Comparative Validity Analysis of Multiple Measures of Violence Risk in a Sample of Criminal Offenders

183 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.

Sixty-Six Years of Research on the Clinical Versus Actuarial Prediction of Violence (2006, background): “Yet interrater reliability of the final assessment has been poor (de Vogel et al., 2004; Douglas et al., 2005; Kropp & Hart, 2000), much lower than reported for prototypical actuarial methods (Harris et al.”
Risk-Needs Assessment in Juvenile Justice (2011, methodology): “Contrary to research using trained research assistants or forensic clinicians and other structured professional judgment tools (e.g., Douglas et al., 2005; Guy, 2008; Kropp & Hart, 2000), the SRRs in this data set did not add incremental validity to the numeric total scores in the prediction of…”
Most items in structured risk assessment instruments do not predict violence (2011, methodology): “Only three included instruments, which achieved AUC values of 0.8 or above, but these employed retrospective methods (de Vogel et al., 2004; Douglas et al., 2005; Gray et al., 2004).”
The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. (2010, unknown): “…al. (1999) 1 2 61.0 38.1 1 20.6 193 Any violence 38.0 HCR-20 1.00 AUC value H10 0.825 C5 0.470 R5 0.870 PCL:SV 0.660 Factor 1 0.430 Factor 2 0.660 Douglas et al. (2005) 1 1 100.0 38.3 1 92.4 188 Violent recidivism vs. nonviolent recidivism 49.5 HCR-20 1.19 Mean, standard deviation H10 0.76 C5…”