No abstract

Although structured professional judgment (SPJ) based violence risk assessment (VRA) tools are used in everyday workplace environments to make important threat assessment, risk assessment, and employment decisions, it is believed that no VRA tool has been tested to date for both interrater reliability and predictive validity in common organizational environments with a sample of adults. This quantitative postdictive study was conducted to gain insight into the level of interrater reliability and predictive validity for the Historical, Clinical Risk Management Version 3 (HCR-20 V3 ), the newest version of the most utilized SPJ based violence risk assessment tool in the world, the HCR-20, when applied to a sample of known outcome case summaries. Data were drawn from private businesses, postsecondary institutions, and public agencies and did not involve individuals from correctional or mental health populations. HCR-20 V3 summary risk ratings (SRRs) for physical violence were significant for both interrater reliability (ICC ϭ .72, 95% CI [.58 -.83], p Ͻ .001.) and predictive validity (AUC ϭ .70) and demonstrated a good level of interrater reliability and a moderate level of predictive validity, similar to results from other samples from more restrictive environments. These findings provide initial empirical support for the use of the HCR-20 V3 for violence risk assessments in common workplace environments. Limitations are discussed, as well as future comparative research that is already being conducted which will expand the value of this research path. 1

Violence risk assessment tools aid threat and violence risk assessments and management interventions conducted in a variety of environments, including workplaces. However, only a limited number of studies have tested the interrater reliability and predictive validity of violence risk assessment tools for potential physical violence cases involving adult instigators in workplaces. This postdictive study provides the results of the initial empirical testing of the interrater reliability and predictive validity of the Cawood Assessment Grid (CAG), a widely used assessment tool for determining the risk of physical violence in common workplace (organizational) settings. Three coders using the CAG assessed 40 case summaries. Statistical analyses of the Summary Risk Ratings (SRRs) suggested raters had good interrater reliability (ICC 3−1 = .67) and the SRRs were strongly associated with occurrence of physical violence (AUC = .81). These results support the continued use of the CAG during assessments of risk for physical violence in workplace settings and add to the empirical literature supporting the use of violence risk assessment tools to enhance our ability to identify cases that have a higher probability of ending in physical violence. Public Significance StatementThis study found the Cawood Assessment Grid significantly differentiated between common workplace violence cases that did or did not have physically violent outcomes, while demonstrating adequate reliability for users. These results support the increased use of appropriately tested tools to assess the risk of violence in workplaces, which will enhance the safety of potential victims.

No abstract

Although rare, instances of lethal workplace violence generate a climate of insecurity among the workforce and spur a myriad of initiatives designed to combat this problem. While many of these initiatives have already proved fruitful, there are several practical concerns that must be further resolved. One of these concerns is the lack of empirically validated instrumentation to guide the assessment of individuals with the potential to become violent at the workplace. Accordingly, this pilot study sought to provide preliminary data on the comparability of three violence risk assessment instruments, the Historical, Clinical, Risk-Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), the Workplace Assessment of Violence Risk-Version 3 (WAVR-21V3), and the Cawood Assessment Grid (CAG)—the latter two were designed specifically for assessing the risk of violence in workplace settings. Collectively, our results suggest that these three instruments demonstrated a potential to guide risk assessment processes effectively. Specifically, the three instruments showed statistically comparable levels of rater reliability, a fair degree of convergence, and similarly adequate predictive power. Despite its pilot character and particular outcome population, this study provided a starting point from which to continue examining the instruments’ capability to provide accurate forecasts of risk for physically violent behavior in workplace settings.