prediction for informing the typeof treatment that would
reduce risk. These limitations have led some researchers
to express concern about this method of decision making
and to develop another approach—SPJ.SSttrruuccttuurreedd PPrrooffeessssiioonnaall JJuuddggmmeenntt
The SPJ approach shares some features with typ-
ical actuarial approaches, such as specifying risk fac-
tors with empirical support that are to be considered
in a risk assessment and providing operational defin-
itions and coding rules for risk factors. These fea-
tures are intended to facilitate its reliability and
predictive validity. However, the SPJ approach
allows professional judgment at the point of making
final decisions. It provides guidelines for such deci-
sions but does not impose strict cutoffs or algorithms
derived from a particular sample because of their
potential predictive degradation and instability
across samples. Evaluators are encouraged to con-
sider the relevance of risk factors to the given indi-
vidual being evaluated and to make decisions of low,
moderate, or high risk based on the number, pattern,
and relevance of such risk factors, as well as the
probable degree of intervention that would be neces-
sary to mitigate risk. The other distinguishing feature
of SPJ is its explicit emphasis on risk management
and the importance of bridging assessment and man-
agement. It does this through including time-varying
risk factors and by providing guidelines for linking
risk factors to risk management strategies, the point of
which is not only to provide the means of assessing
the likelihood of future violence but also to facilitate
risk reduction and the prevention of future violence.
The SPJ approach has been criticized for allowing
professional judgment to form part of the final deci-
sion-making process. Critics argue that this reduces its
reliability and validity. However, those studies that have
compared actuarial and SPJ measures or the structured
judgments produced by SPJ with the numeric use of
SPJ measures have generally found that SPJ decisions
fare as well or better than actuarial decisions. Criticism
also has been directed toward the publication of some
SPJ measures prior to the accumulation of evaluation
studies. Developers counter that SPJ measures are pro-
fessional guidelines that are based on the empirical lit-
erature. They do not rely on empirically derived,
potentially unstable algorithms that are in need of cross-
validation, and hence, they do not require the same type
of validation. Both arguments have merit. However,specific SPJ measures ought to have empirical support
for their interrater reliability and predictive utility (of
risk factors and risk judgments) prior to recommenda-
tion for use in practice.Kevin S. Douglas and Kim ReevesSee alsoCivil Commitment; Classification of Violence
Risk (COVR); Danger Assessment Instrument (DA);
Forensic Assessment; HCR–20 for Violence Risk
Assessment; Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense
Recidivism (RRASOR); Risk Assessment Approaches;
Risk-Sophistication-Treatment Inventory (RSTI); Sex
Offender Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR); Sex
Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG); Sexual Violence
Risk–20 (SVR–20); Short-Term Assessment of Risk and
Treatability (START); STATIC–99 and STATIC–2002
Instruments; Structured Assessment of Violence
Risk in Youth (SAVRY); Violence Risk
Appraisal Guide (VRAG)Further Readings
Baxstrom v. Herold,383 U.S. 197 (1966).
Douglas, K. S., & Kropp, P. R. (2002). A prevention-based
paradigm for violence risk assessment: Clinical and
research applications. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
29,617–658.
Heilbrun, K. (1997). Prediction versus management models
relevant to risk assessment: The importance of legal
decision-making context. Law and Human Behavior,
21,347–359.
Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P. S.,
Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., et al. (2001). Rethinking
risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder
and violence.New York: Oxford University Press.
Mulvey, E. P., & Lidz, C. W. (1995). Conditional prediction:
A model for research on dangerousness to others in a new
era. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
18,129–143.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal.3D
425 (1976).VOICERECOGNITION
Voice recognition, or “earwitness” identification, has
not received the amount of research or public interest
that eyewitness identification has received in recent
years. A 1983 survey of British legal cases, however,
found more than 180 cases at that time in which voiceVoice Recognition——— 851V-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 851