Kashiwagi, Hiroko Kikuchi, Akiko Koyama, Mayuko Saito, Daisuke and Hirabayashi, Naotsugu 2018. Strength-based assessment for future violence risk: a retrospective validation study of the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) Japanese version in forensic psychiatric inpatients. Annals of General Psychiatry, Vol. 17, Issue. 1,
Shepherd, Stephane M. and Sullivan, Danny 2017. Covert and Implicit Influences on the Interpretation of Violence Risk Instruments. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Vol. 24, Issue. 2, p. 292.
Brook, Michael 2017. Structured Approaches to Violence Risk Assessment: A Critical Review. Psychiatric Annals, Vol. 47, Issue. 9, p. 454.
de Vries Robbé, Michiel and Willis, Gwenda M. 2017. Assessment of protective factors in clinical practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 32, p. 55.
Fazel, Seena Wolf, Achim Larsson, Henrik Lichtenstein, Paul Mallett, Susan and Fanshawe, Thomas R 2017. Identification of low risk of violent crime in severe mental illness with a clinical prediction tool (Oxford Mental Illness and Violence tool [OxMIV]): a derivation and validation study. The Lancet Psychiatry, Vol. 4, Issue. 6, p. 461.
Marett, Christopher P. and Mossman, Douglas 2017. From Ballpark to Courtroom: How Baseball Explains Risk Assessment. Psychiatric Annals, Vol. 47, Issue. 9, p. 443.
Labrecque, Ryan M. Campbell, Christopher M. Elliott, Jaycee King, Megan Christmann, Molly Page, Kari McVay, John and Roller, Katie 2017. An Examination of the Inter-Rater Reliability and Rater Accuracy of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Corrections, p. 1.
Fazel, Seena Wolf, Achim Fimińska, Zuzanna Larsson, Henrik and Sasayama, Daimei 2016. Mortality, Rehospitalisation and Violent Crime in Forensic Psychiatric Patients Discharged from Hospital: Rates and Risk Factors. PLOS ONE, Vol. 11, Issue. 5, p. e0155906.
Muñoz Vicente, José Manuel and López-Ossorio, Juan José 2016. Valoración psicológica del riesgo de violencia: alcance y limitaciones para su uso en el contexto forense. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, Vol. 26, Issue. 1, p. 130.
Fazel, Seena Chang, Zheng Fanshawe, Thomas Långström, Niklas Lichtenstein, Paul Larsson, Henrik and Mallett, Susan 2016. Prediction of violent reoffending on release from prison: derivation and external validation of a scalable tool. The Lancet Psychiatry, Vol. 3, Issue. 6, p. 535.
Monteith, Scott Glenn, Tasha Geddes, John Whybrow, Peter C. and Bauer, Michael 2016. Big data for bipolar disorder. International Journal of Bipolar Disorders, Vol. 4, Issue. 1,
Judges, Rachel Egan, Vincent and Broad, Grant 2016. A Critique of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, Version 3, Risk Assessment Instrument. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, Vol. 16, Issue. 4, p. 304.
Sedgwick, Ottilie Young, Susan Das, Mrigendra and Kumari, Veena 2016. Objective predictors of outcome in forensic mental health services—a systematic review. CNS Spectrums, Vol. 21, Issue. 06, p. 430.
Gulati, Gautam Cornish, Robert Al-Taiar, Hasanen Miller, Christopher Khosla, Vivek Hinds, Christopher Price, Jonathan Geddes, John and Fazel, Seena 2016. Web-Based Violence Risk Monitoring Tool in Psychoses: Pilot Study in Community Forensic Patients. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 49.
Tiffin, Paul A. Kitchen, Charlotte E.W. and Weir, Steven 2015. Innovations in Practice: Piloting a new child and adolescent risk assessment suite in the UK. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Vol. 20, Issue. 4, p. 225.
Sher, Leo and Rice, Timothy 2015. Prevention of homicidal behaviour in men with psychiatric disorders. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, Vol. 16, Issue. 4, p. 212.
Singh, Jay P. Desmarais, Sarah L. Hurducas, Cristina Arbach-Lucioni, Karin Condemarin, Carolina Dean, Kimberlie Doyle, Michael Folino, Jorge O. Godoy-Cervera, Verónica Grann, Martin Ho, Robyn Mei Yee Large, Matthew M. Nielsen, Louise Hjort Pham, Thierry H. Rebocho, Maria Francisca Reeves, Kim A. Rettenberger, Martin de Ruiter, Corine Seewald, Katharina and Otto, Randy K. 2014. International Perspectives on the Practical Application of Violence Risk Assessment: A Global Survey of 44 Countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, Vol. 13, Issue. 3, p. 193.
Dubourg, Émilie and Gautron, Virginie 2014. La rationalisation des méthodes d’évaluation des risques de récidive. Champ pénal, Issue. Vol. XI,
Feiring, Eli and Ugstad, Kristian N 2014. Interpretations of legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric admission: a qualitative analysis. BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 14, Issue. 1,
Rossegger, Astrid Endrass, Jérôme Gerth, Juliane Singh, Jay P. and Scott, James G. 2014. Replicating the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide: A Total Forensic Cohort Study. PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, Issue. 3, p. e91845.
Rates of violence in persons identified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) are uncertain and frequently unreported by validation studies.
To analyse the variation in rates of violence in individuals identified as high risk by SRAIs.
A systematic search of databases (1995–2011) was conducted for studies on nine widely used assessment tools. Where violence rates in high-risk groups were not published, these were requested from study authors. Rate information was extracted, and binomial logistic regression was used to study heterogeneity.
Information was collected on 13 045 participants in 57 samples from 47 independent studies. Annualised rates of violence in individuals classified as high risk varied both across and within instruments. Rates were elevated when population rates of violence were higher, when a structured professional judgement instrument was used and when there was a lower proportion of men in a study.
After controlling for time at risk, the rate of violence in individuals classified as high risk by SRAIs shows substantial variation. In the absence of information on local base rates, assigning predetermined probabilities to future violence risk on the basis of a structured risk assessment is not supported by the current evidence base. This underscores the need for caution when such risk estimates are used to influence decisions related to individual liberty and public safety.
S.F. is funded by the Wellcome Trust.
Declaration of interest
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 3rd January 2018 - 21st March 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.