The interrater reliability and predictive validity of the HCR-20V3 in common workplace environments.

Abstract

Although structured professional judgment (SPJ) based violence risk assessment (VRA) tools are used in everyday workplace environments to make important threat assessment, risk assessment, and employment decisions, it is believed that no VRA tool has been tested to date for both interrater reliability and predictive validity in common organizational environments with a sample of adults. This quantitative postdictive study was conducted to gain insight into the level of interrater reliability and predictive validity for the Historical, Clinical Risk Management Version 3 (HCR-20 V3 ), the newest version of the most utilized SPJ based violence risk assessment tool in the world, the HCR-20, when applied to a sample of known outcome case summaries. Data were drawn from private businesses, postsecondary institutions, and public agencies and did not involve individuals from correctional or mental health populations. HCR-20 V3 summary risk ratings (SRRs) for physical violence were significant for both interrater reliability (ICC ϭ .72, 95% CI [.58 -.83], p Ͻ .001.) and predictive validity (AUC ϭ .70) and demonstrated a good level of interrater reliability and a moderate level of predictive validity, similar to results from other samples from more restrictive environments. These findings provide initial empirical support for the use of the HCR-20 V3 for violence risk assessments in common workplace environments. Limitations are discussed, as well as future comparative research that is already being conducted which will expand the value of this research path. 1

The Cawood Assessment Grid for organizational (workplace) violence: Initial testing for interrater reliability and predictive validity.

“…This lack of research is particularly problematic because threat and violence assessments are being conducted in these venues on a daily basis in North America, as well as in many other areas of the world. In an effort to address this concern, Cawood (2017) tested the IRR and predictive validity of the HCR-20 V3 (Douglas et al, 2013) for concerns about violence that emerged in non-clinical, non-correctional workplace environments. This tool, unlike the CAG, was not originally designed, or previously tested, for use in common workplace environments, but for “decision making about violence risk within correctional, civil (general) psychiatric, and forensic psychiatric settings, whether institutional or community based” (Douglas et al, 2013, p. 35).…”

Dynamic support database clinical support tool: inter-rater reliability

“…The Kappa coefficient suggests the DSD clinical support tool overall holds strong interrater reliability in that clinicians within the adult community intellectual disabilities teams within the Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust are consistent in completing the tool in the same way reliably. As supported by Cawood (2017), concluding a good level of inter-rater reliability for a tool provides evidence to support the utilisation of the tool within clinical processes. As the tool would support standardisation of risk stratification in relation to the risk of admission into a mental health or assessment and treatment unit.…”

“…To obtain a result of good inter-rater reliability the co-officiant needs to be above 0.8 (Hulley et al, 2007). Other tools such as the historical clinical risk management (HCR-20) have had their inter-rater reliability evaluated and Cawood (2017) found their results represented a statistically significant result with a good level of inter-rater reliability. This paper emphasised the importance of accessing a tool's inter-rater reliability to provide evidence to support its utilisation in clinical processes.…”

Valoración del riesgo de violencia en pacientes forenses con el HCR-20V3 : análisis de fiabilidad interevaluador y validez concurrente

“…Los estudios han contrastado la fiabilidad interevaluador para las valoraciones resumidas del riesgo, los ítems y las puntuaciones de las subescalas y los totales HCR-20 V3 . En conjunto, los resultados de estos estudios reportan coeficientes de correlación intraclase (CCI) entre moderados y altos en muestras de Suecia , Alemania (Kötter et al, 2014), Reino Unido (Doyle et al, 2014), Holanda (de Vogel et al, 2014) y Estados Unidos (Cawood, 2017;Howe et al, 2015;Smith et al, 2014).…”