Home      Login

Abstract: 

In recent decades, researchers have gradually refined and improved the ability to assess the risk of recidivism among sexual and nonsexual offenders. The first generation of risk assessment, prior to the mid-1990s, relied heavily on unstructured clinical judgment. In response to the lack of predictive ability associated with unstructured clinical judgment, researchers developed more structured, empirically supported methods. While Structured Professional Judgment serves to ensure that assessments are grounded in evidence and informed by the wider knowledge and experience of the clinical community, there is also the danger of over reliance on mechanical numerical scores in evaluating individual cases. This article explores an approach to risk assessment that seeks to place SJP scores in their proper role as a support rather than substitute for clinical expertise. The authors focus on two of the most commonly used and heavily researched SPJ tools: the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3) and the Sexual Violence Risk-20, Version 2 (SVR-20 V2).

Keywords: Structured Professional Judgment (SJP) Measures; Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3); Sexual Violence Risk-20, Version 2 (SVR-20 V2); Qualitative Elements of SJP

Affiliations:  1: Associates in Psychological Services, P.A.; 2: Somerset Psychological Group; 3: Somerset Psychological Group.