The validity of North American risk assessment tools in predicting in-patient violent behaviour in England

By M. Doyle, M. Dolan, J. McGovern. 2002

137 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce7f34b5b58d9d81b4daafbe421513bc2718e189

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. Melinda L. Yeomans
4. Stephen C. P. Wong
5. D. Boer
6. K. Douglas
7. J. Skeem
8. Jessica Woodhams

In Social Psychology

1. Melinda L. Yeomans
2. Stephen C. P. Wong
3. Min Yang
4. Jeremy Coid
5. D. Boer
6. K. Douglas

Citations in the corpus

• Comparative Validity Analysis of Multiple Measures of Violence Risk in a Sample of Criminal Offenders (2005, methodology): “In a British sample of 87 mentally disordered offenders, Doyle et al. (2002) compared the H scale of the HCR-20 to the VRAG and the PCL:SV.”
• The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. (2010, methodology): “Instruments assessed Effect size e Source data of effect size Doyle et al. (2002) 4 2 97.0 35.5 1 3 87 Violent physical assault vs. nonviolent assault 51.7 H10 0.69 Mean, standard deviation Edens et al. (2006) 3 2 59.0 30.0 2 4.6 741 Violent behavior/crime 18.6 VRAG 0.865 AUC value PCL:SV 1.11…”