The Effect of Negative Media Exposure and Evaluators’ Attitudes Toward Offenders on Violence Risk Assessment with the HCR-20V3

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kamorowski ◽  
Corine de Ruiter ◽  
Maartje Schreuder ◽  
Marko Jelicic ◽  
Karl Ask
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Pretrial Publicity ◽  
Risk Judgment ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Biasing Effects ◽  
Risk Judgments

Structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs), such as the Historical Clinical Risk Management (HCR-20V3) are increasingly used to inform criminal justice decision-making, highlighting the significance of examining the potential for bias when using these measures and effective strategies to mitigate it. In this experimental study, we examined the possible biasing effects of (1) negative pretrial publicity (PTP) about a person who committed a double homicide and (2) evaluators’ attitudes toward offenders, on scale scores and final risk judgments of the HCR-20V3. Participants (N = 54) included graduate students, clinicians, and researchers who had been trained to complete the HCR-20. Contrary to expectation, negative PTP exhibited no effects on the HCR-20 total scores, subscale scores, or final risk judgments. In line with our hypothesis, more positive attitudes toward offenders were predictive of lower HCR-20 total scores and lower ratings on the Clinical and Risk Management subscales and final risk judgment of imminent violence. These findings add to a growing body of research indicating forensic risk evaluations conducted using SRAIs are not immune to the effects of some types of bias.

Comparative Validity Analysis of Multiple Measures of Violence Risk in a Sample of Criminal Offenders

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Douglas ◽  
Melissa Yeomans ◽  
Douglas P. Boer
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Violent Offender ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Criminal Offenders ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised ◽  
Hare Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Risk Judgments

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.

Matching Services to Criminogenic Needs Following Comprehensive Risk Assessment Implementation in Juvenile Probation

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 1136-1153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Nelson ◽  
Gina M. Vincent
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Probation Officers ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Juvenile Probation ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Case Planning

One emphasis of juvenile justice reform has been implementation of risk assessment instruments to improve case planning. This study examined the ability of juvenile probation departments to apply the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) framework into case planning following a comprehensive implementation protocol. Data were collected on 385 adolescent offenders across three probation departments following implementation of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth (SAVRY) and an RNR-related case planning policy. As expected, as risk levels of youth increased, probation departments assigned more services and addressed more criminogenic need areas in their case plans. Most case plans (86%) adhered to the policy to limit the number of needs addressed at one time. The quality of service-to-need matching varied by criminogenic need area, risk level, and site. Implications to juvenile courts’ and probation officers’ case planning and the challenges of research on service-to-need matching are discussed.

Evaluation of a Violence Risk (Threat) Assessment Training Program for Police and Other Criminal Justice Professionals

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 554-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Storey ◽  
Andrea L. Gibas ◽  
Kim A. Reeves ◽  
Stephen D. Hart
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Threat Assessment ◽  
Case Vignette ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Training ◽  
Criminal Justice Professionals

Although a great deal of research has focused on the development and validation of violence risk (threat) assessment instruments, few studies have examined whether professionals can be trained to use these instruments. The present study evaluated the impact of a violence risk assessment training program on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of 73 criminal justice professionals, including police officers, civilian support staff, and prosecutors. The program covered principles of violence risk assessment, the nature of mental disorder and its association with violence risk, and the use of various structured professional judgment (SPJ) risk assessment instruments. Comparisons of pre- and post-training evaluations indicated significant improvements on measures of knowledge about risk assessment, skills in the analysis of risk in a case vignette, and perceived confidence in conducting violence risk assessments. Findings support the utility of risk assessment training for criminal justice professionals and the utility of SPJ violence risk assessment instruments generally.

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 Violence Risk Assessment Practices in Denmark: A Multidisciplinary National Survey

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Hjort Nielsen ◽  
Sarah van Mastrigt ◽  
Randy K. Otto ◽  
Katharina Seewald ◽  
Corine de Ruiter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Assessment Practices ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Monitoring ◽  
Professional Disciplines

Abstract With a quadrupling of forensic psychiatric patients in Denmark over the past 20 years, focus on violence risk assessment practices across the country has increased. However, information is lacking regarding Danish risk assessment practice across professional disciplines and clinical settings; little is known about how violence risk assessments are conducted, which instruments are used for what purposes, and how mental health professionals rate their utility and costs. As part of a global survey exploring the application of violence risk assessment across 44 countries, the current study investigated Danish practice across several professional disciplines and settings in which forensic and high-risk mental health patients are assessed and treated. In total, 125 mental health professionals across the country completed the survey. The five instruments that respondents reported most commonly using for risk assessment, risk management planning and risk monitoring were Broset, HCR-20, the START, the PCL-R, and the PCL:SV. Whereas the HCR-20 was rated highest in usefulness for risk assessment, the START was rated most useful for risk management and risk monitoring. No significant differences in utility were observed across professional groups. Unstructured clinical judgments were reported to be faster but more expensive to conduct than using a risk assessment instrument. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document