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

References

• Adviesbureau Van Montfoort & Reclassering Nederland. (2004). RISc versie 1.0. Recidive Inschattings Schalen. Handleiding [RISc version 1.0. Risk Assessment Scales. Manual]. Flevodruk.
   Google Scholar
• AEgisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., Cohen, G., & Rush, J. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341–382. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005285875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 84–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_07
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arkes, H. R. (1981). Impediments to accurate clinical judgment and possible ways to minimize their impact. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(3), 323–330. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.3.323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 490–521. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/009385480102800406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckham, J. C., Annis, L. V., & Gustafson, D. J. (1989). Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 13(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01056164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boccaccini, M. T., Chevalier, C. S., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G. (2017). Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Use and Reporting Practices in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations. Sexual Abuse : a Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(6), 592–614. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215612443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boccaccini, M. T., Rice, A. K., Helmus, L. M., Murrie, D. C., & Harris, P. B. (2017). Field validity of Static-99/R scores in a statewide sample of 34,687 convicted sexual offenders. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 611–623. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000377
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., & Murrie, D. C. (2008). Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower PCL-R scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 262–283. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014523
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20: Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.
   Google Scholar
• Bogaerts, S., Spreen, M., ter Horst, P., & Gerlsma, C. (2018). Predictive validity of the HKT-R risk assessment tool: Two and 5-year violent recidivism in a nationwide sample of Dutch forensic psychiatric patients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(8), 2259–2270. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17717128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation (No. 2007–06). https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/rsk-nd-rspnsvty-eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28(3), 497–506. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01336.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borum, R., Otto, R., & Golding, S. (1993). Improving clinical judgment and decision making in forensic evaluation. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 21(1), 35–76. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/009318539302100104
   Google Scholar
• Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. E. (2002). Manual for the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY). University of South Florida.
   Google Scholar
• Bridge, C., & Marić, M. (2019). Cognitive biases in forensic science training and education. In P. Kendeou, D. H. Robinson, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Misinformation and Fake News in Education. Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Brodsky, S. L. (2013). The pull to affiliate and allegiance effects. In Testifying in court: Guidelines and maxims for the expert witness. (2012-19379-039; 2nd ed., pp. 161–165). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/14037-039
   Google Scholar
• Brown, B., & Rakow, T. (2016). Understanding Clinicians' Use of Cues When Assessing the Future Risk of Violence: A Clinical Judgement Analysis in the Psychiatric Setting. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 23(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camilleri, A., Abarno, D., Bird, C., Coxon, A., Mitchell, N., Redman, K., Sly, N., Wills, S., Silenieks, E., Simpson, E., & Lindsay, H. (in press). A risk-based approach to cognitive bias in forensic science. Science & Justice : Justice, 59(5), 533–543. S1355030618303472. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.003
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, M. A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 567–590. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809333610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cauley, D. R. (2007). Risk assessment of civilly committed sexually violent predators: Static versus dynamic orientations. Forensic Examiner, 16(1), 18–24.
