Application of the HCR-20 Version 3 in Civil Psychiatric Patients

Abstract

This study provides both a structural analysis of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management–20 (HCR-20) Version 3 and an examination of the correspondence between the HCR-20 Versions 2 and 3. HCR-20 Versions 2 and 3 risk ratings were completed for 64 psychiatric inpatients. Moderate to good interrater reliability was observed for the Version 3 subscales and summary risk ratings. Subscale scores and summary risk ratings on the Version 2 were significantly correlated with the corresponding scales and indices on the Version 3, although correlations were stronger when ratings were completed by the same rater as opposed to different raters. Version 3 items corresponding to Violence, Violent Attitudes, Violent Ideation or Intent, and Insight were the strongest predictors of the summary risk ratings, although some differences emerged when risk factor presence ratings were weighted by relevance ratings. The implications of these findings for risk assessment practice are discussed.

Attention Problems Predict Risk of Violence and Rehabilitative Engagement in Mentally Disordered Offenders

“…It is a 20-item structured checklist of risk factors that have been linked to violent behavior, rated in terms of presence and relevance to the patient. The HCR-20 V3 is divided into three sections: “historical,” containing 10 items related to past risk factors such as previous substance use problems; “clinical,” containing 5 items related to current risk factors such as negative attitudes; and “risk management,” which consists of 5 items related to an individual’s capacity to cope in the future such as lack of personal support (34). While the historical total relates to static factors of risk, the clinical and risk management totals relate to dynamic factors of risk.…”

Predictors of Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR–20:V3) summary risk ratings

“…correctional, forensic, and general or civil psychiatric) and community settings . Extensive research supports the psychometric properties of the HCR-20:V3 and its previous versions, including inter-rater reliability (Bjørkly, Eidhammer, & Selmer, 2014;de Vogel, van den Broek, & de Vries Robb e, 2014;Doyle et al, 2014;Howe, Rosenfeld, Foellmi, Stern, & Rotter, 2016;K€ otter et al, 2014;Smith, Kelley, Rulseh, S€ orman, & Edens, 2014) and predictive validity for future violence (Douglas, 2014;Doyle et al, 2014).…”

Valoración del riesgo de violencia en pacientes forenses con el HCR-20<SUP>V3</SUP>: análisis de sus propiedades psicométricas

“…Otros estudios realizados en distintas latitudes constituyen antecedentes importantes sobre éstas propiedades psicométricas del HCR-20 V3 (De Vogel, van den Broek, & de Vries Robbé, 2014;Doyle et al, 2014;Howe, Rosenfeld, Foellmi, Stern, & Rotter, 2016. Por ejemplo, en Suecia, un estudio empírico Smith et al, 2014).…”

“…En la presente investigación la valoración del riesgo de violencia futura presentó buenos índices de fiabilidad inter-evaluador. Los niveles de fiabilidad en las valoraciones finales de riesgo también fueron similares a otras investigaciones con pacientes psiquiátrico forenses en Estados Unidos y Alemania Doyle et al, 2014;Howe, Rosenfeld, Foellmi, Stern, Rotter, 2016;Kötter et al, 2014).…”

“…Por su parte, las puntuaciones de Relevancia del factor arrojaron resultados de .85 para la subescala Histórica, .77 para la Clínica y .48 para Gestión del Riesgo.En Holanda, una investigación realizada en pacientes psiquiátricos forenses obtuvo un CCI de .93(De Vogel et al, 2014). Otras investigaciones(Howe et al, 2016), obtuvieron resultados de buena fiabilidad interevaluador para las puntuaciones de presencia de los 20 factores con un CCI:.64 y para la subescala Histórica un .55; moderada para la subescala Clínica .55 y para la subescala Gestión del Riesgo .48.…”