The accuracy of 10 risk measures in predicting general and violent recidivism among 106 federally sentenced male offenders was compared. During an average period of opportunity to reoffend of 713 days ( SD = 601.38), 28 offenders recidivated nonviolently, and 34 recidivated violently. Common language effect sizes in discriminating violent recidivists from other offenders were .73 for the General Statistical Information on Recidivism–Revised and .72 for the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. Effect sizes ranging from .58 to .68 were obtained for DSM-IV Conduct Disorder scored as a scale, the Violent Statistical Information on Recidivism–Revised, the Psychological Referral Screening Form, the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised total score and Factor 2, and the Childhood and Adolescent Taxon Scale. Effect sizes of .58 and .51 were obtained with the DSM-IV Antisocial Personality Disorder scored as a scale and the Psychopathy Checklist Factor 1, respectively.

The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide-Revised (VRAG-R) was developed to replace the original VRAG based on an updated and larger sample with an extended follow-up period. Using a sample of 120 adult male correctional offenders, the current study examined the interrater reliability and predictive and comparative validity of the VRAG-R to the VRAG, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, the Statistical Information on Recidivism-Revised, and the Two-Tiered Violence Risk Estimate over a follow-up period of up to 22 years postrelease. The VRAG-R achieved moderate levels of predictive validity for both general and violent recidivism that was sustained over time as evidenced by time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Further, moderate predictive validity was evident when the Antisociality item was both removed and then subsequently replaced with a substitute measure of antisociality. Results of the individual item analyses for the VRAG and VRAG-R revealed that only a small number of items are significant predictors of violent recidivism. The results of this study have implications for the application of the VRAG-R to the assessment of violent recidivism among correctional offenders. (PsycINFO Database Record

In two previous studies on general and violent recidivism (Walters & Heilbrun, 2010; Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008), the summed composite antisocial facet of the Psychopathy Checklist displayed incremental validity relative to the other 3 facets (interpersonal, affective, lifestyle), whereas the other 3 facets generally failed to demonstrate incremental validity relative to the antisocial facet. Because summed composite scores do not account for ordinal item distributions, the 6 Walters et al. (2008) samples were reanalyzed with factor score composites derived from a 4-factor confirmatory factor analysis. The results, however, showed little change from what had been obtained earlier with summed composite scores. Two additional samples not previously included in any incremental validity analyses of the Psychopathy Checklist evidenced a 3-factor structure, with the lifestyle and antisocial facets merged into a single factor. This single factor displayed incremental validity relative to the interpersonal and affective facets, but the reverse was not true regardless of whether summed composite scores or factor score composites were used. A comparison of zero-order correlations from all 8 samples revealed that the antisocial summed composite score predicted significantly better than the summed composite scores for the other 3 facets and that a superordinate factor failed to improve on the performance of either the antisocial summed composite score or the antisocial factor score composite.