The Role of Threat Assessment and Management in College Counseling: How’s That Net Working?

Violence risk assessment tools aid threat and violence risk assessments and management interventions conducted in a variety of environments, including workplaces. However, only a limited number of studies have tested the interrater reliability and predictive validity of violence risk assessment tools for potential physical violence cases involving adult instigators in workplaces. This postdictive study provides the results of the initial empirical testing of the interrater reliability and predictive validity of the Cawood Assessment Grid (CAG), a widely used assessment tool for determining the risk of physical violence in common workplace (organizational) settings. Three coders using the CAG assessed 40 case summaries. Statistical analyses of the Summary Risk Ratings (SRRs) suggested raters had good interrater reliability (ICC 3−1 = .67) and the SRRs were strongly associated with occurrence of physical violence (AUC = .81). These results support the continued use of the CAG during assessments of risk for physical violence in workplace settings and add to the empirical literature supporting the use of violence risk assessment tools to enhance our ability to identify cases that have a higher probability of ending in physical violence. Public Significance StatementThis study found the Cawood Assessment Grid significantly differentiated between common workplace violence cases that did or did not have physically violent outcomes, while demonstrating adequate reliability for users. These results support the increased use of appropriately tested tools to assess the risk of violence in workplaces, which will enhance the safety of potential victims.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cawood¹,

Scalora²,

Viñas-Racionero³

2020

“…), taken from a variety of environments including mental health facilities, prisons, jails, juvenile facilities, and so forth (Singh, Desmarais, & Van Dorn, 2013). However, a knowledge gap exists in the empirical literature regarding the predictive validity of these tools with adult students, employees or related parties within general workplace environments, including universities and public and private corporations, even though the tools are being used with those populations, and in those environments, to make predictions related to violence risk (Pollard, Flynn, & Eells, 2015). Therefore, despite their use in the field, the question of whether these tools have adequate interrater reliability and predictive validity for appropriate use with these specific adult populations and in these environments has not been investigated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cawood¹

2017

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

“…We contend that these assessments are distinct from the clinical suicide risk and violence-to-others assessments—commonly completed during intake and ongoing therapy—with which most mental health professionals are more familiar. Rather, forensic violence risk assessments are conducted by specifically trained and qualified professionals (Pollard, Flynn, & Eells, 2015). Although distinct from each other, both clinical and forensic violence risk assessments can be used in the campus environment “to determine if the criteria are met to take adverse action against an individual, for example, hospitalization, criminal charges, or removal from school” (Pollard, et al, p. 249).…”

Section: College Mental Health Providers In Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both forensic and clinical violence risk assessments are, in turn, distinct from TAM. Though all aim broadly to prevent violence, TAM seeks to consider the context, not just the individual (Pollard et al, 2015), and is “a fact-based method of assessment/investigation that focuses on an individual’s patterns of thinking and behavior to determine whether, and to what extent, he or she is moving toward an attack on an identifiable target” (Borum, Fein, Vossekuil, & Berglund, 1999; Bulling & Scalora, 2013, p. 17).…”

Section: College Mental Health Providers In Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Supporting the value of additional training, one study found that psychiatrists with more years of training (attending vs. resident physicians) and who used the HCR-20 (vs. less structured assessments) were more accurate in their predictions of whether psychiatric inpatients would become violent (Teo, Holley, Leary, & McNiel, 2012). Notably, these measures are designed for a task that overlaps with, but is distinct, from threat assessment and management (Pollard et al, 2015). Thus they may inform the TAM process, but should not substitute for the process.…”

Section: College Mental Health Providers In Campus Threat Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

University counseling centers’ role in campus threat assessment and management.

Perloe

Pollard

2016

Self Cite

The Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP) recently instituted important changes to formalize recognition of benchmark skills in threat assessment, specifically through the Certified Threat Manager exam first administered in August 2015. Also recently, a group of ATAP members, including members who work and practice in higher education, met to begin looking at threat assessment in education. These developments speak to the growing professionalism and common presence of multidisciplinary threat assessment and management (TAM) teams at institutions of higher education. Members of these teams hail from backgrounds including mental health, law enforcement, campus administration, and the law; each may be unaware of the unique challenges facing their TAM Team colleagues. Representatives from college or university counseling centers in particular, must navigate conflicting pulls between confidentiality and safety. These team members have an ethical obligation to protect the confidentiality of students receiving services at the counseling center, and are also required to protect or warn potential victims when a student poses an imminent risk of violence. Campus mental health providers also grapple with questions regarding mandated counseling, their competence to conduct violence risk assessments, and whether they should be the first point of contact with students of concern. A TAM Team can be most effective in preventing and managing the risk of violence if each member understands and proactively discusses the role of other members. Thus this article explores the role of university counseling centers in the campus threat assessment process.