The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies.
Abstract
This review compared the accuracy of various approaches to the prediction of recidivism among sexual offenders. On the basis of a meta-analysis of 536 findings drawn from 118 distinct samples (45,398 sexual offenders, 16 countries), empirically derived actuarial measures were more accurate than unstructured professional judgment for all outcomes (sexual, violent, or any recidivism). The accuracy of structured professional judgment was intermediate between the accuracy found for the actuarial measures and for unstructured professional judgment. The effect sizes for the actuarial measures were moderate to large by conventional standards (average d values of 0.67-0.97); however, the utility of the actuarial measures will vary according to the referral question and samples assessed. Further research should identify the psychologically meaningfully factors that contribute to risk for reoffending. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.9.1102 · Cited by 8,596
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 · Cited by 3,318
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology
ANDREWS, D. A., BONTA, J., & HOGE, R. D. (1990) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004 · Cited by 1,895
Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7 · Cited by 1,608 · cited 1×
“Although the effect sizes for most of the measures were moderate to large by conventional standards (Cohen, 1988; Rice & Harris, 2005), there are no direct procedures for translating the observed effect sizes into statements concerning the normative value or utility of specific measures (e.g., is a…”
BackgroundInference by Eye: Confidence Intervals and How to Read Pictures of Data.
Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.2.170 · Cited by 1,449 · cited 1×
“Substantive interpretations can be based on values anywhere in the interval (Cumming & Finch, 2005).”
BackgroundHood, R. (2002) · British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/42.2.371 · Cited by 182
Evaluation of a National Prison-based Treatment Program for Sexual Offenders in England and Wales
Friendship, C., Mann, R. E., & Beech, A. R. (2003) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260503253236 · Cited by 164
Cited by
Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/a0018362 · Cited by 1,223
The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism
Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aao5580 · Cited by 1,071
Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613481812 · Cited by 286
Seto, M. C. (2013) · doi:10.1037/14191-000 · Cited by 191
Circles of Support & Accountability: A Canadian National Replication of Outcome Findings
Wilson, R. J., Cortoni, F., & McWhinnie, A. J. (2009) · Sexual Abuse · doi:10.1177/1079063209347724 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E.
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-21
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2154499512
- Cited by
- 1,050
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 8.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0014421
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
