Assessing dynamic violence risk: Common language risk levels and recidivism rates for the Violence Risk Scale.

Abstract

The present study features the development of new risk categories and recidivism estimates for the Violence Risk Scale (VRS), a violence risk assessment and treatment planning tool. We employed a combined North American multisite sample (k = 6, N = 1,338) of adult mostly male offenders, many with violent criminal histories, from correctional or forensic mental health settings that had complete VRS scores from archival or field ratings and outcome data from police records (N = 1,100). There were two key objectives: (a) to identify the rates of violent recidivism associated with VRS scores and (b) to generate updated evidence-based VRS violence risk categories with external validation. To achieve the first objective, logistic regression was applied using VRS pretreatment and change scores on treated samples with a minimum 5-year follow-up (k = 5, N = 472) to model 2-, 3-, and 5-year violent and general recidivism estimates, with the resulting logistic regression algorithms retained to generate a VRS recidivism rates calculator. To achieve the second objective, the Council of State Governments’ guidelines were applied to generate five risk levels using the common language framework using percentiles, risk ratios (from Cox regression), and absolute violent and general recidivism estimates (from logistic regression). Construct validity of the five risk levels was examined through group comparisons on measures of risk, need, protection, and psychopathy obtained from the constituent samples. VRS applications to enhance risk communication, treatment planning, and violence prevention in light of the updated recidivism estimates and risk categories are discussed.

Investigating racial disparities in violence risk assessment using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide–Version 3 (SARA-V3): Structured professional judgment ratings and recidivism among Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals.

“…Recognition of these contextual but nonetheless psychologically meaningful contributors to risk is discouraging in some respects, but it can also illuminate a path forward. For instance, Olver et al (2023) recent analysis of scores from the Violence Risk Scale, a 4G empirical actuarial tool, showed that although Indigenous persons received higher scores than non-Indigenous persons, they achieved substantive and comparable reductions in risk and recidivism rates through their participation in treatment programs. Of particular interest, not only were the reductions in risk achieved by the Indigenous persons associated with commensurate reductions in recidivism, but those associations were also greater than those observed among non-Indigenous persons.…”

“…Only through rigorous evaluation and concerted effort can such phenomena be identified and, hopefully, remediated. Relatedly, we believe that through the collection of rich and theoretically meaningful data, we can aspire to better understand not just the factors that underlie risk but also the factors that underlie resiliency in the face of that risk (Olver et al, 2023), including the commendable resiliency demonstrated by Indigenous Peoples of Canada, who continue to maintain and develop their communities as places of “cultural survival” (Wilson, 2018, p. 54).…”

“…Nonetheless, such matters have motivated considerable research. Since the Ewert matter, researchers have evaluated multiple risk assessment tools with respect to their applicability to Canadian Indigenous persons; examples include studies of tools assessing risk for general (Lockwood et al, 2018), sexual (Lee et al, 2020), and violent offending (Olverz et al, 2023). In the rush to evaluate the fairness of scores derived from various tools, however, it appears that SPJ tools have been largely overlooked (Vincent & Viljoen, 2020).…”

Too risky to use, or too risky not to? Lessons learned from over 30 years of research on forensic risk assessment with Indigenous persons.

“…Static items represent criminal history and personal demographic variables, while the dynamic items represent potentially changeable aspects of social, psychological, and interpersonal functioning or environmental circumstances linked to risk. Total scores on the VRS (range 0–78) and VRS-SO (range 0–72) are assigned to one of five risk levels ranging from Level I or very low risk (VRS, 0–19.9; VRS-SO, 0–14.9) to well above-average risk, Level IVb for the VRS-SO (range 50–72), or Level V for the VRS (range 60–78; Olver et al, 2022; Olver, Mundt, et al, 2018). Unique to the VRS measures is that they include a mechanism for assessing treatment readiness and change via a modified application of the stages of change model (Prochaska et al, 1992), which documents the cognitive, behavioral, and experiential processes as the individual addresses problem areas.…”

Psychotherapy case formulation for patients with aggressive behaviours in clinical settings: an adaptation of the Multimodal Functional Model

“…Another difficulty for the clinician is to conceptualise the client's aggressiveness in the absence of a framework to guide the assessment of aggression in a systematic and comprehensive manner. While there are instruments for assessing dangerousness in people with severe mental disorders (Hodgins et al, 2003;Micciolo et al, 2021), risk of recidivism in correctional settings (Desmarais et al, 2016;Olver et al, 2022), and severe behavioural disorders in people with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorders (Hastings et al, 2021;Hemmings et al, 2008;Hill et al, 2014), these methods are not always adapted to the clientele seen in private office, outpatient clinics, and hospitals. Knowing when and how to assess aggressive behaviours is essential to avoid the negative consequences of not conducting an assessment or of conducting it hastily, and not planning interventions that address each of the possible causes of aggression and thus maximise the chances of therapeutic success.…”