| Literature DB >> 31984104 |
Jeremy Cheng1, Andrew M Haag2,3,4, Mark E Olver1.
Abstract
How individual risk factors on structured professional judgement (SPJ) assessment tools translate into SPJ final risk formulations is unclear due to a lack of structured criteria. Understanding pathways to risk formulations is vital, as they serve as intervention targets for risk management. This study examined how Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20:V3) raters weighed varied information sources to complete summary risk ratings (SRRs). Four independent raters retrospectively coded an archived sample of 32 inpatients at a Canadian forensic psychiatric hospital. HCR-20:V3 SPJ SRRs were regressed on the 20 individual items and sample covariates to identify unique predictors of risk formulations across each rater. Raters consistently used HCR-20:V3 items and composite subscales for SRRs. Despite strong inter-rater agreement on the SRRs, there were variations across raters regarding which items informed each SRR. Rater-unique biases were also shown to influence SRRs. Implications for forensic practice and risk management are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: HCR–20:V3; final risk formulations; risk assessment; risk management; structured professional judgement; summary risk ratings
Year: 2019 PMID: 31984104 PMCID: PMC6762121 DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2019.1618753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychiatr Psychol Law ISSN: 1321-8719