Literature DB >> 31984104

Predictors of Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20:V3) summary risk ratings.

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.
© 2019 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.

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


  7 in total

1.  Predictive validity of the SVR-20 and Static-99 in a Dutch sample of treated sex offenders.

Authors:  Vivienne de Vogel; Corine de Ruiter; Daan van Beek; Gwen Mead
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2004-06

2.  Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide.

Authors:  Henrik Belfrage; Susanne Strand; Jennifer E Storey; Andrea L Gibas; P Randall Kropp; Stephen D Hart
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2012-02

3.  Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid violence risk communication? Clinician agreement and decision making.

Authors:  N Zoe Hilton; Angela M Carter; Grant T Harris; Amilynn J B Sharpe
Journal:  J Interpers Violence       Date:  2008-02

Review 4.  Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment. Technology, guidelines, and training.

Authors:  R Borum
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  1996-09

5.  Concurrent validity and clinical utility of the HCR-20V3 compared with the HCR-20 in forensic mental health nursing: similar tools but improved method.

Authors:  Stål Bjørkly; Gunnar Eidhammer; Lars Erik Selmer
Journal:  J Forensic Nurs       Date:  2014 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.175

Review 6.  Version 3 of the historical-clinical-risk management-20 (HCR-20V3): relevance to violence risk assessment and management in forensic conditional release contexts.

Authors:  Kevin S Douglas
Journal:  Behav Sci Law       Date:  2014-10-02

7.  Pilot Implementation and Preliminary Evaluation of START:AV Assessments in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities.

Authors:  Sarah L Desmarais; Brian G Sellers; Jodi L Viljoen; Keith R Cruise; Tonia L Nicholls; Joel A Dvoskin
Journal:  Int J Forensic Ment Health       Date:  2012-11-06
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.