A meta-analysis was conducted to identify risk factors that best predict juvenile recidivism, defined as rearrest for offending of any kind. Twenty-three published studies, representing 15,265 juveniles, met inclusion criteria. Effect sizes were calculated for 30 predictors of recidivism. Eight groups of predictors were compared: (a) demographic information, (b) offense history, (c) family and social factors, (d) educational factors, (e) intellectual and achievement scores, (f) substance use history, (g) clinical factors, and (h) formal risk assessment. The domain of offense history was the strongest predictor of reoffending. Other relatively strong predictors included family problems, ineffective use of leisure time, delinquent peers, conduct problems, and nonsevere pathology.

Most of the theoretical and empirical literature on violence risk to date has focused on the task of predicting who will behave violently. In the present article, it is argued that at least two models of risk assessment may be applied to the varying legal decisions in which violence risk is a consideration: prediction (with an emphasis on overall accuracy) and management (with an emphasis on risk reduction). These two models are described, and discussed in the contexts of the literatures on forensic assessment and therapeutic jurisprudence. The implications for research, policy, and practice are considered.

Risk assessment with sexual offenders is generally performed for two purposes: to assist the court in deciding on a relevant legal question (in a legal context), or to plan treatment interventions (in a clinical context). Failure to make this distinction, and to accurately identify the context and purpose for which the assessment is being conducted, can result in significant problems. This chapter will begin by making this distinction. Then, focusing on evaluations done for legal decision making purposes, it will describe 29 recently derived broad principles of forensic mental health assessment and their application to evaluations done to assist legal decision making.

Despite the apparent widespread use of psychological tests in evaluations performed by psychologists to assist legal decision makers, there has been little critical but balanced examination of the appropriate parameters for the forensic use of such tests. The following discussion examines the nature of legal decision making, and concludes that the primary legal criterion for the admissibility of psychological testing is relevance to the immediate legal issue or to some underlying psychological construct. Assuming that accuracy is a more consistent concern for psychologists performing such evaluations, the criticisms of various commentators are discussed. Some criticisms appear appropriate and are incorporated into a set of proposed guidelines for the use of psychological tests in forensic contexts. Other criticisms appear misplaced, however, and the call for a whole sale ban on psychological testing in the forensic context is rejected.The appropriate role of psychological testing in forensic assessment 1 has been debated for a number of years, and is far from clear at present. Critics have described such assessment procedures as "controversial" and "of doubtful validity and applicability in relation to forensic issues" (Ziskin, 1981a, p. 225; see also . The major goal of this article is to discuss the research and commentary critical of psychological testing * An earlier version of this paper was presented as part of a symposium on "Expert Testimony of Mental Health Professionals" (Randy K. Otto and Steve Berger, Co-Chairs) at the 1990 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA. Appreciation is expressed to Michael Perlin and Christopher Slobogin for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper and to Stephen Golding for his thoughts about the paper's organization and purpose. I would also like to thank Randy Otto for his role in organizing the APA symposium in which this paper was originally presented. Requests for reprints should be sent to

In a 1987 American Psychologist article, Tom Grisso summarized the state of forensic psychological assessment, noted its limitations and potential, and offered suggestions for researchers and practitioners interested in contributing to its future. Since that time, there have been many important developments in the field of forensic psychology, as well as in clinical psychology more generally, some of which were anticipated and recommended by Grisso, and some of which were not. Forensic psychology is now at a crossroads, and the specialty must make an effort to respond to current challenges if it is to aid in the administration of justice by assisting legal decision makers. The need to distinguish between and identify levels of forensic knowledge and practice, establish guidelines for practice, educate legal consumers, and devote more attention to treatment issues in forensic contexts is highlighted.