Risk assessment has come to be recognized as a key component of evidence-based practice and policy in psychiatric and correctional agencies. At the same time, however, there is significant debate in scientific, policy, and public arenas regarding the role of risk assessment instruments in mental health and criminal justice decision-making, and questions regarding the level of evidence supporting their usefulness. It is in light of these conflicting realities that the current commentary considers Williams, Wormith, Bonta and Sitarenios' (2017) re-examination of the Singh, Grann, and Fazel (2011) meta-analysis and recommendations made in "The Use of Meta-Analysis to Compare and Select Offender Risk Instruments." Additional limitations in the extant risk assessment research are identified and their implications for evidence-based practice and policy are discussed.