Self‐report versus clinician‐ratings in the assessment of aggression in violent offenders

Abstract

Background The construct of aggression is central to work with violent offenders, but it is a broad construct that can be assessed by many different methods and instruments. Its measurement may, however, have profound implications for treatment planning. We need more knowledge about how different methods for assessing aggression relate to each other. Aims Our aims were to investigate, first, the convergence and concordance of two methods of assessing aggression: self‐report and clinical assessment and, second, to determine the degree to which aggression can be discriminated from neighbouring constructs, such as hostility, anger and criminal behaviour. Methods A nationally representative Swedish cohort of 269 18–25‐year‐old incarcerated violent offenders was recruited. Data were collected through structured self‐reports of aggression, anger and hostility traits (Aggression Questionnaire‐Revised Swedish Version) and clinical assessments of lifetime prevalence of aggressive and antisocial behaviours (Life History of Aggression). Criminal records were retrieved from the Swedish National Crime Register. Results Self‐ratings and clinician‐ratings of aggression were highly convergent and concordant, especially regarding physical aggression. Violent offence records were weakly, if at all, correlated, while self‐reported hostility was weakly, or not at all, correlated with self‐reported or with clinician‐rated aggression. There was an inverse relationship between aggression and criminal records of sexual offences. Conclusions and Implications Even though a combination of self‐reports and clinician‐ratings may provide a better overview of an individual's aggressive behaviours, our results indicate that they yield such similar information that either alone would be sensitive enough. Our results do not, however, support using one of these methods as a proxy for the other since choice of measure and accepted concordance between them depend on the context within which the assessment is conducted. We reconfirmed that official records of violent offending are unlikely to be adequate measures of outcome after interventions to reduce aggressive behaviours.

Pinpointing change in virtual reality assisted treatment for violent offenders: a pilot study of Virtual Reality Aggression Prevention Training (VRAPT)

“…Pro-criminal cognitions and externalizing behaviors over the life span were common. Aggression at baseline as measured by AQ-RSV (M = 94.4, SD = 23.4) was similar to other forensic populations (M = 95.5, SD = 20.4) ( 86 ) but differed from the general population (M = 77.8, SD = 16.5) ( 44 ). Emotion regulation as measured by DERS (M = 92.9, SD = 23.5 at baseline) was comparable to adults with emotional disorders (M = 89.3, SD = 22.6) ( 49 ) but higher than in a general population (M = 78, SD = 20.7) ( 48 ).…”

Exploring the psychometric properties of the externalizing spectrum inventory-brief form in a Swedish forensic psychiatric inpatient sample

“…Previous research on the link between callous traits and sexual offences appears to support such a connection [ 87 – 90 ], although exceptions also exist in the literature on juvenile sexual offenders [ 91 ]. Moreover, recent research in a sample of young Swedish offenders found a negative association between aggression and sexual offences [ 92 ] and an older study of Dutch forensic patients also found significantly lower levels of self-reported hostile and aggressive behaviors among patients convicted of sexual offences as opposed to among patients convicted other violent offences [ 93 ]. Our finding may reflect the nature of the particular sexual offenders found in our sample, as the strength of the association between psychopathic traits and sexual crimes has been found to vary considerably with regard to the type of sexual offence (e.g., rape, extra-familial offences or mixed sexual offences; [ 90 ]).…”

Correction

“…Correction for ‘Self‐report versus clinician‐ratings in the assessment of aggression in violent offenders’ by Berlin et al. (2021).…”

“…

In Berlin et al (2021), there is an error in Table 2. The correlation between the variables 'AQ-RSV Physical Aggression' and 'Violent offences' is reported as negative −0.31.

…”