Risk assessment in offenders with intellectual disability: the evidence base.
No proven risk tool exists for offenders with ID—stick to functional assessment and demand better research.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Delprato (2002) looked at every paper that tried to predict rule-breaking by adults with intellectual disability.
The author read the studies like a story, not a scoreboard, and listed what each tool tried to measure.
No lab tests or new data were run; it was a narrative review that mapped the field.
What they found
No risk tool had solid proof it worked for people with ID.
Most tools were copied from general offender tests and simply re-labeled.
The paper ends with a clear warning: do not trust these scores in court or care plans.
How this fits with other research
Tenneij et al. (2009) later showed one practical fix: portable bladder ultrasound caught hidden urine retention in 346 adults with moderate–severe ID. Their 100% success rate proves you can build ID-friendly tech when you try.
Chezan et al. (2019) and Takahashi et al. (2023) supply the same message for motor skills: kids with ID score far below peers, but targeted balance drills do help. These newer reviews fill the evidence gap Delprato (2002) called for—just in a different domain.
Bhaumik et al. (2009) mirrors the worry. That review also found no reliable way to score alertness in profound ID. Both papers plead for fresh tools built from the ground up, not borrowed from other populations.
Why it matters
If you write behavior support plans for adults with ID, you now know that standard risk checklists are guesswork. Push for functional assessments that watch real-life triggers, and document why you skipped the static risk number. Track any local pilot of new ID-specific tools—your data could become the evidence base we still lack.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap the static risk score for a one-week ABC chart of actual precursor behaviors.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A review of the current literature on risk assessment and management in offenders with intellectual disability (ID) revealed little direct evidence for the specific population. Theoretical models and non-ID populations have been abstracted and adapted, but not validated, for those with ID. The varying conceptual frameworks of risk, and its assessment and management, must be considered in context. Difficulties remain with the consideration of offences versus offence-like behaviour, offender versus those with similar needs, and indeed, what is regarded as 'intellectual disability'. Mainstream forensic assessment has moved towards a more dynamic appreciation of risk and risk management, as opposed to risk elimination. This development is more in line with the normalization principles of 'risk-taking' in ID. Consideration is given to future research and development priorities.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2002 · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2002.t01-1-00003.x