Consistency and Construct Validity of the Five-Level System for Risk Communication Using Static and Dynamic Tools: An Investigation Using the Static-99R and VRS-SO

Hogan, Neil R.; Olver, Mark E.

doi:10.1177/10731911211061300

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Hogan (2021) has argued, measures of psychologically meaningful risk factors are more ethically defensible and practically useful when applying risk assessment tools to all individuals in the community. The 3G and 4G measures that comprised such factors provide more valid measures of relevant phenomena than their conceptual predecessors (Hogan & Olver, 2023), and they appear to be superior predictors of recidivism on the whole (Campbell et al, 2009). They are also less vulnerable than 2G tools to the criticisms often leveled against all actuarial tools indiscriminately, regarding an overreliance on potentially problematic criminal history variables (see Vincent & Viljoen, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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.

Hogan,

Corăbian

2024

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes are widely observed. In Canada, such disparities are particularly evident between Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons. The role of formal risk assessment in contributing to such disparities remains a topic of interest to many, but critical analysis has almost exclusively focused on actuarial or statistical risk measures. Recent research suggests that ratings from other common tools, based on the structured professional judgment model, can also demonstrate racial disparities. This study examined risk assessments produced using a widely used structured professional judgment tool, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3, among a sample of 190 individuals with histories of intimate partner violence. We examined the relationships among race, risk factors, summary risk ratings, and recidivism while also investigating whether participants' racial identity influenced the likelihood of incurring formal sanctions for reported violence. Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 risk factor totals and summary risk ratings were associated with new violent charges. Indigenous individuals were assessed as demonstrating more risk factors and were more likely to be rated as high risk, even after controlling for summed risk factor totals and prior convictions. They were also more likely to recidivate and to have a history of at least one reported act of violence that did not result in formal sanctions. The results suggest that structured professional judgment guidelines can produce disparate results across racial groups. The disparities observed may reflect genuine differences in the likelihood of recidivism, driven by psychologically meaningful risk factors which have origins in deep-rooted systemic and contextual factors. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that justice-involved Indigenous persons may be rated as being at higher risk for future violence, on average, than non-Indigenous persons, using a common approach to risk assessment. It also suggests that these disparities may reflect genuine differences in psychologically meaningful risk factors as well as in the likelihoods of subsequent violent offending, both of which can be linked to deeprooted systemic factors impacting Indigenous Peoples.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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.

Hogan,

Corăbian

2024

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Level V, the level with the highest mean static and dynamic VRS scores and few protective factors also has the highest concentration of cases with high (≥25 or 30) psychopathy scores. Each VRS level, in turn, could be differentiated on dimensions of risk, need, psychopathy, and protective factors; notably, such strong evidence for construct validity has not been obtained from research focused on applying the five-level system to at least one static sexual violence risk tool (Hogan & Olver, 2021). Importantly, per the risk and need principles, seldom did the five levels differ in the amount of change they could make, with the exception of high risk and need groups (i.e., Levels IV and V) tending to evidence greater change from violence reduction programming on dynamic risk factors compared to lower risk individuals who have concordantly much fewer areas of need.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Olver¹,

Mundt²,

Hogan³

et al. 2022

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Standardized risk levels for violent recidivism risk assessed with the HCR-20: an exploration

van Dooren,

Smid,

Uzieblo

et al. 2024

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consistency and Construct Validity of the Five-Level System for Risk Communication Using Static and Dynamic Tools: An Investigation Using the Static-99R and VRS-SO

Cited by 3 publications

References 57 publications

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.

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.

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

Standardized risk levels for violent recidivism risk assessed with the HCR-20: an exploration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About