Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 343–357 | Cite as

Assessing Violence Risk in Stalking Cases: A Regression Tree Approach

  • Barry Rosenfeld
  • Charles Lewis


Advances in the field of risk assessment have highlighted the importance of developing and validating models for problematic or unique subgroups of individuals. Stalking offenders represent one such subgroup, where fears of and potential for violence are well-known and have important implications for safety management. The present study applies a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) approach to a sample of stalking offenders in order to help further the process of identifying and understanding risk assessment strategies. Data from 204 stalking offenders referred for psychiatric evaluation to a publicly-funded clinic were used to develop and assess putative risk factors. A series of nested models were used to generate tree algorithms predicting violence in this sample of offenders. Both simplified and more extensive models generated high levels of predictive accuracy that were roughly comparable to logistic regression models but much more straightforward to apply in clinical practice. Jack-knifed cross-validation analyses demonstrated considerable shrinkage in the CART, although the models were still comparable to many other actuarial risk assessment instruments. Logistic regression models were much more resilient to cross-validation, with relatively modest loss in predictive power.


stalking violence risk assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banks, S., Robbins, P. C., Silver, E., Vesselinov, R., Steadman, H. J., Monahan, J., et al. (2004). A multiple-models approach to violence risk assessment among people with mental disorder. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabee, 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, 490–521.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, G. M., Welte, J. W., & Dintcheff, B. (1991). Drinking among subgroups in the adult population of New York State: A classification analysis using CART. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 338–344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Belle, S. H., Mendelsohn, A. B., Seaberg, E. C., & Ratcliff, G. (2000). A brief cognitive screening battery for dementia in the community. Neuroepidemiology, 19, 43–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boerstler, H., & de Figueiredo, J. M. (1991). Prediction of use of psychiatric services: Application of the CART algorithm. Journal of Mental Health Administration, 18, 27–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brieman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  7. Doering, S., Mueller, E., Keopcke, W., Pietzcker, A., Gaebel, W., Linden, M., et al. (1998). Predictors of relapse and rehospitalization in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24, 87–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1996). A comparison of actuarial methods for identifying repetitively violent patients with mental illnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., & Lyon, D. R. (2002). Risk assessment of stalkers: Some problems and possible solutions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 590–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lemsky, C. M., Smith, G., Malec, J. F., & Ivnik, R. J. (1996). Identifying risk for functional impairment using cognitive measures: An application of CART modeling. Neuropsychology, 10, 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Litwack, T. R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 409–443.Google Scholar
  13. Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Appelbaum, P. S., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., Silver, E., et al. (2000). Developing a clinically useful actuarial tool for assessing violence risk. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Connor, M., & Rosenfeld, B. (2004). Introduction to the special issue on Stalking: Finding and filling the empirical gaps. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association Press: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Rosenfeld, B. (2004). When stalking turns violent: Developments in the assessment of stalking risks. In M. Brewster (Ed.). Stalking Victims and Offenders: Treatment, Intervention and research. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute (pp. 98–114).Google Scholar
  17. Rosenfeld, B., & Harmon, R. (2002). Factors associated with violence in stalking and obsessional harassment cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 671–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Silver, E., & Chow-Martin, L. (2002). A multiple-models approach to assessing recidivism risk: Implications for judicial decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 538–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stalens, L. J., Yarnold, P. R., Seng, M., Olson, D. E., & Repp, M. (2004). Identifying three types of violent offenders and predictinv violent recidivism while on probation: A classification tree analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 253–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Steadman, H. J., Mulvey, E. P., Monahan, J., Robbins, P. C., Appelbaum, P. S., Grisso, T., et al. (1998). Violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric inpatient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 393–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Monahan, J., Appelbaum, P. S., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., et al. (2000). A classification tree approach to the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 83–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Webster, C. D., Hucker, S. J., & Bloom, H. (2002). Transcending the actuarial versus clinical polemic in assessing risk for violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 659–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fordham UniversityBronx
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyFordham UniversityBronx

Personalised recommendations