Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

A large number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted in the field of forensic risk assessment, and their conclusions have occasionally been conflicting. To examine the quality and findings of these reviews, a metareview was conducted. The authors identified nine systematic reviews and 31 meta-analyses from 1995 to 2009. The themes covered in these reviews and meta-analyses included the validity of actuarial tools compared with unstructured and structured clinical judgment, a comparison of various risk assessment tools, and the predictive validity of these tools for different genders and ethnic backgrounds. This metareview found that the quality and consistency of findings in these areas varied considerably. Sources of heterogeneity were not assessed in half of the reviews, and duplicate samples not excluded in approximately half of the reviews. The authors suggest a standardization of review reporting with particular emphasis on methodological consistency. © 2010 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology.

Original publication




Journal article


Criminal Justice and Behavior

Publication Date





965 - 988