1
Otto, R, Douglas, K. Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment.
Routledge,
2010.
2
Conroy, MA, Murrie, DC. Forensic Assessment of Violence Risk.
Wiley,
2007.
3
Buchanan, A, Binder, R, Norko, M, Swartz, M. Psychiatric violence risk
assessment. Am J Psychiatry
2012; 169:
340.
4
Higgins, N, Watts, D, Bindman, J, Slade, M, Thornicroft, G. Assessing violence risk in general adult
psychiatry. Psychiatr Bull
2005; 29: 131–3.
5
Tolman, A, Mullendore, K. Risk evaluations for the courts: is service quality
a function of specialization?
Prof Psychol Res Prac
2003; 34: 225–32.
6
Viljoen, JL, McLachlan, K, Vincent, GM. Assessing violence risk and psychopathy in juvenile
and adult offenders: a survey of clinical practices.
Assessment
2010; 17: 377–95.
7
Tyrer, P. An agitation of contrary opinions.
Br J Psychiatry
2007; 190:
s1–2.
8
Hart, SD, Michie, C, Cooke, DJ. Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments.
Evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group v. individual predictions of
violence. Br J Psychiatry
2007; 190:
s60–5.
9
Cook, N. Use and misuse of the receiver operating
characteristic curve in risk prediction.
Circulation
2007; 115: 928–35.
10
Singh, JP, Grann, M, Fazel, S. A comparative study of violence risk assessment
tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies
involving 25,980 participants. Clin Psychol
Rev
2011; 31:
499–513.
11
Helmus, L, Hanson, RK, Thornton, D, Babchishin, KM, Harris, AJR. Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R
and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples:
a meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav
2012; 39: 1148–71.
12
Looman, J. Comparison of two risk assessment instruments for
sexual offenders. Sex Abuse
2006; 18:
193–206.
13
Helmus, L, Hanson, K, Thornton, D. Reporting Static-99 in light of new research on
recidivism norms. Forum
2009; 21:
38–45.
14
Mossman, D. Another look at interpreting risk
categories. Sex Abuse
2006; 18:
41–63.
15
Singh, JP, Fazel, S. Forensic risk assessment: a
metareview. Crim Justice Behav
2010; 37: 965–88.
16
Andrews, DA, Bonta, J. LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory – Revised.
Multi-Health Systems,
1995.
17
Hare, RD. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised.
Multi-Health Systems,
2003.
18
Quinsey, VL, Harris, GT, Rice, ME, Cormier, CA. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk.
American Psychological Association,
2006.
19
Harris, AJR, Phenix, A, Hanson, RK, Thornton, D. Static-99 Coding Rules: Revised 2003.
Solicitor General Canada,
2003.
20
Webster, CD, Douglas, KS, Eaves, D, Hart, SD. HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence.
Simon Fraser University,
1997.
21
Boer, DP, Hart, SD, Kropp, PR, Webster, CD. Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20. Professional
Guidelines for Assessing Risk of Sexual Violence.
Simon Fraser University,
1997.
22
Kropp, PR, Hart, SD, Webster, CD, Eaves, D. Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA).
Multi-Health Systems,
1999.
23
Borum, R, Bartel, P, Forth, A. Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in
Youth (SAVRY): Version 1.1.
University of South Florida,
2003.
24
Landis, JR, Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics
1977; 33: 159–74.
25
Arbach, K, Pueyo, AA. Violence risk assessment in mental disorders with
the HCR-20. Papeles del Psicologo
2007; 28: 174–86.
26
Beggs, SM, Grace, RC. Psychopathy, intelligence, and recidivism in child
molesters: evidence of an interaction effect.
Crim Justice Behav
2008; 35: 683–95.
27
Bengtson, S. Is newer better? A cross-validation of the
Static-2002 and the Risk Matrix 2000 in a Danish sample of sexual
offenders. Psychol Crim Law
2008; 14:
85–106.
28
Caperton, JD. Predicting Recidivism among Sex Offenders: Utility of the
STATIC-99, Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised, and Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised. Sam Houston State
University, 2005.
