Forensic Mental Health Practitioners’ Use of Structured Risk Assessment Instruments, Views about Bias in Risk Evaluations, and Strategies to Counteract It

Abstract

The use of structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) has increased significantly over the past decades, with research documenting variation between countries. The use of SRAIs, their perceived utility and potential for mitigating bias in forensic risk evaluations (FREs) was investigated in a survey of Dutch forensic mental health practitioners (N = 110) We found generally positive views regarding SRAI utility. Bias in FREs was of concern to respondents. We found no evidence of a bias blind spot (the belief that oneself is less prone to bias than peers/colleagues). SRAIs were rated as the most effective debiasing strategy, but respondents also endorsed introspection. There were few differences in beliefs about sources of bias or debiasing strategies between respondents who had bias training and those who had not, suggesting the need for development of effective strategies to mitigate bias and training related to bias in FREs.

Keywords:

• cognitive bias
• debiasing strategies
• forensic mental health
• forensic risk evaluations
• risk assessment

Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, JK, upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by a fellowship from the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Program, The House of Legal Psychology [grant no. FPA 2013-0036] and [grant no. SGA 532473-EM-5-2017-1-NL-ERAMUNDUS-EPJD].