Great analysis, but problematic assumptions: A critique of Janus and Meehl (1997)

Dennis M. Doren Douglas L. Epperson

Mendota Mental Health Institute Iowa State University

Abstract

Janus and Meehl (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (1997), 3(1), 33-64) employed a sophisticated analysis to discover what is the actual standard that judges use in determining which sex offenders meet criteria for a civil commitment within the purviews of “sexual predator” laws. Their analysis relied on various assumptions, most of which were specified and explicated by the authors. They concluded that the judiciary does not even approach meeting the standards that it sets for itself when it comes to adjudicating the threshold for these types of commitments. Two of the fundamental underlying assumptions within this analysis may be seriously flawed, however. Using current information related to either of those assumptions, without changing any other aspect of the analysis, the ultimate finding concerning the judiciary standard would actually be reversed from what Janus and Meehl concluded.

Doren, D. M., & Epperson, D. L. (2001). Great analysis, but problematic assumptions: A critique of Janus and Meehl (1997). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 45-51.