Recent conflict in the literature were examined with the result that, consistent with earlier findings, empirical evidence was found to support the capabilities of expert profilers in decisively surpassing nonprofilers in accurately predicting the characteristics of an unknown offender. This article presents an overview of quasi-experimental research that has investigated the performance of individuals engaged in the forensic psychological technique commonly known as criminal profiling. Broad discussion is included on the problems in measuring accuracy; studies of profiling performance; the conflict of meta-analysis studies; and misconceptions and theoretical contradictions. It is noted that by identifying the sources of conflict in this area, the authors illustrate how the research, contrary to first impressions, demonstrated in comparative terms that suitably skilled profilers could predict the characteristics of an unknown offender more proficiently than other subjects tested to date. It is noted that the present research is to be distinguished from the similarly entitled concept of actuarial profiling in developing aggregated templates of typical offenders. Observations are also offered on the broader ramifications of these findings for competing theoretical approaches to criminal profiling. Table, notes, references