scholarly journals Protective Factors in Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of the SAPROF and HCR-20V3

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Neil ◽  
Suzanne O’Rourke ◽  
Nuno Ferreira ◽  
Liz Flynn
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment

scholarly journals Gender-Sensitive Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of Six Tools in Female Forensic Psychiatric Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 528-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivienne de Vogel ◽  
Mieke Bruggeman ◽  
Marike Lancel
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Clinical Risk Management ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Forensic Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Forensic Psychiatric

Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20V3, and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.

scholarly journals The reliability and validity of the SAPROF among forensic mental health patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Oziel
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Forensic Mental Health ◽  
Institutional Misconduct ◽  
Forensic Psychologists ◽  
Mental Health Patients

Assessing and managing level of risk among forensic mental health patients is a primary role of clinical forensic psychologists. Forensic assessments are focused on risk factors and deficits, whereas patient strengths and protective factors are either partially included or overlooked altogether by forensic psychologists. As a result, less is known about protective factors in general and how they may serve to inform risk management practices. The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) is the first tool to exclusively rely on protective factors and was investigated for the current study. The psychometric properties of the SAPROF were examined using a sample of 50 Canadian patients found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) at a psychiatric hospital using both file information and semi-structured interviews. Outcome variables included risk management decisions (change in privilege level and security level) and indicators of recidivism (psychiatric medication administration, institutional misconduct and disposition breaches). The study found some evidence for intrarater and interrater reliability, construct validity, predictive validity and incremental predictive validity. The SAPROF approached significance for adding incremental predictive validity to the HCR-20 V3, a measure of violence risk, for disposition breaches and institutional misconduct, and effect sizes doubled. Given that the addition of the SAPROF increased the accuracy of the violence risk assessment, there are considerable implications for informing clinical practice. Implications for risk assessment, treatment planning, intervention and risk management decisions implemented by review boards and clinical practitioners are discussed. It is recommended that the SAPROF be added as an adjunct measure to risk assessment batteries and included in hospital reports, given that it predicted several patient behaviours.

scholarly journals Predictive validity and gender differences in a biopsychosocial model of violence risk assessment in acute psychiatry

2018 ◽  
Vol 264 ◽  
pp. 270-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bjørn Magne S. Eriksen ◽  
Ann Færden ◽  
Øyvind Lockertsen ◽  
Stål Bjørkly ◽  
John Olav Roaldset
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Gender Differences ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Acute Psychiatry ◽  
And Gender

The predictive validity of youth violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 776-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Lian Koh ◽  
Andrew Day ◽  
Bianca Klettke ◽  
Michael Daffern ◽  
Chi Meng Chu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Youth Violence ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Gender Specific and Structured Approach to Violence Risk Assessment - the Munich Prognosis Project (MPP)

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
N. Nedopil
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Male Offenders ◽  
R Factor ◽  
Violent Recidivism ◽  
Structured Approach ◽  
Gender Specific

A clear structured approach to violence risk assessment that is both, evidence-based and gender specific- is high on the political and mental health agendas. The individual risk of perpetrators depends on several parameters that are incorporated into assessment instruments. Most data about risk factors included in risk assessment instruments were derived only on male offenders.This study is part of Germany's biggest risk assessment study, -the Munich Prognosis project (MPP) - and focuses on factors included in risk assessment instruments associated with criminal and violent recidivism in a sample of male and female delinquents referred for forensic-psychiatric evaluation prior sentencing. The predictive validity of four instruments (HCR 20, ILRV, VRAG and PCL-R) for violent and general repeat offenses was analyzed.When comparing the predictive validity of the four instruments for male offenders, the results were in favor of the PCL-R, i.e. PCL-R Factor 2 when focusing on violent recidivism.For female offenders ROC analysis found superior results of the HCR 20-R items (AUC .793 p< .05), the ILRV D variables (AUC .814), p< .05) and the VRAG (AUC .864, p< .05) for violent recidivism. They were in favor of the PCL-R Factor 1 (AUC .666, p< .05) when focusing on general recidivism.The importance of gender specific violence risk assessment will be discussed.

scholarly journals Risk Assessment in Juvenile and Young Adult Offenders: Predictive Validity of the SAVRY and SAPROF-YV

Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319112095974
Author(s):  
Anneke T. H. Kleeven ◽  
Michiel de Vries Robbé ◽  
Eva A. Mulder ◽  
Arne Popma
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Young Adult ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Developmental Differences ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Dutch Sample

Most juvenile risk assessment tools heavily rely on a risk-focused approach. Less attention has been devoted to protective factors. This study examines the predictive validity of protective factors in addition to risk factors, and developmental differences in psychometric properties of juvenile risk assessment. For a national Dutch sample of 354 juvenile and young adult offenders (16-26 years) risk and protective factors were retrospectively assessed at discharge from seven juvenile justice institutions, using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV). Results show moderate validity for both tools predicting general, violent, and nonviolent offending at different follow-up times. The SAPROF-YV provided incremental predictive validity over the SAVRY, and predictive validity was stronger for younger offenders. Evidently both the SAVRY and SAPROF-YV seem valid tools for the assessment of recidivism risk in juvenile and young adult offenders. Results highlight the importance of protective factors, especially in juvenile offenders, emphasizing the need for a balanced risk assessment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document