The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale: A treatment-friendly violence risk assessment tool.

By Stephen C. P. Wong, Audrey Gordon. 2006

250 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Health, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ce4f8666bdfa12d325d92b2e0dcd7a86d8a7e43

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

1. Jeremy Coid
2. Min Yang
3. Stephen C. P. Wong
4. M. Campbell
5. M. Olver
6. Sheila French
7. N. Chadwick
8. Kathy Lewis

In Health

1. Min Yang
2. Jeremy Coid
3. Stephen C. P. Wong
4. R. Serin
5. C. Lloyd

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Jeremy Coid
2. Min Yang
3. Stephen C. P. Wong
4. M. Campbell
5. M. Olver
6. Sheila French
7. N. Chadwick
8. Kathy Lewis

Citations in the corpus

• The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. (2010, methodology): “Our position that they should be is in line with the views of the authors of a number of risk assessment tools, such as the HCR-20: " All sexual assaults should be considered violent behaviour " (see Webster et al., 1997, p. 25; see also the VRAG, Quinsey et al., 1998, p. 142; and the VRS, Wong & Go”
• The Effectiveness of Violence Reduction Treatment for Psychopathic Offenders: Empirical Evidence and a Treatment Model (2012, background): “Broadly speaking, the study sample was a highly psychopathic and high-risk group of men with a mean VRS total score of 61.6 (SD = 8.1) and 93.3% (n = 140) of men scoring above the cutoff score of 50 for high risk (Wong & Gordon, 2006).”
• The Prediction of Violence in Adult Offenders (2009, background): “Examples are the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004), Violence Risk Scale (VRS; Wong & Gordon, 2006), Correctional Offender Management Profile for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS; Brennan & Oliver, 2000), and Correctional Assessment and Intervention…”
• Dynamic risk and protective factors (2016, background): “…static risk factors was beginning to develop, primarily because these scales could not identify intervention targets, and if scores could change, the range of potential change was greatly restricted, and unidirectional (i.e. clients could only be rated worse; Bonta, 1996; Wong & Gordon, 2006).”