A conceptual comparison of intuitive, clinical idiographic and actuarial risk assessment approaches - the superiority of science-based methods

The present article discusses different methodological approaches to criminal risk assessment and compares intuitive (the term "clinical" for this approach in the Anglo-American literature is somewhat misleading given the European tradition of clinical risk assessment procedures), actuarial, and clinical idiographic methods. First, the superiority of statistical predictions compared to intuitive judgement is outlined which is one of the most commonly replicated research results regarding the prediction of human behavior. This finding was confirmed for a variety of different areas of human behavior and was repeatedly replicated. The present article tries to summarize the core findings of this area of research and discusses their relevance for the controversy about the quality of criminal risk assessment reports. The currently available results provide evidence for the strengths of actuarial knowledge for expert witnesses' court reports because they are indispensable tools for writing scientifically sound risk assessment reports; however, the actuarial methodology has limitations, so that a clinical idiographic approach is at the same time necessary. It is important to emphasize that these clinical aspects of a comprehensive risk assessment approach should not be conducted intuitively but should also strictly follow scientific standards.