The HCR‐20 in personality disordered female offenders: a comparison with a matched sample of males

123 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.

Performance indicators of the structured professional judgment approach for assessing risk for violence to others: a meta-analytic survey (2008, background): “(2008): de Vogel & de Ruiter (2005): Nicholls et aI., (20041: Fitch (2002): LodewUks. de Ruiter. et al. (in press); tvI<::yers & Sl.:hmidt (2008); Nicholls (200 I).”
Structured professional judgment of violence risk in forensic clinical practice: a prospective study into the predictive validity of the Dutch HCR-20 (2006, methodology): “@Initially, there were HCR-20 ratings of 149 patients; 127 men and 22 women. In a previous study, which included all women from the present study, we examined differences between 42 male and 42 matched female patients in mean scores and predictive validity of the HCR-20 (see de Vogel & de Ruiter, 2”
Assessing Protective Factors in Forensic Psychiatric Practice: Introducing the SAPROF (2011, unknown): “In general, however, the assessor should be careful when drawing conclusions regarding risk judgment in women, since most instruments (including the SAPROF) are developed and researched in primarily male populations (see also De Vogel & De Ruiter, 2005 ; De Vogel & De Vries Robbe, in press).”
Protective Factors in Forensic Mental Health: A New Frontier (2011, unknown): “Much like the HCR-20 (Douglas & Reeves, 2010 ; de Vogel & de Ruiter, 2005 ), the START appears to have relevance to both genders (Petersen, Douglas, & Nicholls, 2011b; Nicholls, Petersen, & Brink, 2011).”