In court, he attacks the reliability of the actuarial instruments. He points out in court that different instruments rely on conflicting risk factors, or broad definitions, or unreliable research. Isaacson quotes from a 1983 brief filed by the American Psychiatric Association in a federal case. Dennis Doren, evaluation director at Mendota Mental Health Institute, disagrees. He defends actuarial instruments.
Research shows it.
I did a review of virtually all the professional research related to the common instruments. He said actuarial instruments help keep evaluators grounded. Research shows that without such standardized tests, evaluators would be recommending more sex offenders for commitment, he said. When it suits their case, defense attorneys are quick to argue in favor of the tests, Doren pointed out. He believes in the tests.