临床评估。与此同时，迄今为止关于危险性临床评估的研究，不能被恰当地认为与最高法院最近关于此类评估在法庭程序中可采信的肯定意见相冲突。