29
Dahle, KP. Strengths and limitations of actuarial prediction of
criminal reoffense in a German prison sample: a comparative study of
LSI-R, HCR-20 and PCL-R. Int J Law
Psychiatr
2006; 29: 431–42.
30
De Vogel, V, de Ruiter, C. The HCR-20 in personality disordered female
offenders: a comparison with a matched sample of males.
Clin Psychol Psychother
2005; 12: 226–40.
31
De Vogel, V, de Ruiter, C, van, Beek, Mead, G. Predictive validity of the SVR-20 and Static-99 in a
Dutch sample of treated sex offenders. Law Hum
Behav
2004; 28: 235–51.
32
Dempster, RJ. Prediction of Sexually Violent Recidivism: A Comparison of
Risk Assessment Instruments. Simon Fraser
University, 1998.
33
Dempster, RJ. Understanding Errors in Risk Assessment: The Application of
Differential Prediction Methodology. Simon
Fraser University, 2001.
34
Douglas, KS, Ogloff, JRP, Hart, SD. Evaluation of a model of violence risk assessment
among forensic psychiatric patients. Psychiatr
Serv
2003; 54: 1372–9.
35
Douglas, KS, Yeomans, M, Boer, DP. Comparative validity analysis of multiple measures
of violence risk in a sample of criminal offenders.
Crim Justice Behav
2005; 32:
479–510.
36
Eher, R, Rettenberger, M, Matthes, A. Aktuarische prognose bei Sexualstraftaetern
[Actuarial predictions of sexual offenders].
Mschr Krim
2009; 92:
18–27.
37
Eher, R, Rettenberger, M, Schilling, F, Pfäfflin, F. Failure of Static-99 and SORAG to predict reoffense
categories in relevant sexual offender subtypes: a prospective
study. Sex Offend Treat
2008; 3:
1–14.
38
Folino, J, Almiron, M, Ricci, MA. Factores de riesgo de recidiva violenta en mujeres
filicidas [Violent recidivism risk factor in filicidal
women]. Vertex
2007; 18: 258–67.
39
Friendship, C, Mann, RE, Beech, AR. Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment
program for sexual offenders in England and Wales.
J Interpers Viol
2003; 18: 744–59.
40
Gammelgard, M, Koivisto, AM, Eronen, M, Kaltiala-Heino, R. The predictive validity of the Structured Assessment
of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) among institutionalised
adolescents. J Forensic Psychiatr
Psychol
2008; 19: 352–70.
41
Gibas, AL, Kropp, PR, Hart, SD, Stewart, L. Validity of the SARA in a Canadian Sample of Incarcerated
Adult Males. International Association of
Forensic Mental Health Services,
2008.
42
Grann, M, Belfrage, H, Tengstrom, A. Actuarial assessment of risk for violence:
predictive validity of the VRAG and the historical part of the
HCR-20. Crim Justice Behav
2000; 27:
97–114.
43
Grann, M, Langstrom, N, Tengstrom, A, Kullgren, G. Psychopathy (PCL-R) predicts violent recidivism
among criminal offenders with personality disorders in
Sweden. Law Hum Behav
1999; 23: 205–17.
44
Gretton, H, Abramowitz, C. SAVRY: Contribution of Items and Scales to Clinical Risk
Judgments and Criminal Outcomes. American
Psychology Law Society,
2002.
45
Harris, GT, Rice, ME, Quinsey, VL, Lalumiere, ML, Boer, D, Lang, C. A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments
for sex offenders. Psychol Assess
2003; 15: 413–25.
46
Helmus, LMD, Hanson, RK. Predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-2002
for sex offenders on community supervision. Sex
Offend Treat
2007; 2:
1–14.
47
Hill, A, Habermann, N, Klusmann, D, Berner, W, Briken, P. Criminal recidivism in sexual homicide
perpetrators. Int J Offender Ther Comp
Criminol
2008; 52:
5–20.
48
Ho, H, Thomson, L, Darjee, R. Violence risk assessment: the use of the PCL-SV,
HCR-20, and VRAG to predict violence in mentally disordered offenders
discharged from a medium secure unit in Scotland.
