A Comparative Test of Clinical Judgment Versus Actuarial Prediction of Future Violence

This study tested how graduate level psychology graduate students (n = 20) using the Adapted Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (Adapted VRAG) would do relative to practicing psychologists/psychiatrists (n = 16) using clinical judgment when predicting violence in 10 narratives from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment study (Monahan et al., The MacArthur violence risk assessment study. . Retrieved 10 Oct 2005). Results indicated that the practicing psychologists/psychiatrists made significantly more correct predictions than the master’s level students. The professional group demonstrated sensitivity levels of 77.7% and specificity of 96.3%. For the use of the adapted VRAG method by the graduate student group, specificity levels were modest at 54.0%. Sensitivity levels, however, were lower than earlier demonstrated levels at 58.0%. These findings are at variance with earlier reports comparing clinical and actuarial methods. The results may reflect the short amount of time the master’s level students were trained using the Adapted VRAG as well as the small number of participants in this study. Additional research comparing other professions is recommended, as well as examining if experience in the forensics field would affect one’s ability to predict violence.