Cited by 40Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingCrime Patterns and InterventionsCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Too risky to use, or too risky not to? Lessons learned from over 30 years of research on forensic risk assessment with Indigenous persons.

Abstract

Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in correctional systems internationally, reflecting a history of systemic racism and colonial oppression, and the practice of risk assessment with this population has been a focus of legal and sociopolitical controversy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk assessment literature comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous (White majority) groups. We retrieved 91 studies featuring 22 risk tools and 15 risk/need/cultural domains ( N = 59,693, Indigenous; N = 237,729, non-Indigenous/White) and four documents identifying culturally relevant factors. Most measures demonstrated moderate predictive validity but often had significant ethnoracial differences, particularly for static measures. The Service Planning Instrument/Youth Assessment Screening Inventory, Level of Service Inventory youth variants, Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Youth Version, and the Violence Risk Scale and its Sexual Offense version had the strongest predictive validity and least ethnoracial discrepancy. The Static Factors Assessment and Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis-Revised had the weakest predictive validity. For Indigenous persons, the strongest individual predictors of recidivism were low education/employment, substance abuse, antisocial pattern, and poor community functioning, while mitigating factors that predicted decreased recidivism were measures of risk change (i.e., from culturally integrated programs combining mainstream a…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000414

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 40

Metadata

Authors
Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., Helmus, L. M., Woods, P., Termeer, J., & Prince, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2024-05
Volume
150
Issue
5
Pages
487-553
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W4391846860
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7
FWCI
15.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Correctional Service of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Keywords
forensic risk assessment, recidivism prediction, predictive validity, static and dynamic risk factors, traditional healing, cultural participation, protective factors, substance abuse, antisocial behavior
MeSH terms
Recidivism, Indigenous Peoples, Forensic Psychiatry, Humans, Violence, Risk Assessment

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