A Prospective Examination of the Predictive Validity of Five Structured Instruments for Inpatient Violence in a Secure Forensic Hospital

Hogan, Neil R.; Olver, Mark E.

doi:10.1080/14999013.2018.1431339

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each of the 20 items is rated as both a risk factor and as a strength. While the instrument has demonstrated predictive validity for inpatient violence (e.g., Desmarais, Nicholls, Wilson, & Brink, 2012; Hogan & Olver, 2016, 2018), it has not been studied extensively as a predictor of community recidivism; thus, it was included in the present study of community recidivism on an exploratory basis. In the present sample, ICC values for START inter-rater reliability Strength and Vulnerability ratings ranged from .84 to .89, with the exception of START pretreatment Strength scores (ICC = .63-.84 with outlier removed).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static and Dynamic Assessment of Violence Risk Among Discharged Forensic Patients

Hogan

Olver

2019

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the predictive validity of structured instruments for violent recidivism among a sample of 82 patients discharged from a maximum security forensic psychiatric hospital. The incremental predictive validity of dynamic pre–post change scores was also assessed. Each of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Psychopathy Checklist–Revised, Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability, Violence Risk Scale (VRS), and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised was rated based on institutional files. The study instruments significantly predicted community-based violent recidivism (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.68-0.85), even after controlling for time at risk using Cox regression survival analyses. Dynamic change scores computed from the HCR-20V3 Relevance ratings and from the VRS also demonstrated incremental predictive validity, controlling for baseline scores. The findings provided support for the use of the study instruments to assess violence risk and for the consideration of dynamic changes in risk—provided that valid means of assessment are employed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static and Dynamic Assessment of Violence Risk Among Discharged Forensic Patients

Hogan

Olver

2019

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That said, a meta-analytic review contained in an unpublished doctoral dissertation (Chevalier, 2017) found that SPJ summary risk ratings demonstrated predictive validity for recidivism. Additional studies that were not included in Chevalier’s review have also found support for SPJ summary risk ratings, both in terms of overall risk/case prioritization (e.g., Hogan & Olver, 2019; Vargen et al, 2020) and in terms of imminent risk of institutional outcomes (e.g., Hogan & Olver, 2016, 2018).…”

Section: The Evolution Of the Clinical Versus Actuarial Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of the Professional Override of the Level of Service Inventory–Ontario Revision

Orton

2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the nature and impacts of the professional override on the Level of Service Inventory–Ontario Revision (LSI-OR), using a large archival database of 40,539 individuals’ information. Research questions focused on the predictive validity of various LSI-OR risk metrics, including total risk/need scores, initial risk categories, and adjusted risk categories, for various types of recidivism; how professional overrides were used; whether they were used more with some groups than others; and whether their impacts varied depending on recidivism type. Overrides were applied in 15.4% of cases, most often (94.1%) to increase risk levels. Override use varied based on gender, race, and the nature of index offenses. Based on receiver operating characteristic analyses, the results generally indicated that adjusted risk levels (incorporating professional overrides) demonstrated inferior predictive validity relative to unadjusted metrics. The results suggest a need for increased caution and consistency in the application of professional overrides.

show abstract

“…Research supports the predictive validity of SPJ risk assessment instruments to improve clinical risk judgements (Hogan and Olver, 2018;Persson et al, 2017;Vojt et al, 2013) and they are nowadays part of evidence-based practice recommendations (Department of Health, 2007;Risk Management Authority, 2006). However, the use of SPJIs has been questioned due to a high rate of false-positives, a lack of sufficient re-search evidence of predictive validity, clinical utility in guiding allocation of resources and ability to prevent recidivism and violence (Large et al, 2014;Wand, 2012).…”

Section: Current Use Of Structured Risk Assessment Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The challenges of using structured risk assessment instruments in forensic psychiatric care

Levin

2019

Linköping University Medical Dissertations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The purpose of psychiatric forensic care is to provide treatment for mentally ill offenders and to prevent future acts of violence and other adverse events. During care, the type of restrictions of freedom, the patient's continuous need for involuntary treatment and readiness for discharge, are continuously evaluated based on the assessment of risk the patient pose to themselves and others as well as the progress achieved with treatment. The use of structured risk assessment instruments is recommended in clinical guidelines to assess such risks. However, unstructured clinical assessments, considered to be less valid, are often used in clinical practice. There is insufficient research evidence concerning several aspects related to the clinical use of structured risk assessment instruments in terms of guiding the planning and realization of care and risk management interventions. There is also a lack of knowledge about what patients themselves perceive to be mediating factors for their use of violence. The challenges of using structured risk assessment instruments 8 al care givers. Patients are often actively striving and struggling to understand and manage their own risk of acting out in violence. Real-life experiences in forensic psychiatric care sparked my interest in trying to understand more about the barriers and facilitators of the clinical use of structured risk assessments to prevent violence and other adverse events as well as the patient perspectives on factors that contribute to or inhibit violence. This PhD thesis is the product of this endeavour. NICE, 2007; Risk Management Authority, 2006). SRAIs have been developed for and implemented and used in forensic mental health services, secure psychiatric in-care services and correctional services to assess the risk of adverse events. Much of the research of risk assessment instruments comes from these different types of services.

show abstract

A Prospective Examination of the Predictive Validity of Five Structured Instruments for Inpatient Violence in a Secure Forensic Hospital

Cited by 17 publications

References 33 publications

Static and Dynamic Assessment of Violence Risk Among Discharged Forensic Patients

Static and Dynamic Assessment of Violence Risk Among Discharged Forensic Patients

An Examination of the Professional Override of the Level of Service Inventory–Ontario Revision

The challenges of using structured risk assessment instruments in forensic psychiatric care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About