Assessing Violence Risk: A Review and Clinical Recommendations

Abstract

Guidance to identify and manage clients with a perceived high risk for future violence is of great importance for mental health professionals. In the past decade, several structured instruments have been developed to assess risk of future violence. Awareness of the limits and abilities of such instruments is required. This article reviews the most well-known risk assessment tools and provides recommendations for how to approach the area of violence risk assessment.Earn 1 CE credit now for reading this article.

Workplace Violence in Healthcare : An Emerging Occupational Hazard

“…Minority ethnic groups seem to have a higher chance of being involved in violence 18 . In addition, younger individuals with learning disabilities and history of bipolar parents, and adolescents with conduct disorders have a higher incidence of violence [18][19][20] .…”

“…Violence is common among patients in substance abuse wards, psychiatric wards, ICUs and emergency departments [18][19][20] .…”

“…Provoking factors of violence could be inadequate staffing level, poor patient compliance, diagnostic uncertainty, the lack of job security and stability, the absence of social support and the absence of comfortable waiting rooms [18][19][20] . Risk assessment is a process that highlights a variety of questions: "what, when, where, and to whom" to appraise future workplace violence 21 .…”

Counseling Clients Involved with Violent Intimate Partners: The Mental Health Counselor’s Role in Promoting Client Safety

“…A thorough assessment also includes assessing for risk factors that may place the client at risk for homicide. Haggard-Grann (2007) reported that risk assessment should go beyond the basic prediction of whether partner violence will occur, suggesting instead that counselors attempt to elicit more specific information related to the prediction of IPV such as "what, when, where, and to whom" the violence might occur (p. 299).…”

Comparative Efficacy Between Self-Report and Clinician-Administered Assessments of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms Across Seven Studies

“…Results yielded from many standardized assessments for either format provide counselors with cut scores that classify clients within a categorical group related to diagnosis or level of risk. Although there is a long-standing history of research investigating the accuracy of clinician-administered versus self-report assessments for making actuarial decisions related to learning disabilities (Benson & Newsome, 2010), self-injury (Bouch & Marshall, 2005), violent behavior toward others (Haggård-Grann, 2007), and degree of rehabilitation (Bengtson & Långström, 2007), there are fewer published studies evaluating these formats related to PTSD (Bury & Bagby, 2002; Calhoun, Boggs, Crawford, & Beckham, 2009). Furthermore, research comparing the degree that aggregated treatment effect size estimates yielded from these different formats influence the results of meta-analyses and the propagation of evidence-supported practices (ESPs) is limited.…”