Performance indicators of the structured professional judgment approach for assessing risk for violence to others: a meta-analytic survey

By Laura S. Guy. 2008

99 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c88a853381d00167b560ab8118ba3df7aa08551c

How researchers see this paper

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

1. G. Vincent
2. Tonia L. Nicholls
3. John F. Chapman
4. N. Cook
5. Emilia G'omez
6. Tess Neal
7. Marius Miron
8. T. Grisso

Citations in the corpus

• Gender Matters: An Introduction to the Special Issues on Women and Girls (2016, background): “In fact, some meta-analyses suggest that violence risk assessment measures tend to produce larger effect sizes among samples comprised only of women (Guy, 2008; O’Shea, Mitchell, Picchioni, & Dickens, 2013).”
• Why Machine Learning May Lead to Unfairness: Evidence from Risk Assessment for Juvenile Justice in Catalonia (2019, methodology): “Meta studies show a good predictive validity for the SAVRY expert evaluation with a median AUCROC of 0.71 [34, 39] and the SAVRY sum with mean weighted AUCROC values of 0.71 [23].”
• Risk factors and protective factors: a two-sided dynamic approach to violence risk assessment (2013, background): “A quantitative review of over 50 studies on the HCR-20 by Douglas and Reeves (2010) revealed good to excellent interrater reliabilities and moderate to large associations between the HCR-20 and violence (see also Douglas, Blanchard, Guy, Reeves, & Weir, 2010; Guy, 2008).”
• 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).”
• Assessment of Reoffense Risk in Adolescents Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses (2009, unknown): “Guy, L. S. (2009).”
• The Cognitive Underpinnings of Bias in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations (2014, methodology): “In a meta-analysis of violence risk assessments, Guy (2008) found evaluations that employed structured professional judgment tools (such as the HCR-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997) and actuarial tools (such as the VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993) performed better in predicting…”
• 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 reci”