Discrimination and Calibration Properties of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised in a Not Criminally Responsible Provincial Population

Wirove, Robi; Olver, Mark E.; Haag, Andrew M.

doi:10.1177/10731911221116564

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The total score is used to assign a case into one of nine bins, from lowest to highest risk, each with a corresponding probability of recidivism across different follow-up periods. Based on 30 randomly selected double cases from a parallel investigation employing this sample, interrater reliability of VRAG-R scores was strong (one-way random effects model, single measure, absolute agreement): ICC A,1 = .98 (Wirove et al, 2022).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Cheng¹,

Olver²,

Haag³

et al. 2023

Psychological Services

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Canada, individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) fall under the supervision of a jurisdictional review board (RB) per the Criminal Code. Limited research has examined whether RB decisions balance the needs of public safety with social reintegration as intended by federal legislation. To fill this gap, the present study determined whether forensic decisional outcomes in one provincial RB system accounted for information relevant to violence risk. Study instruments included the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3, and the Revised Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. A retrospective longitudinal design was employed to examine an NCR cohort (N = 109) that entered the RB system between 2005 and 2010 and their respective RB hearings (N = 327) until 2015. Results indicated that risk-relevant information was supplied to the RB by forensic professionals; however, key criminogenic risk and need factors as defined by the LS/CMI were absent in clinical reports. RB decisions were still strongly predicted by empirically supported risk factors linked to violent recidivism. Higher release likelihoods corresponded to a proportionally greater reliance on dynamic risk factors to enact dispositions. Forensic risk instruments are central aspects of correctional rehabilitation, and the results demonstrated their relevance to forensic tribunals. It is recommended that information from a forensic risk instrument be routinely delivered to RBs to support evidence-based decision-making. Impact StatementReview boards are required by the Canadian Criminal Code to balance public safety needs with the social rehabilitation of supervised forensic patients. Despite being supplied with an incomplete profile of risk and need information by forensic professionals, decision-making outcomes were still predicted by risk factors linked to violent reoffending. Forensic risk instruments provide information relevant to violence risk and can assist with evidence-based decision-making in forensic psychiatric settings.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Cheng¹,

Olver²,

Haag³

et al. 2023

Psychological Services

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Violence risk appraisal guide (VRAG): 12-item actuarial risk assessment instrument for the prediction of violent recidivism. Metanalysis review of 60 studies looking at the VRAG found an AUC of 0.66-0.73 (Wirove et al, 2022).…”

Section: Why Violence Is More Than Just Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of violence: Part contagious disease, part unpredictable individual: Is a public health assessment approach an additional option and at what cost?

Hall

Iannuzzi

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On a population level, violence shares many similarities with communicable disease states and other public health issues.Therefore, there has been a push to apply public health interventions to the problem of societal violence and for some to even identify violence as the product of a disease state (e.g., changed brain). This conceptualization could lead to the development of new risk violence assessment tools and approaches predicated more on the public health model rather than existing instruments that have often been based on inpatient mental health populations or incarcerated populations. In this article, we will discuss aspects of legal obligation for risk violence "prediction/stratification", the application of the public health communicable disease model to violence, as well as identify why it may not always translate to the individual with whom a clinician or forensic mental health evaluator interacts.

show abstract