Overall, results indicated that the two methods--risk-appraisal and self-report--produced comparable results for predictions of institutional adjustment but risk-appraisal methods were observed to be modestly superior to self-report in predicting recidivism. However, when analysis of self-reports was restricted to content-relevant self-report predictors, the predictions obtained from both risk-appraisal and self-report measures were again comparable. Moreover, both types of measures revealed comparable incremental validity. The author comments that the moderately favorable findings related to self-report measures should not blind practitioners to the limitations of offender self-report, which include concerns about deception and literacy. Research methods involved the analysis of 27 individual pairs of effect sizes from 22 studies employing 5 risk-appraisal procedures and at least 1 self-report measure. Data were identified via a computerized search of the PsycINFO, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, and Cambridge Scientific Criminal Justice Abstracts databases. Data analysis involved combining the studies, testing homogeneity, and computing a 95 percent confidence interval using statistical procedures. Limitations of the meta-analytic approach are discussed and the author notes that the findings should be considered preliminary. Future research might focus on whether risk-appraisal and self-report measures can effectively supplement one another in specific combinations and sequences. Tables, appendix, notes, references