J Forensic Psychiatr Psychol
2009; 4: 523–41.
49
Jovanovic, AA, Tosevski, DL, Ivkonvic, M, Damjanovic, A, Gasic, MJ. Predicting violence in veterans with posttraumatic
stress disorder. Vojnosanit Pregl
2009; 66:
13–21.
50
Kingston, DA, Yates, PM, Firestone, P, Babchishin, K, Bradford, JM. Long-term predictive validity of the Risk Matrix
2000: a comparison with the Static-99 and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal
Guide. Sex Abuse
2008; 20: 466–84.
51
Kloezeman, KC. Violent Behavior on Inpatient Psychiatric Units: The HCR-20
Violence Risk Assessment Scheme. University of
Hawaii, 2004.
52
Kropp, PR, Hart, SD. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) guide:
reliability and validity in adult male offenders.
Law Hum Behav
2000; 24: 101–18.
53
Lodewijks, HPB, Doreleijers, TAH, de Ruiter, C. SAVRY risk assessment in violent Dutch adolescents:
relation to sentencing and recidivism. Crim
Justice Behav
2008; 35:
696–709.
54
Lodewijks, HPB, de Ruiter, C, Doreleijers, TAH. Gender differences in violent outcome and risk
assessment in adolescent offenders after residential
treatment. Int J Forensic Ment Health
2008; 7: 105–41.
55
Lodewijks, HPB, Doreleijers, TAH, de Ruiter, C, Borum, R. Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of
Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) during residential
treatment. Int J Law Psychiatr
2008; 31: 263–71.
56
Looman, J, Abracen, J. Comparison of measures of risk for recidivism in
sexual offenders. J Interpers Viol
2010; 25:
791–807.
57
McEachran, A. The Predictive Validity of the PCL:YV and the SAVRY in a
Population of Adolescent Offenders. Simon Fraser
University, 2001.
58
Meyers, JR, Schmidt, F. Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of
Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) with juvenile offenders.
Crim Justice Behav
2008; 35: 344–55.
59
Mills, JF, Kroner, DG. The effect of discordance among violence and general
recidivism risk estimates on predictive accuracy.
Crim Behav Ment Health
2006; 16: 155–66.
60
Morrissey, C, Hogue, T, Mooney, P, Allen, C, Johnston, S, Hollin, C, et al.
Predictive validity of the PCL-R in offenders with
intellectual disability in a high secure hospital setting: institutional
aggression. J Forensic Psychiatr Psychol
2007; 18:
1–15.
61
Pedersen, L, Rasmussen, K, Elsass, P. Risk assessment: the value of structured
professional judgments. Int J Forensic Ment
Health
2010; 9:
74–81.
62
Polvi, NH. The Prediction of Violence in Pre-trial Forensic Patients:
The Relative Efficacy of Statistical versus Clinical Predictions of
Dangerousness. Simon Fraser
University, 1999.
63
Reeves, KA, Kropp, PR, Cairns, K. An Independent Validation Study of the SARA.
International Association of Forensic Mental Health
Services, 2004.
64
Rettenberger, M, Eher, R. Predicting reoffense in sexual offender subtypes: a
prospective validation study of the German version of the Sexual Offender
Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). Sex Offend
Treat
2007; 2:
1–12.
65
Rice, ME, Harris, GT. Men who molest their sexually immature daughters: is
a special examination required?
J Abnorm Psychol
2002; 111: 329–39.
66
Seto, MC, Barbaree, HE. Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and sex offender
recidivism. J Interpers Viol
1999; 14: 1235–48.
67
Snowden, RJ, Gray, NS, Taylor, J, MacCulloch, MJ. Actuarial prediction of violent recidivism in
mentally disordered offenders. Psychol
Med
2007; 37: 1539–49.
68
Snowden, RJ, Gray, NS, Taylor, J, Fitzgerald, S. Assessing risk of future violence among forensic
psychiatric inpatients with the Classification of Violence Risk
(COVR). Psychiatr Serv
2009; 60: 1522–6.
69
Viljoen, JL, Scalora, M, Cuadra, L, Bader, S, Chavez, V, Ullman, D, et al.