   Google Scholar
• Chappell, A. T., Maggard, S. R., & Higgins, J. L. (2013). Exceptions to the rule? Exploring the use of overrides in detention risk assessment. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(4), 332–348. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012470849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman, S. D. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: A problem of evidence integration, not just evidence evaluation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 56–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier, C. S., Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G. (2015). Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance? Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, L. A., Browne, K. D., Stringer, I., & Beech, A. (2005). Sexual recidivism: A review of static, dynamic and actuarial predictors. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600410001667733
   Google Scholar
• Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013). Cognitive debiasing 2: Impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(Suppl 2), ii65–ii72. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Curley, L. J., Munro, J., Lages, M., MacLean, R., & Murray, J. (2019). Assessing cognitive bias in forensic decisions: A review and outlook. Journal of Forensic Sciences, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14220
   Google Scholar
• Curley, L. J., Munro, J., Lages, M., MacLean, R., & Murray, J. (2020). Authors’ response. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Advance Online Publication, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14273
   Google Scholar
• Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 243(4899), 1668–1674. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Ruiter, C. (2016). Risk assessment in the Netherlands. In J. P. Singh, S. Bjørkly, & S. Fazel (Eds.), International perspectives on violence risk assessment. (pp. 270–279). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• de Ruiter, C., & Hildebrand, M. (2007). Risk assessment and treatment in Dutch forensic psychiatry. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 63(4), 152–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03061078
   Google Scholar
• de Ruiter, C., & Kaser-Boyd, N. (2015). Forensic psychological assessment in practice: Case studies. (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315723310
   Google Scholar
• de Vogel, V., & de Ruiter, C. (2006). Structured professional judgment of violence risk in forensic clinical practice: A prospective study into the predictive validity of the Dutch HCR-20. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160600569029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vries Robbé, M., de Vogel, V., & Douglas, K. S. (2013). Risk factors and protective factors: A two-sided dynamic approach to violence risk assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24(4), 440–457. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2013.818162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., Bouman, Y. H. A., & de Vries Robbé, M. (2009). SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk. Forum Educatief.
   Google Scholar
• de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., Bouman, Y. H. A., & de Vries Robbé, M. (2012). SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk (2nd ed.). Forum Educatief.
   Google Scholar
• DeClue, G., & Rice, A. (2016). Florida’s released “Sexually Violent Predators” are not “high risk. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8, 22–51.
   Google Scholar
• DeMatteo, D., Hart, S. D., Heilbrun, K., Boccaccini, M. T., Cunningham, M. D., Douglas, K. S., Dvoskin, J. A., Edens, J. F., Guy, L. S., Murrie, D. C., Otto, R. K., Packer, I. K., & Reidy, T. J. (2020). Statement of concerned experts on the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised in capital sentencing to assess risk for institutional violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, K. S., & Kropp, P. R. (2002). A prevention-based paradigm for violence risk assessment: Clinical and research applications. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(5), 617–658. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/009385402236735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., Belfrage, H., Guy, L. S., & Wilson, C. M. (2014). Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20v3): Development and overview. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(2), 93–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.906519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle, M., & Dolan, M. (2007). Standardized risk assessment. Psychiatry, 6(10), 409–414. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mppsy.2007.07.004
   Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E. (2012). Expectations, contextual information, and other cognitive influences in forensic laboratories. Science & Justice, 52(2), 132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2012.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E. (2018). Biases in forensic experts. Science (New York, N.Y.), 360(6386), 243 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., & Murrie, D. C. (2018). A hierarchy of expert performance applied to forensic psychological assessments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int, 156(1), 74–78. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M., & Risinger, M. (2015). Letter to the Editor- Context Management Toolbox: A Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) Approach for Minimizing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decision Making. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(4), 1111–1112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Expertisecentrum Forensische Psychiatrie. (n.d.). About EFP. efp.nl/en/about-efp (accessed February 28, 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. (pp. 422–444). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Counterfactuals as behavioral primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(4), 384–409. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galinsky, A. D., Moskowitz, G. B., & Skurnik, I. (2000). Counterfactuals as self-generated primes: The effect of prior counterfactual activation on person perception judgments. Social Cognition, 18(3), 252–280. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2000.18.3.252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, B. O., Kelley, S., Murrie, D. C., & Dror, I. E. (2019). What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making? Science & Justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society, 59(5), 516–523. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowensmith, W. N., & McCallum, K. E. (2019). Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the least biased of them all? Dangers and potential solutions regarding bias in forensic psychological evaluations. South African Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246319835117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowensmith, W. N., Bryant, A. E., & Vitacco, M. J. (2014). Decision-making in post-acquittal hospital release: How do forensic evaluators make their decisions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(5), 596–607. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gowensmith, W. N., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2012). Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree? Law and Human Behavior, 36(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graber, M. L., Kissam, S., Payne, V. L., Meyer, A. N. D., Sorensen, A., Lenfestey, N., Tant, E., Henriksen, K., LaBresh, K., & Singh, H. (2012). Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: A narrative review. BMJ Quality & Safety, 21(7), 535–557. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grisso, T. (2010). Guidance for improving forensic reports: A review of common errors. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 102–115.
