Psychiatric risk-assessments generally quantify risk using broad, categorical, indicators (e.g., high-risk, low-risk). We examined
reliability of such indicators when applied by mental-health professionals. Four versions of a questionnaire were used, each
specifying a different clinical outcome along with a range of different probabilities at which that outcome might occur. Respondents
classified each probability, allowing a comparison of the level of likelihood at which different professionals would apply the terms
\u27high-risk\u27, \u27medium-risk\u27 and \u27low-risk\u27. We found little consistency among professionals who assessed risk for the same outcomes.
Moreover, there were also large and unpredicted differences in response-profiles between the 4 clinical outcomes. These findings
raise concerns about the communication value of current risk-assessment terminology
