Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

No abstract

The present study is a systematic review exploring the methodological quality and consistency of findings for surveys on the use of violence risk assessment tools. A systematic search was conducted to identify surveys of violence risk assessment tool use published between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2013 using PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EBSCO Criminal Justice Abstracts. Characteristics of survey administration and more findings were extracted, and a checklist of 26 reporting quality markers in survey research was used for coding. Nine surveys were identified, fulfilling on average approximately half of the quality markers (M D 15.5, SD D 1.6). An average of 104 respondents (SD D 93) participated, with a range of 10 to 300 respondents. Most surveys examined the practices of psychologists in the United Kingdom or the United States. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 were the most commonly used instruments by practitioners. No surveys investigated differences in assessment practices across professional disciplines or continents, and none examined the use or perceived usefulness of structured instruments in risk management or risk monitoring. There continues to be a need for transparent, high quality clinical surveys on the use and perceived utility of violence risk assessment tools in the forensic mental health field. Given the growing cross-jurisdictional use of risk assessment tools, comparisons of international practice are particularly important.

No abstract

La valoración del riesgo de violencia es un requisito fundamental en la toma de decisiones profesionales que implican prevenir, intervenir o informar sobre la conducta de las personas. El uso de herramientas estructuradas mejora la precisión de las evaluaciones basadas en el juicio clínico en contextos psiquiátricos, penitenciarios y jurídicos. Este estudio presenta resultados de la primera encuesta sobre el uso de herramientas de evaluación del riesgo de violencia y sobre su utilidad percibida en España. Las escalas de psicopatía (PCL-R y PCL:SV) y el HCR-20 encabezaron la lista de las herramientas más usadas tanto por elección personal como por requisito institucional. Se ofrecen datos novedosos sobre las prácticas profesionales de evaluación del riesgo de violencia que pueden orientar a los profesionales que desempeñan su tarea en contextos sanitarios, correccionales y forenses, donde los instrumentos estructurados son frecuentemente usados para asistirlos en la toma de<br />decisiones.