Assessing risk for aggression in forensic psychiatric inpatients: An examination of five measures.

Hogan, Neil R.; Olver, Mark E.

doi:10.1037/lhb0000179

Cited by 63 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dynamic risk factors have been linked to a multitude of negative institutional and community outcomes. For instance, dynamic risk factors predict violence and serious misconducts-such as escape, smuggling, and inappropriate sexual behaviour-among incarcerated and hospitalized offenders (Hogan & Olver, 2016;Van Voorhis et al, 2010;Wilson, Desmarais, Nicholls, Hart, & Brink, 2013;Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010). Dynamic risk factors also predict rearrest, reimprisonment, and/or hospital readmission for IPV, violent, nonviolent, and sex offences among community-supervised offenders (Brem, Florimbio, Elmquist, Shorey, & Stuart, 2018;Brown, et al, 2009;Feder & Dugan, 2002;Greiner, Law, & Brown, 2015;Hanby, 2013;Hilton & Harris, 2005;McCoy & Miller, 2013;Olver, Wong, Nicholaichuk, & Gordon, 2007;Penney, Marshall, & Simpson, 2016;Van Voorhis et al, 2010).…”

Section: Dynamic Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

Perley-Robertson¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is among the most common acts of violence against women worldwide, making it a major global threat to women's health and safety. The assessment and management of IPV offenders are therefore vital tasks in criminal justice systems. The current study examined whether the DRAOR, a case management tool, predicted repeat partner abuse among 112 male IPV offenders in Iowa, U.S. While the DRAOR did not predict IPV recidivism in this sample, it appears to be useful for informing case management decisions among partnerviolent men. Risk factors that emerged as important treatment targets were poor attachment with others, substance abuse, anger/hostility, opportunity/access to victims, problematic interpersonal relationships, and overall acute risk. Further research is needed to improve the utility of the DRAOR for predicting IPV recidivism, but this study tentatively supports the use of the DRAOR for supervising IPV offenders until an IPV-specific case management tool is developed.

show abstract

Section: Dynamic Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relationship between dynamic risk and negative institutional/community outcomes is true for men and women (Brown et al, 2009;Greiner et al, 2015;Van Voorhis et al, 2010;, as well as for offenders of different ethnicities (Hanby, 2013;Hogan & Olver, 2016;Olver et al, 2007;Penny et al, 2016).…”

Section: Dynamic Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

Perley-Robertson¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These instruments have garnered empirical support for their use in the justiceinvolved and forensic populations in determining typology and dynamic risk factors with regard to violence prediction and treatment planning. [26][27][28] Final considerations regarding the implementation of a comprehensive risk assessment within the ETP included the bifurcation of treatment provider and violence risk assessor and the need for repeated assessment of violence risk. 17,29 Given the myriad issues that arise when treatment providers are tasked with forensic evaluations of their patients, the Forensic Needs Assessment Team was developed to serve as independent evaluators providing risk assessments on a repeated schedule.…”

Section: Violence Risk Informed Treatment Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of a specialized program to treat violence in a forensic population

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A shift within state psychiatric hospitals toward serving a predominantly forensic population has resulted in increased violent incidents within those settings. Thus, addressing criminogenic needs in addition to mental illness is an important paradigm shift. Relying on seclusion or restraint as the primary mechanisms to address violence interferes with the provision of effective care to patients struggling with aggressive behaviors. Implementing new treatment programs aimed at reducing violence in forensic inpatient settings is warranted. This article focuses on the step-by-step process of developing such a specialized treatment program within the California Department of State Hospitals. Leadership within this hospital system collaborated with labor unions and other stakeholders to obtain funding to create a novel treatment environment. This treatment program includes a ward design aimed to improve safety and delivers treatment based on the Risk Needs Responsivity Model. Treatment is guided by violence risk assessment and primarily focused on addressing criminogenic needs. The selection of treatments with a focus on violence reduction is discussed.

show abstract

“…The HCR-20 has been validated in inpatient and outpatient settings with forensic psychiatric, civil psychiatric and correctional populations and is the most widely used SRAI in the world (Douglas 2014). Research of the HCR-20 V3 so far has shown acceptable inter-rater reliability and moderate to high prediction of violence Hogan & Olver, 2016).…”

Section: The Structured Professional Judgement Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Assessing risk for aggression in forensic psychiatric inpatients: An examination of five measures.

Cited by 63 publications

References 44 publications

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

Implementation of a specialized program to treat violence in a forensic population

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About