What should the forensic psychologist decide?

Statisticians and researchers are human, and therefore, make mistakes in the conduct of their research. Type I and Type II errors are important to consider as they have real-world implications. A Type I error refers to rejecting a null hypothesis when it is true, while a Type II error results from failing to reject a null hypothesis when it is false. The following hypothetical situation illustrates these errors and the null hypothesis:
A forensic psychologist must decide whether to allow John Hinckley, Jr. to go to his parents’ house on a weekend pass. Mr. Hinckley, as you recall, attempted to assassinate President Reagan at the Washington Hilton in 1981, just to impress actress Jody Foster with whom he was obsessed. Mr. Hinckley has been writing letters to Miss Foster as recently as last month. The letters were found under his mattress during a routine inspection of his room at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. The hospital has convened a panel of seven mental health professionals, all of whom work at the hospital and with Mr. Hinckley. The votes are in: Three say let him go visit his parents and three vote to deny his weekend pass request. What should the forensic psychologist decide? The null hypothesis in this case would be that it is safe to send him home for the weekend. If he is denied the visit when in reality he would not have caused any problems, a Type I error (also called a false positive) would have been made. It was determined that he would be dangerous when he would not have been. A Type II error (or a false negative) would result if it was determined that he would not be violent and he was released, and he ended up assaulting someone on his weekend pass. In that case, it was believed that nothing would happen and it did.
Forensic psychology research also may exhibit Type I and Type II errors, as you discover in this Discussion.
Review Chapter 8 in your course text, Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Pay particular attention to the difference between Type I and Type II errors.
Review the web article, “ Type I and Type II Errors—Making Mistakes in the Justice System.” Pay close attention to the descriptions and examples of Type I and Type II errors.
Using the Walden Library, select and review a research article that addresses a forensic psychology issue or takes place in a forensic setting, and that reports or discusses a Type I or Type II error.
Think about the possible consequences to the research study of making each type of error.
Consider whether the resulting consequences of making each type of error would be tolerable or not and why.
Post by Day 4 a brief summary of the study you selected. Then, explain how and why the study reports the possibility of either a Type I or Type II error. Finally, explain the potential consequence to the research study of making either a Type I or a Type II error and which is more “ tolerable” and why.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.
SAMPLE ANSWER
I selected a research study titled “The Accuracy of Risk Assessments for Intimate Partner Violence: A Meta-Analysis” by Ackerman et al. (2011). This study is relevant to forensic psychology as it addresses the accuracy of risk assessments for intimate partner violence (IPV), a crucial issue in forensic settings.
The study reports the possibility of both Type I and Type II errors in the context of IPV risk assessments. In this study, a Type I error would occur if an individual who was assessed as high risk for committing IPV (i.e., classified as a potential perpetrator) was not actually likely to engage in such behavior. This would mean that the risk assessment falsely identified someone as a high-risk offender when they were not, potentially leading to unnecessary interventions, restrictions, or legal actions against the individual.
On the other hand, a Type II error would occur if an individual who was assessed as low risk for committing IPV (i.e., classified as not likely to perpetrate) was actually at risk of engaging in such behavior. In this case, the risk assessment failed to identify a potential perpetrator, potentially leading to the release or insufficient monitoring of someone who poses a risk to others.
The consequences of making either type of error in IPV risk assessments can be significant. A Type I error can result in the infringement of an individual’s rights and privacy, unnecessary legal actions, and potential harm to their reputation and well-being. A Type II error can lead to inadequate protection for victims of IPV, with potentially severe consequences for their safety and well-being.
In this context, which error is more “tolerable” depends on the specific goals and priorities of the forensic setting. Some may argue that a Type I error is less tolerable as it risks unjustly harming an individual, while others may argue that a Type II error is less tolerable as it puts potential victims at risk. Ultimately, it highlights the importance of continually improving the accuracy of risk assessments and considering the ethical implications of both types of errors in forensic psychology research and practice.