title: Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: Various financial and non-financial conflicts of interests have been shown to influence the reporting of research findings, particularly in clinical medicine. In this study, we examine whether this extends to prognostic instruments designed to assess violence risk. Such instruments have increasingly become a routine part of clinical practice in mental health and criminal justice settings. The present meta-analysis investigated whether an authorship effect exists in the violence risk assessment literature by comparing predictive accuracy outcomes in studies where the individuals who designed these instruments were study authors with independent investigations. A systematic search from 1966 to 2011 was conducted using PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and US National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts to identify predictive validity studies for the nine most commonly used risk assessment tools. Tabular data from 83 studies comprising 104 samples was collected, information on two-thirds of which was received directly from study authors for the review. Random effects subgroup analysis and metaregression were used to explore evidence of an authorship effect. We found a substantial and statistically significant authorship effect. Overall, studies authored by tool designers reported predictive validity findings around two times higher those of investigations reported by independent authors (DOR=6.22 [95% CI=4.68-8.26] in designers' studies vs. DOR=3.08 [95% CI=2.45-3.88] in independent studies). As there was evidence of an authorship effect, we also examined disclosure rates. None of the 25 studies where tool designers or translators were also study authors published a conflict of interest statement to that effect, despite a number of journals requiring that potential conflicts be disclosed. The field of risk assessment would benefit from routine disclosure and registration of research studies. The extent to which similar conflict of interests exists in those developing risk assessment guidelines and providing expert testimony needs clarification.
authors.affiliation: Psychiatric/Psychological Service, Department of Justice, Zürich, Switzerland ; Faculty of Health Sciences, Molde University College, Molde, Norway.
authors.forename: Jay P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Singh
authors.forename: Martin
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Grann
authors.forename: Seena
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Fazel
mesh_terms: D001319:Authorship; D018570:Risk Assessment
references.citation: BMJ. 2012 Jul 24;345:e4692
references.pmid: 22833604
references.citation: Lancet. 2010 Jan 30;375(9712):348
references.pmid: 20113809
references.citation: Br J Psychiatry. 2008 Aug;193(2):91-2
references.pmid: 18669986
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Jan 28;11:13
references.pmid: 21276237
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2013 Jan-Feb;31(1):8-22
references.pmid: 23408459
references.citation: Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):499-513
references.pmid: 21255891
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 Dec 8;358(9297):1955-9
references.pmid: 11747920
references.citation: Stat Med. 1993 Jul 30;12(14):1293-316
references.pmid: 8210827
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1167-70
references.pmid: 12775614
references.citation: Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Oct;162(10):1957-60
references.pmid: 16199844
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Jun;989:198-210; discussion 236-46
references.pmid: 12839899
references.citation: Assessment. 2010 Sep;17(3):377-95
references.pmid: 20124429
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1993 Aug 19;329(8):573-6
references.pmid: 8336759
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
references.pmid: 19621072
references.citation: J Pers Assess. 2006 Aug;87(1):84-94
references.pmid: 16856789
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 21;355(25):2615-7
references.pmid: 17182986
references.citation: JAMA. 2003 Jan 22-29;289(4):454-65
references.pmid: 12533125
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2005 Dec;10(4):389-96
references.pmid: 16392994
references.citation: Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Apr;7(2):205-18
references.pmid: 11349360
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2008 Mar;13(1):19-30
references.pmid: 18331151
references.citation: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001 Oct;23(5):695-700
references.pmid: 11778646