Enquête internationale sur les pratiques d’évaluation du risque de violence : présentation des données belges
2016-09, Pham, Thierry H., Ducro, Claire, Desmarais, Sarah L., Hurducas, Cristina, Arbach-Lucioni, Karin, Condemarin, Carolina, Dean, Kimberlie, Doyle, Michael, Folino, Jorge O., Godoy-Cervera, Veronica, Grann, Martin, Ho, Robin M.Y., Large, Matthew M., Nielsen, Louise Hjort, Rebocho, Maria Francisca, Reeves, Kim A., Rettenberger, Martin, de Ruiter, Corine, Seewald, Katharina, Otto, Randy K., Singh, Jay P.
International Perspectives on the Practical Application of Violence Risk Assessment : A Global Survey of 44 Countries
2014, Singh, Jay P., Desmarais, Sarah L., Hurducas, Cristina, Arbach-Lucioni, Karin, Condemarin, Carolina, Dean, Kimberlie, Doyle, Michael, Folino, Jorge O., Godoy-Cervera, Verónica, Grann, Martin, Ho, Robyn Mei Yee, Large, Matthew M., Nielsen, Louise Hjort, Pham, Thierry H., Rebocho, Maria Francisca, Reeves, Kim A., Rettenberger, Martin, de Ruiter, Corine, Seewald, Katharina, Otto, Randy K.
Mental health professionals are routinely called upon to assess the risk of violence presented by their patients. Prior surveys of risk assessment methods have been largely circumscribed to individual countries and have not compared the practices of different professional disciplines. Therefore, a Web-based survey was developed to examine methods of violence risk assessment across six continents, and to compare the perceived utility of these methods by psychologists, psychiatrists, and nurses. The survey was translated into nine languages and distributed to members of 59 national and international organizations. Surveys were completed by 2135 respondents from 44 countries. Respondents in all six continents reported using instruments to assess, manage, and monitor violence risk, with over half of risk assessments in the past 12 months conducted using such an instrument. Respondents in Asia and South America reported conducting fewer structured assessments, and psychologists reported using instruments more than psychiatrists or nurses. Feedback regarding outcomes was not common: respondents who conducted structured risk assessments reported receiving feedback on accuracy in under 40% of cases, and those who used instruments to develop management plans reported feedback on whether plans were implemented in under 50% of cases. When information on the latter was obtained, risk management plans were not implemented in over a third of cases. Results suggest that violence risk assessment is a global phenomenon, as is the use of instruments to assist in this task. Improved feedback following risk assessments and the development of risk management plans could improve the efficacy of health services.
Current Obstacles in Replicating Risk Assessment Findings : A Systematic Review of Commonly Used Actuarial Instruments
2013-01, Rossegger, Astrid, Gerth, Juliane, Seewald, Katharina, Urbaniok, Frank, Singh, Jay P., Endrass, Jérôme
An actuarial risk assessment instrument can be considered valid if independent investigations using novel samples can replicate the findings of the instrument's development study. In order for a study to qualify as a replication, it has to adhere to the methodological protocol of the development study with respect to key design characteristics, as well as ensuring that manual-recommended guidelines of test administration have been followed.
A systematic search was conducted to identify predictive validity studies (N = 84) on three commonly used actuarial instruments: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG), and the Static-99. Sample (sex, age, criminal history) and design (follow-up, attrition, recidivism) characteristics, as well as markers of assessment integrity (scoring reliability, item omissions, prorating procedure), were extracted from 84 studies comprising 108 samples.
None of the replications matched the development study of the instrument they were attempting to cross-validate with respect to key sample and design characteristics. Furthermore none of the replications strictly followed the manual-recommended guidelines for the instruments’ administration.
Additional replication studies that follow the methodological protocols outlined in actuarial instruments’ development studies are needed before claims of generalizability can be made.