Assessing Dynamic Violence Risk in a High-Risk Treated Sample of Violent Offenders

Abstract

The present study featured an investigation of the predictive properties of risk and change scores of two violence risk assessment and treatment planning tools-the Violence Risk Scale (VRS) and the Historical, Clinical, Risk-20, Version 2 (HCR-20)-in sample of 178 treated adult male violent offenders who attended a high-intensity violence reduction program. The cases were rated on the VRS and HCR-20 using archival information sources and followed up nearly 10 years postrelease. Associations of HCR-20 and VRS risk and change scores with postprogram institutional and community recidivism were examined. VRS and HCR-20 scores converged in conceptually meaningful ways, supporting the construct validity of the tools for violence risk. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses demonstrated moderate- to high-predictive accuracy of VRS and HCR-20 scores for violent and general community recidivism, but weaker accuracy for postprogram institutional recidivism. Cox regression survival analyses demonstrated that positive pretreatment and posttreatment changes, as assessed via the HCR-20 and VRS, were each significantly associated with reductions in violent and general community recidivism, as well as serious institutional misconducts, after controlling for baseline pretreatment score. Implications for use of the HCR-20 and VRS for dynamic violence risk assessment and management are discussed.

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

“…One promising alternative is the consideration of structured measures of dynamic risk. A growing research base suggests that when using appropriate instruments, change measurement can improve risk prediction for violence (Coupland & Olver, 2020; de Vries Robbé et al, 2015; Hogan & Olver, 2016, 2018, 2019; Lewis et al, 2013; Penney et al, 2016), sexual recidivism (Beggs & Grace, 2011; Olver, Beggs Christofferson, et al, 2014; Olver et al, 2007), and general recidivism (Rojas & Olver, 2020).…”

Static and Dynamic Assessment of Violence Risk Among Discharged Forensic Patients

“…In contrast, existing studies that have addressed the previously identified issues have produced promising results. For example, Lewis and colleagues (2013) and Coupland and Olver (2018) found evidence of dynamic prediction while using the VRS to measure changes occurring during formal treatment among federally incarcerated offenders. Moreover, de Vries Robbé and colleagues (2015) also found positive results, using the HCR-20 Version 2 among discharged forensic patients.…”

“…To maximize statistical power for each analysis, every patient with a rating for a particular instrument or subscale was included in that analysis. 1 Also intended to maximize statistical power, variable or unfixed follow-up periods were used, consistent with methods employed in comparable studies (e.g., Coupland & Olver, 2018; de Vries Robbé et al, 2015; Lewis et al, 2013; Penney et al, 2016).…”

“…Another study by Morgan, Kroner, Mills, Serna, & McDonald (2013) failed to find evidence for the incremental validity of dynamic variables over static variables, using a battery comprising the following: the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995), an empirical actuarial risk instrument; self-report measures; and study-specific rating scales. In contrast with these findings, supportive evidence for dynamic risk assessment for violence has come from recent studies of the HCR-20 (Coupland & Olver, 2018; de Vries Robbé, de Vogel, Douglas, & Nijman, 2015) and the HCR-20 V3 (Penney, Marshall, & Simpson, 2016), as well as the Violence Risk Scale (VRS; Coupland & Olver, 2018; Lewis, Olver, & Wong, 2013; Wong & Gordon, 1999-2003). Thus, further research is necessary to elucidate these conflicting results.…”

Risk relevance of psychometric assessment and evaluator ratings of dynamic risk factors in high‐risk violent offenders

“…It is unclear why similar associations for the VRS were not observed with respect to general violence in the present study, although one possibility may be that programme-related changes tend to reduce risk in a broader, general sense (e.g., improved problem solving, decreased antisocial attitudes) but that have less of a specific impact on violence. Indeed, prior research has found changes on the VRS linked to violence reduction programming to also be associated with decreased general recidivism (e.g., Coupland & Olver, 2018;Lewis et al, 2013).…”