Assessing risk for violence in adolescents who have sexually
offended: a comparison of the J-SOAP-II, J-SORRAT-II, and
SAVRY. Crim Justice Behav
2008; 35:
5–23.
70
Walkington, Z, O'Keeffe, C, Thomas, S. Predicting Violence Recidivism in Violent Juveniles: A UK
Trial. HM Prison Service,
2006.
71
Wormith, JS, Olver, ME, Stevenson, HE, Girard, L. The long-term prediction of offender recidivism
using diagnostic, personality, and risk/need approaches to offender
assessment. Psychol Serv
2007; 4:
287–305.
72
Szmukler, G. Violence risk prediction in
practice. Br J Psychiatry
2001; 178: 84–5.
73
Fazel, S, Singh, JP, Doll, H, Grann, M. The prediction of violence and antisocial behaviour:
a systematic review and meta-analysis of the utility of risk assessment
instruments in 73 samples involving 24,827 individuals.
BMJ
2012; 345:
e4692.
74
Eastman, N, Adshead, G, Fox, S, Latham, R, Whyte, S. Forensic Psychiatry. Oxford
University Press, 2012.
75
Bayes, T, Price, R. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine
of chances. Phil Trans Royal Society
London
1763, 53:
370–418.
76
Arkes, HR. Impediments to accurate clinical judgment and
possible ways to minimize their impact. J Consult
Clin Psychol
1981; 49: 323–30.
77
Arkes, HR. Costs and benefits of judgment errors: implications
for debiasing. Psychol Bull
1991; 110: 486–98.
78
Guy, LS. Performance Indicators of the Structured Professional
Judgment Approach for Assessing Risk for Violence to Others: A
Meta-analytic Survey. Simon Fraser
University, 2008.
79
Hilton, N, Carter, A, Harris, G, Sharpe, A. Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid
violence risk communication?
J Interpers Viol
2008; 23: 171–88.
80
Lidz, C, Mulvey, E, Gardner, W. The accuracy of predictions of violence to
others. JAMA
1993; 269: 1007–11.
81
McNiel, DE, Binder, RL. Correlates of accuracy in the assessment of
psychiatric inpatients' risk of violence. Am J
Psychiatry
1995; 152: 901–6.
82
Rabinowitz, J, Garelik-Wyler, R. Accuracy and confidence in clinical assessment of
psychiatric inpatients risk of violence. Int J
Law Psychiatry
1999; 22:
99–106.
83
Dean, K, Walsh, E, Moran, P, Tyrer, P, Creed, F, Byford, S, et al.
Violence in women with psychosis in the community:
prospective study. Br J Psychiatry
2006; 188: 264–70.
84
Singh, JP, Serper, M, Reinharth, J, Fazel, S. Structured assessment of violence risk in
schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders: a systematic review of the
validity, reliability, and item content of 10 available
instruments. Schizophr Bull
2011; 37:
899–912.
85
Tversky, A, Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and
biases. Science
1974; 185: 1124–31.
Matthew Large, Psychiatrist
28 March 2014
The recent meta-analysis by Singh et al. examined the proportion of violent people among those classified as high-risk, known as the positive predictive value (PPV). They found that PPV is highly variable between studies and is most strongly associated with the base rate of violence in the whole risk-assessed group (1). They conclude that risk assessment is not a reliable indicator of absolute risk. We agree. The increased focus on the PPV of high-risk categories is a welcome development because it leads to a consideration of the number of people who might need to be assessed as high-risk for every true positive (actually violent) person. The number needed to assess is often a more relevant measure than those derived from the receiver operator curve and it clearly illustrates the lack of meaning in recent debates about the extent to which group data applies to individuals (2) and the margins of error in particular risk predictions (3). However, we believe the debate about risk assessment nowneeds to move beyond abstract notions relating solely to probability. A probability after all is simply a number between 0 and 1, a number that isuninformative unless it is a probability of something specific.
