scholarly journals Violence risk prediction

2000 ◽  
Vol 177 (4) ◽  
pp. 303-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Dolan ◽  
M. Doyle

BackgroundViolence risk prediction is a priority issue for clinicians working with mentally disordered offenders.AimsTo review the current status of violence risk prediction research.MethodLiterature search (Medline). Key words: violence, risk prediction, mental disorder.ResultsSystematic/structured risk assessment approaches may enhance the accuracy of clinical prediction of violent outcomes. Data on the predictive validity of available clinical risk assessment tools are based largely on American and North American studies and further validation is required in British samples. The Psychopathy Checklist appears to be a key predictor of violent recidivism in a variety of settings.ConclusionsViolence risk prediction is an inexact science and as such will continue to provoke debate. Clinicians clearly need to be able to demonstrate the rationale behind their decisions on violence risk and much can be learned from recent developments in research on violence risk prediction.

Author(s):  
Karina Konstantinova ◽  
Alina Kuznecova

Evidence-based future community violence risk assessment is a crucial issue in psychiatry. It is a cornerstone of safeguarding the rights of persons with mental health issues. Authors aimed to analyse the modern methods of risk assessment in psychiatry and the current practice and legal framework. Authors undertook a scoped review of the literature with search terms related to future community violence risk prediction for mentally disordered offenders in Latvian, English, German, and Russian languages. Main difficulties in future community violence risk assessment are demonstrated via Latvia’s court decisions analysis. Marked differences were identified: there are no standardized methods available/registered in Latvia, therefore risks assessment is performed via clinical assessment only. In Germany, the risk assessment is performed via structured evidence – based risk assessment tools and clinical assessment; nevertheless, the choice of the assessment tool remains challenging.  


2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (11) ◽  
pp. 1539-1549 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT J. SNOWDEN ◽  
NICOLA S. GRAY ◽  
JOHN TAYLOR ◽  
MALCOLM J. MacCULLOCH

ABSTRACTBackgroundActuarial instruments may be useful in predicting long-term violence in mentally disordered patients. We compared two instruments that differ in terms of what they are designed to predict (general versus violent recividism) and the inclusion of stable mental health variables.MethodA large sample of mentally disordered patients were scored on two risk assessment instruments, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS), based on information at the point of discharge. Their criminal histories for at least 2 years following discharge were obtained from official records.ResultsBoth instruments were good predictors of both violent and general offending. Over shorter periods (<1 year) the VRAG had very good predictive validities for both types of offences [areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) >0·85], which were significantly better than the OGRS. For longer follow-up periods the instruments had approximately equal prediction accuracy. However, both instruments predicted far more offences than were in fact recorded.ConclusionsThe VRAG is a very good predictor of future violence in the UK sample. The OGRS may also be of value as it can be completed quickly and without the need for mental health variables. Caution is needed, however, as both instruments appeared to over-predict the levels of reconvictions in this sample.


2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Douglas ◽  
Melissa Yeomans ◽  
Douglas P. Boer

This study compared the predictive validity of multiple indices of violence risk among 188 general population criminal offenders: Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) Violence Risk Assessment Scheme, Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), Violent Offender Risk Assessment Scale (VORAS), Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), and Screening Version (PCL:SV). Several indices were related to violent recidivism with large statistical effect sizes: HCR-20 (Total, Clinical and Risk Management scales, structured risk judgments), VRAG, and behavioral scales of psychopathy measures. Multivariate analyses showed that HCR-20 indices were consistently related to violence and that the VRAG entered some analyses. Findings are inconsistent with a position of strict actuarial superiority, as HCR-20 structured risk judgments—an index of structured professional or clinical judgment—were as strongly related to violence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document