OBJECTIVE Field research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in ways that likely reflect something about themselves, not just the persons evaluated. This study used data from sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to examine whether evaluator differences in making intermediate decisions (e.g., instrument scoring, assigning diagnoses) might explain their different patterns of final opinions. HYPOTHESES Although this study was generally exploratory and not strongly hypothesis driven, we expected that there might be evidence for a simple form of bias in which some evaluators would be more likely than others to consistently "find" indications of SVP status (i.e., consistently assigning higher risk scores and more SVP-relevant diagnoses) and, therefore, be more likely to find behavioral abnormality, the legal construct qualifying someone for commitment as an SVP. METHOD The study used data from 745 SVP evaluations conducted by 10 different evaluators who were assigned cases from the same referral stream. Potential evaluator difference variables included behavioral abnormality opinions, paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder diagnoses, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Static-99 scores. RESULTS Evaluator differences explained a statistically significant (p < .001) amount of variance in behavioral abnormality opinions (17%), paraphilia diagnoses (7%), and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores (16%). Contrary to our expectation of a simple tendency for some evaluators to find all indicators of SVP status more often than others, evaluators differed in the ways that underlying diagnoses and scores corresponded with their conclusions. The overall pattern was one in which different evaluators appeared to base their final opinions on different factors. CONCLUSIONS Findings reveal further evidence of substantial forensic evaluator differences in patterns of assigning instrument scores and reaching forensic conclusions. But these findings are the first to also reveal wide variability in their patterns of reaching forensic conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

风险衡量分数和诊断是否可以预测评估者对性暴力掠夺者案件的意见？这取决于评估者。


目标 现场研究越来越多地表明，法医评估员是不可互换的。相反，他们的司法意见模式往往有所不同，这些不同的方式可能反映了他们自己的一些事情，而不仅仅是被评估的人。本研究使用性暴力掠夺者（SVP）评估的数据来检验评估者在做出中间决策（例如，仪器评分、分配诊断）时的差异是否可以解释他们最终意见的不同模式。假设 虽然这项研究总体上是探索性的，并不是强烈的假设驱动，但我们预计可能有证据表明存在一种简单形式的偏见，其中一些评估者比其他人更有可能始终如一地“找到”SVP 状态的迹象（即，始终如一地分配更高的风险评分和更多与 SVP 相关的诊断），因此更有可能发现行为异常，这是使某人有资格成为 SVP 的法律依据。方法 该研究使用了 745 次 SVP 评估的数据，这些评估由 10 名不同的评估员进行，这些评估员被分配来自同一转诊流的案例。潜在的评估者差异变量包括行为异常意见、性欲倒错和反社会人格障碍诊断，以及精神病检查表修订版和 Static-99 分数。结果 评估者差异解释了行为异常意见 (17%)、性欲倒错诊断 (7%) 和精神病检查表修订分数 (16%) 方面的统计显着性 (p < .001) 差异量。我们预期一些评估者会比其他人更频繁地发现 SVP 状态的所有指标，但与我们的预期相反，评估者在基本诊断和分数与其结论相对应的方式上存在差异。 总体模式是不同的评估者似乎根据不同的因素得出最终意见。结论 调查结果揭示了法医评估者在分配仪器分数和得出法医结论的模式方面存在重大差异的进一步证据。但这些发现首次揭示了其得出法医结论的模式存在巨大差异。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。