Examining the scope of questionable diagnostic reliability in Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) evaluations

Abstract

Research has suggested questionable reliability of diagnosing mental abnormality during Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) evaluations, despite this being a necessary requirement for SVP commitment. Findings have been inconsistent across studies, and little is known about the extent of such trends across diagnoses and clinicians. The current study includes data from 375 sex offenders referred for evaluation for SVP commitment in New Jersey. Clinicians (n=128) rendered a variety of diagnoses, most commonly Pedophilia. Results suggested questionable agreement across paraphilic and non-paraphilic diagnoses, although agreement was fair for diagnoses of Pedophilia. Further analyses of cases (n=49) involving clinicians receiving a large number of referrals (n=14) were generally consistent with these findings, with no outlier effect apparent. Findings suggest questionable diagnostic reliability to be a widespread issue in SVP evaluations, present across a variety of diagnoses and across the general body of clinicians involved in evaluations.