Inter-Rater and Test-Retest Reliability, Internal Consistency, and Factorial Structure of the Instrument for Forensic Treatment Evaluation

Routine Outcome Monitoring and Clinical Decision-Making in Forensic Psychiatry Based on the Instrument for Forensic Treatment Evaluation

“…Secondly, the limited response categories of the HCR-20V3 (3-point scale) and the HKT-R (5-point scale) can be problematic in observing short-term changes in behaviour. Schuringa, Spreen and Bogaerts [ 21 ], for example, showed that limited anchor points are not always accurate representations of a patient's behaviour because a patient's observed behaviour may fall between two anchor points (see next paragraph). This problem is very often the case when people must choose from a limited number of options [ 22 ].…”

“…This must be done for various purposes, such as the adjustment or continuation of current treatments or the granting of leave modalities. Despite the positive impact of ROM [ 24 ] in general psychiatry and the use of ROM in decision making [ 25 ], we note that ROM in Dutch forensic psychiatry has only recently been introduced and that only a handful of empirical studies have been conducted in this field [ 26 , 20 , 21 ].…”

“…In consultation with Dutch clinicians (psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers), Schuringa et al [ 21 ] have recently developed the Instrument for Forensic Treatment Evaluation (IFTE) to investigate changes in inpatient behaviour. This instrument provides solutions for the aforementioned limitations of the HCR-20v3 and HKT-R. Schuringa et al [ 21 ] opted for a 17-point scale to measure forensic psychiatric behaviour over time. This 17-point scale contains five anchor points and gives professionals the ability to score between anchor points ( Fig 1 ).…”

Treatment no‐show in forensic outpatients with ADHD

“…For future research, conclusive standardised assessment is warranted (in addition to the clinical interview and DIVA) with respect to co‐morbidity, severity of ADHD, and other characteristics. Moreover, regarding treatment adherence and no‐show, a repeated assessment with a set of validated instruments with good psychometric properties, and possibly part of the clinical routine in our ADHD program, might be able to overcome the problems encountered in this study (Schuringa et al, ). Within our programme, we are currently working on future research on no‐show with standardised instruments.…”

Reconviction and revocation rates in Flanders after medium security treatment

“…Regarding the Risk-Need-Responsivity principles (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) and the Good Lives Model (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011;Ward & Stewart, 2003), offenders can be divided into low, medium and high risk offenders depending on their treatment and criminogenic needs (low, medium and high care), level of risk and protective factors (low, medium and high risk) and responsivity (degree of connection in the treatment) (Schuringa, Spreen, & Bogaerts, 2014). By weighting these three principles, judges can decide what the most suitable level of security is for offenders (low, medium and high security).…”