The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide-Revised (VRAG-R) was developed to replace the original VRAG based on an updated and larger sample with an extended follow-up period. Using a sample of 120 adult male correctional offenders, the current study examined the interrater reliability and predictive and comparative validity of the VRAG-R to the VRAG, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, the Statistical Information on Recidivism-Revised, and the Two-Tiered Violence Risk Estimate over a follow-up period of up to 22 years postrelease. The VRAG-R achieved moderate levels of predictive validity for both general and violent recidivism that was sustained over time as evidenced by time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Further, moderate predictive validity was evident when the Antisociality item was both removed and then subsequently replaced with a substitute measure of antisociality. Results of the individual item analyses for the VRAG and VRAG-R revealed that only a small number of items are significant predictors of violent recidivism. The results of this study have implications for the application of the VRAG-R to the assessment of violent recidivism among correctional offenders. (PsycINFO Database Record

Over the past few decades many structured risk appraisal measures have been created to respond to this need. The Two-Tiered Violence Risk Estimates Scale (TTV) is a measure designed to integrate both an actuarial estimate of violence risk with critical risk management indicators. The current study examined interrater reliability and the predictive validity of the TTV in a sample of violent offenders (n = 120) over an average follow-up period of 17.75 years. The TTV was retrospectively scored and compared with the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), the Statistical Information of Recidivism Scale-Revised (SIR-R1), and the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Approximately 53% of the sample reoffended violently, with an overall recidivism rate of 74%. Although the VRAG was the strongest predictor of violent recidivism in the sample, the Actuarial Risk Estimates (ARE) scale of the TTV produced a small, significant effect. The Risk Management Indicators (RMI) produced nonsignificant area under the curve (AUC) values for all recidivism outcomes. Comparisons between measures using AUC values and Cox regression showed that there were no statistical differences in predictive validity. The results of this research will be used to inform the validation and reliability literature on the TTV, and will contribute to the overall risk assessment literature. (PsycINFO Database Record

The reduction of general and violent recidivism has long been an issue of concern within the criminal justice system in Canada. Over the past few decades, several structured risk appraisal measures have been created in order to respond to this need. The Two-Tiered Violence Risk Estimates Scale (TTV; Mills & Kroner, 2005) is a measure designed to both predict the risk of violent recidivism for an individual offender and to identify critical risk management areas. The current study examined the predictive validity of the TTV in a sample of high-risk Canadian federal offenders (n = 120). Scores on the TTV were compared to those of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993), the Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale -Revised (SIR-R1; Nuffield, 1982), and the Psychopathy Checklist -Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). Approximately 53% of the sample reoffended violently, with an overall recidivism rate of 73%. While the VRAG was the strongest predictor of violent recidivism in the sample, the Actuarial Risk Estimates (ARE) scale of the TTV produced a small, significant effect. The Risk Management Indicators (RMI) produced non-significant AUC values for all recidivism outcomes. Measure comparisons using AUC values and Cox regression showed that there were no differences in predictive validity. The results of this research are discussed in the context of the validation and reliability of the TTV, and contribute to the overall risk assessment literature.iii