The reliability of dangerousness assessments. A decision making exercise

One hundred and ninety three raters drawn from six countries and representing different professional groups considered 16 case histories. Raters were asked to indicate what degree of 'dangerousness' they attributed to each individual and what they considered to be the optimal management. The level of agreement between raters concerning the assessment of dangerousness was generally low, the level of 60 per cent being reached for only 4 cases out of 16. Psychiatrists did not reach a higher level of agreement on the ratings of dangerousness than non-psychiatrists. Psychiatrists had a tendency to rate individuals as more dangerous than did non-psychiatrists. The results of this exercise do not support the use of 'dangerousness' as a scientifically or operationally valid concept.