Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) Violence Risk Assessment Scheme: Rationale, Application, and Empirical Overview

95 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Assessing Protective Factors in Forensic Psychiatric Practice: Introducing the SAPROF (2011, unknown): “Overall, these studies have demonstrated good interrater reliability and predictive validity for the HCR-20 (see Douglas & Reeves, 2010, and Guy, 2008, for detailed reviews of HCR-20 studies).”
Protective Factors for Violence Risk in Forensic Psychiatric Patients: A Retrospective Validation Study of the SAPROF (2011, unknown): “A meta-analysis of over 50 studies on the HCR-20 to date by Douglas and Reeves (2010) revealed good to excellent interrater reliabilities and moderate to large associations between the HCR-20 and violence.”
Risk factors and protective factors: a two-sided dynamic approach to violence risk assessment (2013, background): “Douglas and Reeves (2010) reported an average recidivism rate of 12% over the moderate-risk groups of six forensic samples.”
Gender Matters: An Introduction to the Special Issues on Women and Girls (2016, methodology): “…on the predictive accuracy of the widely used Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997) in samples of women have yielded somewhat ambiguous results (see for reviews Douglas & Reeves, 2010; Garcia-Mansilla et al., 2009; Guy et al., 2015; McKeown, 2010).”