The validity of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) in predicting criminal recidivism

Kröner, Carolin; Stadtland, Cornelis; Eidt, Matthias; Nedopil, Norbert

doi:10.1002/cbm.644

Cited by 38 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is some research on how detected rates vary as a function of some of study features (referred to as calibration; Helmus, ). For example, when there has been a close match between such features in replication studies and the original construction, we reported very close correspondence and successful replication of observed category‐by‐category rates (Harris, Rice, & Cormier, ; Harris et al, ), and some independent studies permit the conclusion of no significant difference between norms and observed rates in new samples (e.g., Kroner, Stadtland, Eidt, & Nedopil, ; Mills, Jones, & Kroner, ; Tengstrom, ). There is no research yet, however, on how the difference between actual recidivism and detected recidivism varies as a function of other factors, such as follow‐up duration.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Evidence for Risk Estimate Precision: Implications for Individual Risk Communication

Harris

Lowenkamp

Hilton

2015

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actuarial risk assessment instruments using well-established predictor variables measured at the individual level (e.g., age, criminal history, psychopathy) discriminate well between recidivists and non-recidivists across diverse samples. Data indicating the relative risk of recidivism can inform policy decisions about allocating resources according to risk within a correctional system, consistent with the first of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) principles. Evidence for the precision of absolute risk as applied to an individual based on scores from many samples, however, has proven challenging. In this paper, we present a study examining the association of actuarial risk estimate precision with sample size using the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA; Lowenkamp et al., 2013), in samples of up to 26,642 offenders. Results indicate that the precision of individual estimates can be demonstrated with sufficient sample size. We believe that the implications of absolute risk for the communication of an individual offender's risks have been poorly understood. We argue that the purpose of individual-level risk communication is to ensure the effective application of policy, which requires matching a new case to aggregate data. We illustrate how an offender's risk might thus be communicated, and conclude that this function is distinct from management of an individual's criminogenic needs and identification of effective and suitable treatments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Evidence for Risk Estimate Precision: Implications for Individual Risk Communication

Harris

Lowenkamp

Hilton

2015

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The advent of actuarial risk instruments such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998) have contributed mightily to this endeavor. The VRAG is a 12-item actuarial risk assessment tool that has been validated for use in a wide variety of populations such as sex offenders (Harris, Rice, Quinsey, Lalumiere, Boer, & Lang, 2003; Langton, Barbaree, Seto, Peacock, Harkins, & Hansen, 2007), civil psychiatric patients (Harris, Rice & Camilleri, 2004), mentally disordered (Gray, Fitzgerald & Taylor, 2007) and non-North American offender samples (Doyle, Dolan, & McGovern, 2002; Urbaniok, Noll, Grunewald, Steinbach & Endrass, 2006; Kroner, Stadtland & Eidt, 2007). The ability of the VRAG to predict violent behavior among criminal and mentally-disordered male inmates has been well-established (Glover, Nicholson, Bernfeld, & Quinsey, 2002; Kroner & Mills, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive and incremental validity of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide scores with male and female jail inmates.

