A field study of a comprehensive violence risk assessment battery

We used archival data to examine the predictive validity of a prerelease violence risk assessment battery over 6 years at a forensic hospital (N = 230, 100% male, 63.0% African American, 34.3% Caucasian). Examining ?real-world? forensic decision making is important for illuminating potential areas f...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Neal, Tess M.S. (VerfasserIn)
Beteiligte: Miller, Sarah L. ; Shealy, R. Clayton
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: 2015
In: Criminal justice and behavior
Jahr: 2015, Band: 42, Heft: 9, Seiten: 952-968
Online-Zugang: Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Journals Online & Print:
Lade...
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Schlagwörter:
Anger
field study
Incremental Validity
Recidivism
Risk assessment
Violence
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We used archival data to examine the predictive validity of a prerelease violence risk assessment battery over 6 years at a forensic hospital (N = 230, 100% male, 63.0% African American, 34.3% Caucasian). Examining ?real-world? forensic decision making is important for illuminating potential areas for improvement. The battery included the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management?20, Psychopathy Checklist?Revised, Schedule of Imagined Violence, and Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory. Three outcome ?recidivism? variables included contact violence, contact and threatened violence, and any reason for hospital return. Results indicated measures of general violence risk and psychopathy were highly correlated but weakly associated with reports of imagined violence and a measure of anger. Measures of imagined violence and anger were correlated with one another. Unexpectedly, Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analyses revealed that none of the scales or subscales predicted recidivism better than chance. Multiple regression indicated the battery failed to account for recidivism outcomes. We conclude by discussing three possible explanations, including timing of assessments, controlled versus field studies, and recidivism base rates.
ISSN:1552-3594
DOI:10.1177/0093854815572252