Results of the narrative review suggest that the CP literature is made up mainly of common sense justifications for CP rather than empirical research regarding its effectiveness. Findings from the first meta-analysis showed that self-labeled profiler and experienced investigator groups did not outperform comparison groups in predicting offenders’ perceptions, physical attributes, offense behaviors, or social habits and history. However, the expert group performed marginally better than the comparison group at predicting overall offender characteristics. The second meta-analysis revealed that self-labeled profilers outperformed comparison groups at predicting overall offender characteristics, perceptions, physical attributes, and social history and habits, but were not significantly better than comparison groups at predicting offense behaviors. The authors note the wide range of methodological and conceptual problems within the CP research literature and argue that until proven otherwise by empirical and reproducible studies, CP appears to be an extraneous and redundant pseudoscientific technique. The narrative review involved an examination of 130 CP articles located through an electronic search of PsycINFO and Criminal Justice Abstracts databases. The first and second meta-analysis involved the secondary analysis of four CP studies that met the research criteria, which was: (1) use of an experimental scenario; (2) the comparison of expert profiler groups with comparison groups; (3) the report of statistical information; and (4) had a dependant variable that could be converted into a common effect size. The authors call for more empirical and stringent research concerning the effectiveness of CP for criminal investigations. Table, figure, notes, references