精算评估的使用增加了近年来风险评估由于更多的非临床医生的任务是管理的责任等暴力罪犯的社区修正,惩教官和缓刑监督官。精算风险评估方法使员工没有经验,必要背景或临床资格进行标准化的临床评估罪犯的风险。这个保险精算评估方法被发现是极有帮助的,当需要风险评估罪犯心理健康,药物滥用和暴力罪犯。(伯恩等人,2006)。然而精算评估限制仪器无法提供任何信息关于罪犯的管理,和策略来防止暴力(拉蒙特等,2009)。虽然这样的工具可以提供转移测试测试可靠性需要谨慎当仪器中使用不同的测试样本人口被用作验证样品在开发测试(拉蒙特等,2009)。缺乏经验和未经训练的人员可能不会意识到限制他们使用的测试仪器。大多数的北美精算工具验证(马登,2003)。这有着重要的意义当使用保险精算的仪器在澳大利亚的背景下,特别是当土著文化的复杂性并不考虑。柯南道尔et al(2002)假设的精算方法重点是预测和风险评估心理健康有更广泛的功能”,必须与管理和预防密切联系”(柯南道尔et al,2002,第2002页)。保险精算的工具依赖静态风险因素的措施如暴力史,性别、心理变态和记录社会变量。因此静态风险因素保持不变。汉森et al(2000)认为,在非结构化的临床结果的意见是开放的问题,基于经验风险评估方法可以显著预测再保险违规的风险。
The use of actuarial assessment has increased in recent years as risk assessment due to the fact that more non clinicians are tasked with the responsibility of management of violent offenders such as community corrections, correctional officers and probation officers. Actuarial risk assessment methods enable staff that do not have the experience, background or necessary clinical qualifications to conduct a standardised clinical assessment of offender risk. This actuarial assessment method has been found to be extremely helpful when having to risk assess offenders with mental health, substance abuse and violent offenders. (Byrne et al, 2006). However Actuarial assessments have limitations in the inability of the instruments to provide any information in relation to the management of the offender, and strategies to prevent violence (Lamont et al, 2009). Whilst such instruments may provide transferable test retest reliability there is a need for caution when the instruments are used within differing samples of the test population that were used as the validation sample in developing the test (Lamont et al, 2009). Inexperienced and untrained staff may not be aware of the limitations of the test instruments they are using. The majority of actuarial tools were validated in North America (Maden, 2003). This has significant implications when actuarial instruments are used in the Australian context, especially when indigenous cultural complexities are not taken into account. Doyle et al (2002) postulates that the actuarial approach is focused on prediction and that risk assessment in mental health has a much broader function “and has to be link closely with management and prevention” (Doyle et al, 2002, p 652). Actuarial instruments rely on measures of static risk factors e.g. history of violence, gender, psychopathy and recorded social variables. Therefore static risk factors are taken as remaining constant. Hanson et al (2000) argues that where the results of unstructured clinical opinion are open to questions, the empirically based risk assessment method can significantly predict the risk of re offending.