Reimagining Risk Assessment: Comment on Viljoen and Vincent (2020)

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 31(4) of Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice (see record 2025-59206-009). The following sentence “At the heart of their analysis is the following: it cannot be useful if you do not implement it effectively” was replaced with “At the heart of their analysis is the following: risk assessment cannot be useful if you do not implement it effectively.” All versions of this article have been corrected.] Comments on the article "Risk assessment for violence and reoffending: Implementation and impact on risk management" by J. Viljoen and G. Vincent ( Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice), 31[2], 119–131). Viljoen and Vincent provide an analysis that is both simple and extraordinarily important. The present authors find it so important that it rivals other “big ideas” in risk assessment, such as risk-need-responsivity theory (Andrews et al., 1990) and Structured Professional Judgment (Webster et al., 1995). At the heart of their analysis is the following: it cannot be useful it if you do not implement it effectively. In this comment, the authors explore the implications of their risk assessment and management pathway for research, practice, and legal policy (both existing and reformed), after first suggesting some minor modifications to Viljoen and Vincent’s approach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)