Hastings¹,

Krishnan²,

Tangney³

et al. 2011

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examines the predictive and incremental validity of Violence Risk Appraisal Guide scores in a sample of 328 male and 145 female jail inmates held on felony charges. Significant gender differences were observed in VRAG item and total score means, as well as in correlations between the VRAG and concurrent measures of aggression. VRAG scores significantly predicted institutional misconduct during incarceration and recidivism in the first year post-release for male inmates, but not for female inmates. In terms of incremental validity, VRAG scores predicted institutional misconduct and recidivism beyond that accounted for by psychopathy for male inmates, but not for female inmates. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed. KeywordsViolence Risk Appraisal Guide; validity; inmates; gender; recidivism The assessment of risk for future violence has become a staple of forensic psychological practice (Monahan, 1996). The advent of actuarial risk instruments such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998) have contributed mightily to this endeavor. The VRAG is a 12-item actuarial risk assessment tool that has been validated for use in a wide variety of populations such as sex offenders (Harris, Rice, Quinsey, Lalumiere, Boer, & Lang, 2003;Langton, Barbaree, Seto, Peacock, Harkins, & Hansen, 2007), civil psychiatric patients (Harris, Rice & Camilleri, 2004), mentally disordered (Gray, Fitzgerald & Taylor, 2007) and non-North American offender samples (Doyle, Dolan, & McGovern, 2002;Urbaniok, Noll, Grunewald, Steinbach & Endrass, Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Mark E. Hastings, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030. Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at www.apa.org/pubs/journals/PAS NIH Public Access Kroner, Stadtland & Eidt, 2007). The ability of the VRAG to predict violent behavior among criminal and mentally-disordered male inmates has been well-established (Glover, Nicholson, Bernfeld, & Quinsey, 2002;Kroner & Mills, 2001).Females represent one of the fasting growing population of inmates (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006), yet the field of violence risk assessment has not kept pace with this particular sub-group of inmates. There are no actuarial risk assessment instruments designed specifically for use with female inmates, and the validity of interpretation of VRAG scores with female inmates remains largely unknown. Female inmates share some risk factors for v...

show abstract

“…Since the majority of the extracted investigations found a significant association with an outcome, the included studies are commonly interpreted as proof of the robustness of the VRAG, SORAG, and Static‐99 (e.g., Hastings, Krishnan, Tangney, & Stuewig, ; Kröner, Stadtland, Eidt, & Nedopil, ) though the purported replication investigations differed with respect to the follow‐up period (Quinsey, Book, & Skilling, ; Rettenberger, Matthes, Boer, & Eher, ), the composition of the study sample (Harris, Rice, & Cormier, ; Hastings et al, ; Snowden, Gray, & Taylor, ), and the definition of the outcome criterion (Endrass, Rossegger, Frischknecht, Noll, & Urbaniok, ; Harris & Rice, ; Harris et al, ; Hastings et al, ; Kroner & Mills, ; Lindsay et al, ; Loza, Villeneuve, & Loza‐Fanous, ; Storey, Watt, Jackson, & Hart, ). Deviations from the methodology used in the development study were interpreted as corroboration of model robustness (Harris & Rice, ; Harris et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Obstacles in Replicating Risk Assessment Findings: A Systematic Review of Commonly Used Actuarial Instruments

Rossegger

Gerth

Seewald

et al. 2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An actuarial risk assessment instrument can be considered valid if independent investigations using novel samples can replicate the findings of the instrument's development study. In order for a study to qualify as a replication, it has to adhere to the methodological protocol of the development study with respect to key design characteristics, as well as ensuring that manual-recommended guidelines of test administration have been followed. A systematic search was conducted to identify predictive validity studies (N = 84) on three commonly used actuarial instruments: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG), and the Static-99. Sample (sex, age, criminal history) and design (follow-up, attrition, recidivism) characteristics, as well as markers of assessment integrity (scoring reliability, item omissions, prorating procedure), were extracted from 84 studies comprising 108 samples. None of the replications matched the development study of the instrument they were attempting to cross-validate with respect to key sample and design characteristics. Furthermore none of the replications strictly followed the manual-recommended guidelines for the instruments' administration. Additional replication studies that follow the methodological protocols outlined in actuarial instruments' development studies are needed before claims of generalizability can be made.

show abstract

The validity of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) in predicting criminal recidivism

Abstract: The validity of the VRAG was replicated with a German sample. The VRAG yielded good predictive accuracy, despite differences in sample and outcome variables compared with its original sample.

Cited by 38 publications

References 43 publications

Evidence for Risk Estimate Precision: Implications for Individual Risk Communication

Evidence for Risk Estimate Precision: Implications for Individual Risk Communication

Predictive and incremental validity of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide scores with male and female jail inmates.

Current Obstacles in Replicating Risk Assessment Findings: A Systematic Review of Commonly Used Actuarial Instruments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About