Riassunto
Per più di cinquant’ anni è stato un luogo comune, nelle scienze comportamentali, distinguere i metodi “clinici” da quelli “attuariali” di valutazione del rischio e concludereche il vantaggio nella validità predittiva spetti a quelli attuariali (Meehl, 1954). William Grove e Paul Meehl (1996), per esempio, hanno individuato 136 studi empirici che mettessero a confronto la previsione clinica e attuariale ed una maggioranza schiacciante ha confermato la superiorità dell’ultima rispetto alla prima. Ecco la loro conclusione: “Non sappiamo di alcuna controversia nell’ambito delle scienze sociali per la quale gli studi empirici siano così numerosi, diversificati, e costanti come in questo caso” (pag. 318; vedi anche Grove et al., 2000). Una revisione esaustiva, più recente, ha disaggregato gli studi in termini di tipo di comportamento ipotizzato e ha messo in evidenza che “la previsione del comportamento violento è una di quelle aree nelle quali il metodo statistico è decisamente superiore all’approccio clinico” (Aegisdottir et al., 2006, pag. 368; vedi anche Swets et al., 2000).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliografia
Aegisdottir S, White M, Spengler P et al (2006) The Meta-Analysis of Clinical Judgment Project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Couns Psychol 34: 341–382
Appelbaum P, Robbins P, Monahan J (2000) Violence and delusions: data from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. Am J Psychiatry 157: 566–572
Banks S, Robbins P, Silver E, et al (2004) A multiple-models approach to violence risk assessment among people with mental disorder. Crim Justice Behav 31: 324–340
Douglas K, Ogloff J, Nicholls T et al (1999) Assessing risk for violence among psychiatric patients: the HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. J Consult Clin Psychol 67: 917–930
Douglas K, Yeomans M, Boer D (2005) Comparative validity analysis of multiple measures of violence risk in a sample of criminal offenders. Crim Justice Behav 32: 479–510
Elbogen E, Mercado C, Scalora M et al (2002) Perceived relevance of factors for violence risk assessment: a survey of clinicians. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 1: 37–47
Grove W, Meehl P (1996) Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical-statistical controversy. Psychol Public Policy Law 2: 293–323
Grove W, Zald D, Lebow B et al (2000) Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychol Assess 12: 19–30
Hanson R (2004) The Development of a Brief Actuarial Scale for Sexual Offense Recidivism. Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Hanson R, Thornton D (2000) Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: a comparison of three actuarial scales. Law Hum Behav 24: 119–136
Harris G, Rice M, Cormier C (2002) Prospective replication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law Hum Behav 26: 377–394
Harris G, Rice M, Quinsey V et al (2003) A multi-site comparison of actuarial risk instruments fors ex offenders. Psychol Assess 15: 413–425
Hilton N, Harris G, Rice M (2006) Sixty-six years of research on the clinical versus actuarial prediction of violence. Couns Psychol 34: 400–409
Kropp P, Hart S (2000) The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) Guide: reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law Hum Behav 24: 101–118
Lally S (2003) What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Prof Psychol Res Pr 34: 491–498
Lidz C, Mulvey E, Gardner W (1993) The accuracy of predictions of violence to others. JAMA 269: 1007–1011
Lilienfeld S, Wood S, Garb H (2000) The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2: 27–66
Litwack T (2001) Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychol Public Policy Law 7: 409–443
Meehl P (1954) Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Melton G, Petrila J, Poythress N et al (1997) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, 2nd ed. Guilford, New York
Monahan J (1981) The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
Monahan J (2006a) A jurisprudence of risk assessment: forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Va Law Rev 92: 391–435
Monahan J (2006b) Tarasoff at thirty: How developments in science and policy shape the common law. Univ Cincinnati Law Rev 75: 497–521
Monahan J (2007) The scientific status of research on clinical and actuarial predictions of violence. In: Faigman D, Kaye D, Saks M et al (eds) Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, vol 1. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN, pp 120–147
Monahan J, Appelbaum P (2000) Reducing violence risk: diagnostically based clues from the Mac-Arthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. In: Hodgins S (ed) Effective Prevention of Crime and Violence Among the Mentally Ill. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 19–34
Monahan J, Steadman H, Silver E et al (2001) Rethinking Risk Assessment: The Mac-Arthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence. Oxford University Press, New York
Monahan J, Steadman H, Appelbaum P et al (2005a) The Classification of Violence Risk. Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz, FL
Monahan J, Steadman H, Robbins P et al. (2005b) An actuarial model of violence risk assessment for persons with mental disorders. Psychiatr Serv 56: 810–815
Mossman D (1994) Assessing predictions of violence: being accurate about accuracy. J Consult Clin Psychol 62: 783–792
Quinsey V, Harris G, Rice M et al (2006) Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk, 2nd ed. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
Sreenivasan S, Kirkish P, Garrick T et al (2000) Actuarial risk assessment models: a review of critical issues related to violence and sex-offender recidivism assessments. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28: 438–448
Swets J, Dawes R, Monahan J (2000) Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 1: 1–26
Tolman A, Mullendore K (2003) Risk evaluations for the courts: is service quality a function of specialization? Prof Psychol Res Pr 34: 225–232
Va. Code. Ann. § 37.2-903(c) 2005
Webster C, Douglas K, Eaves D et al (1997) HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence (Version 2). Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Westen D, Weinberger J (2004) When clinical description becomes statistical prediction. Am Psychol 59: 595–613
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Italia
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Monahan, J. (2014). La valutazione strutturata del rischio di violenza. In: Valutazione e gestione della violenza. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1738-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1738-2_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-1737-5
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-1738-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)