Although not cited in the recent paper, we systematically examined PPV of risk categorization after making generous assumptions about the statistical power of risk assessment (4). Unlike the present paper, our paper focused on the main factor that actually determines base rates and thus PPV - the definition of violence according to violence severity. For example, using a risk assessment instrument with a sensitivity and specificity of 80% for the detection of different outcomes, the PPV for criminally violent behavior over a year by people with schizophrenia mightbe about 4% under optimal conditions, while the same figure for homicide would be 0.04%.
In the primary risk research, including that used by Singh et al. in the recent meta-analysis, a wide spectrum of violent events is amalgamatedinto an omnibus violent category. These events range from common assault all the way to homicide. Each of these diverse events has different base rates and consequences, with more severe violence having lower base rate but leading to greater losses.
Risk assessment in mental health should to start to consider the dimension of resulting loss. In areas outside mental health, risk is not aprobability but is a quantum of loss - that is why we pay our insurance premium in money, yet have little idea of the likelihood of the loss of our possessions. In our view any study that does not consider the magnitude of resulting loss should not really be thought of as a 'risk assessment' and more properly should be referred to as 'probability assessment'. While quantification of loss poses significant challenges, considering a definition of risk that includes the loss component re-emphasizes two complex, important and unanswered questions
i)What actual psychiatric interventions in terms of cost/side effects/benefits are indicated for those who are regarded as high-risk, and yet should be withheld from patients classified as low risk? If the harm we consider is not severe, no costly, restrictive or intrusive treatment can be justified. If the harm considered is severe, it will alsobe rare. Therefore what costly and intrusive intervention can be justified for the tiny proportion of false positives, or if the intervention is not costly or intrusive, why withhold it from low-risk patients, who will commit many of the future acts of violence? (5)ii)Is there evidence that an overall reduction in violence can be achieved by applying this cost/effective and acceptable intervention to a group who are more likely to offend while denying it to those who as a group less likely to offend? Will the additional resources spent on preventing violence by high-risk patients be justified in terms of harm reduction? (6)
At the end of the recent paper the authors recommend that risk assessments be provided with a qualification explaining their limitations.Here we agree as well. Perhaps it should be "this risk assessment providesan estimate of an uncertain probability of an unspecified event with no consideration of the consequences"
References
1.Singh JP, Fazel S, Gueorguieva R, Buchanan A. Rates of violence inpatients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 2014; 204: 180-7.2.Scurich N, Monahan J, John RS. Innumeracy and unpacking: bridging the nomothetic/idiographic divide in violence risk assessment. Law and human behavior. 2012; 36(6): 548-54.3.Hart SD, Michie C, Cooke DJ. Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the 'margins of error' of group v. individual predictions of violence. The British journal of psychiatry Supplement. 2007; 49: s60-5.4.Large MM, Ryan CJ, Singh SP, Paton MB, Nielssen OB. The predictive value of risk categorization in schizophrenia. Harvard review of psychiatry. 2011; 19(1): 25-33.5.Large M, Ryan CJ. Screening for suicide: a comment on Steeg et al. Psychological medicine. 2012; 42(9): 2011-2; author reply 2-3.6.Wand T, Large M. Little evidence for the usefulness of violence risk assessment. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 2013; 202: 468.
... More
Conflict of interest: None declared
Write a replyBack to top
Manjeet S. Bhatia
07 March 2014
The article by Jay P. Singh and co-authors is an excellent one in highlighting the cautious interpretation of studies on rates of violence among psychiatric patients classified as High Risk.Not only there is huge variation, their interpretation without having the base rates is not appropriate. There are many other factors which influence the rates of violence e.g. setting (indoor or outdoor),pattern of patients in the setting (differ in psychiatric hospital and general hospital setting),typeof disorder ( schizophrenia /mood disorder/substance abuse),disorder variables (age- group, type of disorder,acute/chronic,co-morbid disorder present or absent, type and nature of treatment given),compliance variables (patient as well as family factors),type of assessment scale used (structured/standardized), prevalence of violent behaviour in community)and social variables linked to violent behaviour . More studies (country and disorder based after controlling different variables)are required to reach a definite conclusion.
... More
Conflict of interest: None declared
Write a replyBack to top