   Google Scholar
• Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guarnera, L. A., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2017). Why do forensic experts disagree? Sources of unreliability and bias in forensic psychology evaluations. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000114
   Google Scholar
• Guay, J. P., & Parent, G. (2018). Broken legs, clinical overrides, and recidivism risk: An analysis of decisions to adjust risk levels with the LS/CMI. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(1), 82–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy, L. S., Nelson, R. J., Fusco-Morin, S. L., & Vincent, G. M. (2014). What do juvenile probation officers think of using the SAVRY and YLS/CMI for case management, and do they use the instruments properly? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(3), 227–241. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.939789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. (No. 1999–02). Solicitor General Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Scott, T.-L., Helmus, L. (2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-05). Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ssssng-rsk-sxl-ffndrs/ssssng-rsk-sxl-ffndrs-eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L.-M., & Harris, A. J. R. (2015). Assessing the risk and needs of supervised sexual offenders: A prospective study using STABLE-2007, Static-99R, and Static-2002R. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12), 1205–1224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815602094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(4), 315–335.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). The Hare psychopathy checklist: Screening version. Multi-Health Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, P. M. (2006). What community supervision officers need to know about actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment. Federal Probation, 70(2), 8–14.
   Google Scholar
• Harte, J. M., & Breukink, M. D. (2010). Objectiviteit of schijnzekerheid? Kwaliteit, mogelijkheden en beperkingen van instrumenten voor risicotaxatie [Objectivity or apparent security? Quality, possibilities and limitations of instruments for risk assessment. Tijdschrift Voor Criminologie, 52(1), 52–72.
   Google Scholar
• Hartvig, P., Ostberg, B., Alfarnes, S., Moger, T. A., Skjønberg, M., & Bjørkly, S. (2007). Violent risk screen 10 (V-RISK-10). www.forensicpsychiatry
   Google Scholar
• Hawes, S. W., Boccaccini, M. T., & Murrie, D. C. (2013). Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: Meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 233–243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030391
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmus, L., Thornton, D., Hanson, R. K., & Babchishin, K. M. (2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse : a Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(1), 64–101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, D., & Demetrioff, S. (2019). Clinical-forensic psychology in Canada: A survey of practitioner characteristics, attitudes, and psychological assessment practices. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 60(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurducas, C. C., Singh, J. P., de Ruiter, C., & Petrila, J. (2014). Violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review of surveys. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.942923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huss, M. T., & Zeiss, R. A. (2004). Clinical assessment of violence from inpatient records: A comparison of individual and aggregate decision making across risk strategies. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 3(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2004.10471203
   Google Scholar
• Jeanguenat, A. M., Budowle, B., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Strengthening forensic DNA decision making through a better understanding of the influence of cognitive bias. Science & Justice : Justice, 57(6), 415–420. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley, S. M., Ambroziak, G., Thornton, D., & Barahal, R. M. (2020). How do professionals assess sexual recidivism risk? An updated survey of practices. Sexual Abuse : a Journal of Research and Treatment, 32(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218800474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., & Belfrage, H. (2005). The brief spousal assault form for the evaluation of risk (BSAFER): User manual. ProActive ReSolutions, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kukucka, J., & Kassin, S. M. (2014). Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 256–270. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 452–459. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(5), 491–498. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.5.491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanterman, J. L., Boyle, D. J., & Ragusa-Salerno, L. M. (2014). Sex offender risk assessment, sources of variation, and the implications of misuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(7), 822–843. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813515237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leij, J. B. J. v d., Jackson, J. L., Malsch, M., & Nijboer, J. F. (2001). Residential mental health assessment within Dutch criminal cases: A discussion. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(5-6), 691–702. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science : a Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 4(4), 390–398. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1231
