SynthesisBehavioral sciences & the law
Are risk assessment tools more accurate than unstructured judgments in predicting violent, any, and sexual offending? A meta-analysis of direct comparison studies.
Synthesis in Behavioral sciences & the law. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk Tools Predict Recidivism for Men With Low Intellectual Ability and a History of Sexual Offending.Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment · 2026Pooled it
- Are risk assessment tools more accurate than unstructured judgments in predicting violent, any, and sexual offending? A meta-analysis of direct comparison studies.Behavioral sciences & the lawPooled it
- Reliability and Validity of Risk Assessment Tools for Violent Extremism: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Review
- The Tree of Life Synagogue Attack: A Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol-18 Examination of Pre-Attack Warnings and Post-Attack Contagion and Copycat Effects.Behavioral sciences & the lawArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis of studies that directly compared the predictive validity of risk assessment tools to unstructured judgments of risk for violent, any, or sexual offending. A total of 31 studies, containing 169 effect sizes from 45,673 risk judgments, met inclusion criteria. Based on the results of three-level mixed-effects meta-regression models, the predictive validity of total scores on risk assessment tools was significantly higher than that of unstructured judgments for predictions of violent, any, and sexual offending. Tools continued to outperform unstructured judgments after accounting for risk of bias. This finding was also robust to variations in population, assessment context, and outcome measurement. Although this meta-analysis provides support for the use of risk assessment tools, it also highlights limitations and gaps that future research should address.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.