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLean, N., Neal, T. M. S., Morgan, R. D., & Murrie, D. C. (2019). Forensic clinicians’ understanding of bias. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(4), 323–330. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse : a Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(2), 191–217. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210366039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, J. L., & Kan, L. Y. (2014). Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(2), 128–135. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNiel, D. E., Lam, J. N., & Binder, R. L. (2000). Relevance of interrater agreement to violence risk assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 1111–1115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messina, E., Ferracuti, S., Nicolò, G., Ruggeri, M., Kooijmans, T., & Meynen, G. (2019). Forensic psychiatric evaluations of defendants: Italy and the Netherlands compared. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 66, 101473 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J., & Maloney, C. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 716–736. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812468883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
   Google Scholar
• Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Appelbaum, P. S., Grisso, T., Mulvey, E. P., Roth, L. H., Robbins, P. C., Banks, S., & Silver, E. (2006). The classification of violence risk. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24(6), 721–730. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959537.n35
   Google Scholar
• Mumma, G. H., & Wilson, S. B. (1995). Procedural debiasing of primacy/anchoring effects in clinical-like judgments. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 841–853. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<841::AID-JCLP2270510617>3.0.CO;2-K
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., & Balusek, K. (2008). Forensic assessment of violence risk in adversarial proceedings: Pursuing objectivity and avoiding bias. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(4), 141–153. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v07n04_06
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., & Warren, J. I. (2005). Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity opinions: Implications for self-monitoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(5), 519–524. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychol Sci, 24(10), 1889–1897. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Johnson, J. T., & Janke, C. (2008). Does interrater (dis)agreement on Psychopathy Checklist scores in sexually violent predator trials suggest partisan allegiance in forensic evaluations? Law and Human Behavior, 32(4), 352–362. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9097-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., Meeks, M., Woods, C., & Tussey, C. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(1), 19–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakhaeizadeh, S., Dror, I. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: Visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. Science & Justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society, 54(3), 208–214. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council (2009). (Ed.). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014a). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 200–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014b). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1406–1421. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., & Saks, M. J. (2016). The science of science offers solutions to cognitive bias in forensic psychology. American Psychology-Law Society Annual Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Nederlands Instituut voor Forensische Psychiatrie en Psychologie (2018). NIFP-richtlijn: Ambulant forensisch psychologisch onderzoek en rapportage in het strafrecht. https://www.nifp.nl/binaries/richtlijn-ambulant-forensisch-onderzoek-en-rapportage-in-strafzaken_tcm106-351968.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, L. H., Mastrigt, S. v., Otto, R. K., Seewald, K., Ruiter, C. d., Rettenberger, M., Reeves, K. A., Rebocho, M. F., Pham, T. H., Mei Yee Ho, R., Grann, M., Godoy-Cervera, V., Folino, J. O., Doyle, M., Desmarais, S. L., Condemarin, C., Arbach-Lucioni, K., & Singh, J. P. (2015). Violence risk assessment practices in Denmark: A multidisciplinary national survey. Scandinavian Journal of Forensic Science, 21(2), 103–110. 0(0). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/sjfs-2015-0003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. [Database] https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, G. (2016). Come see the bias inherent in the system!. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 44(4), 411–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham, T., Ducro, C., Desmarais, S. L., Hurducas, C., Arbach-Lucioni, K., Condemarin, C., Dean, K., Doyle, M., Folino, J. O., Godoy-Cervera, V., Grann, M., Ho, R. M. Y., Large, M. M., Nielsen, L. H., Rebocho, M. F., Reeves, K. A., Rettenberger, M., de Ruiter, C., Seewald, K., Otto, R. K., & Singh, J. P. (2016). Enquête internationale sur les pratiques d’évaluation du risque de violence: Présentation des données belges [International survey of violence risk assessment practices: Presentation of Belgian data. Annales Médico-Psychologiques, Revue Psychiatrique, 174(7), 539–543. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2015.10.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pronin, E., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 565–578. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Rettenberger, M., Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Eher, R. (2017). Actuarial risk assessment of sexual offenders: The psychometric properties of the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 624–638. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risicotaxie, W. P. (2002). Findings of a nationwide pilot study on the HKT-30. Ministerie van Justitie.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, F., Sinclair, S. M., & Thomasdóttir, S. (2016). Predictive validity of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory with youth who have committed sexual and non-sexual offenses: The utility of professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 413–430. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815603389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd, S. M., & Sullivan, D. (2017). Covert and implicit influences on the interpretation of violence risk instruments. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law : An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(2), 292–301. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1197817
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, J. P., Assy, R., & Serpa, K. I. (2019). Violence risk assessment practices in Israel: A preliminary survey investigation. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 11(2), 116–126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-05-2018-0358
   Google Scholar
• Singh, J. P., Desmarais, S. L., Hurducas, C., Arbach-Lucioni, K., Condemarin, C., Dean, K., Doyle, M., Folino, J. O., Godoy-Cervera, V., Grann, M., Ho, R. M. Y., Large, M. M., Nielsen, L. H., Pham, T. H., Rebocho, M. F., Reeves, K. A., Rettenberger, M., de Ruiter, C., Seewald, K., & Otto, R. K. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.922141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soll, J. B., Milkman, K. L., & Payne, J. W. (2015). A user’s guide to debiasing. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. (pp. 924–951). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468333.ch33
   Google Scholar
• Spreen, M., Brand, E., Ter Horst, P., & Bogaerts, S. (2014). Handleiding en Methodologische Verantwoording HKT-R, Historische, Klinische en Toekomstige – Revisie [Guidelines and Methodological Research of the HKT-R, Historical, Clinical and Future – Revision]. Dr. van Mesdag kliniek.
   Google Scholar
• Storey, J. E., Watt, K. A., Jackson, K. J., & Hart, S. D. (2012). Utilization and implications of the Static-99 in practice. Sexual Abuse : a Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211423943
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, W. C. (2020). Assessing cognitive bias in forensic decisions: A review and outlook. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(2), 666–667. Curley, L. J., Munro, J., Lages, M., MacLean, R., & Murray, J. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbaniok, F. (2007). FOTRES: Forensisches Operationalisiertes Therapie-Risiko-Evaluations-System [FOTRES: Forensic Operationalized Therapy/Risk Evaluation System]. Zytglogge.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Horn, J., Eisenberg, M., & Uzieblo, K. (2016). Risicotaxatie in de Nederlandse ambulante forensische geestelijke gezondheidszorg. Tijdschrift Voor Psychiatrie, 58, 583–592.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viljoen, J. L., McLachlan, K., & Vincent, G. M. (2010). Assessing violence risk and psychopathy in juvenile and adult offenders: A survey of clinical practices. Assessment, 17(3), 377–395. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191109359587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S., Eaves, D. C., & Hart, S. D. (1997). HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence (version 2). Mental Health Law and Policy Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, C. D., Martin, M. L., Brink, J., Nicholls, T. L., & Middleton, C. (2004). Manual for the short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START). St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton and British Columbia Mental Health and Addiction Services.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 117–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, S. C. P., & Gordon, A. (2006). The validity and reliability of the violence risk scale: A treatment-friendly violence risk assessment tool. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(3), 279–309. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.12.3.279
   Google Scholar
• Wormith, J. S., Hogg, S., & Guzzo, L. (2012). The predictive validity of a general risk/needs assessment inventory on sexual offender recidivism and an exploration of the professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1511–1538. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812455741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, M., Wong, S. C. P., & Coid, J. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 740–767. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: Lessons from forensic science. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 16(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2017.1317302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf, P. A., Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., & Dror, I. E. (2018). Cognitive bias in forensic mental health assessment: Evaluator beliefs about its nature and scope. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zappala, M., Reed, A. L., Beltrani, A., Zapf, P. A., & Otto, R. K. (2018). Anything you can do, I can do better: Bias awareness in forensic evaluators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 18(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2017.1413532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar