Situational variables related to aggression in institutional settings

Welsh, Elena; Bader, Shannon; Evans, Sean E.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2013.10.003

Cited by 36 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results for the prevalence of misconduct are similar to those reported by several other studies of physically violent misconduct (Lahm, 2009;Wooldredge & Steiner, 2013), but the rates we found were much lower than those reported by previous studies carried out in Switzerland (Endrass, Rossegger, Frischknecht, et al, 2008;Pont et al, 2015). This may be due to differences in situational factors, which have been shown to impact rates of physically violent misconduct by prisoners (Schenk & Fremouw, 2012;Welsh, Bader, & Evans, 2013) and/or to differences in methodology.…”

Section: Prevalence Of Misconductsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Our results for the prevalence of misconduct are similar to those reported by several other studies of physically violent misconduct (Lahm, ; Wooldredge & Steiner, ), but the rates we found were much lower than those reported by previous studies carried out in Switzerland (Endrass, Rossegger, Frischknecht, et al, ; Endrass, Rossegger, Urbaniok, et al, ; Pont et al, ). This may be due to differences in situational factors, which have been shown to impact rates of physically violent misconduct by prisoners (Schenk & Fremouw, ; Welsh, Bader, & Evans, ) and/or to differences in methodology. For example, Endrass et al reported physically violent misconduct over the whole incarceration period while Pont et al reported rates of physically violent misconduct over the same length of time as the present study (12 months), but their study was carried out in a pre‐sentencing prison with overcrowded cells contrasting the relatively comfortable living conditions of the high‐security prison used for our evaluation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments

Abbiati

Palix

Gasser

et al. 2018

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Violence in correctional facilities is an important issue for both prisoners and prison staff. Risk assessment instruments have demonstrated their accuracy in predicting the risk of (re) offending and institutional violence in psychiatric settings, but less is known about their ability to predict violent misconduct in prison. The present study applied four risk assessment instruments (Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk, Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Psychopathy checklist - Revised, and Violent Risk Appraisal Guide) to 52 violent offenders in a Swiss prison in order to evaluate the instruments' predictive validities. Outcomes were instances of physically violent, other and any misconduct as recorded in prison files during the 12 months following the prisoners' assessments. Approximately 15% of offenders committed physically violent misconduct and approximately 42% committed any misconduct. The results show that mainly dynamic assessment tools are as good predictors of physically violent misconduct as mainly static assessment tools. Targeting dynamic factors could increase the effectiveness of interventions to reduce the risk of physical violence in prison.

show abstract

Section: Prevalence Of Misconductsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments

Abbiati

Palix

Gasser

et al. 2018

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the model which included dynamic risk factors, protective factors and the SPJ risk estimate correctly classifying 77.3% of cases, it was noted that this model only accounted for 39% of the variance in inpatient violence; other situational and environmental variables may therefore also be important within institutional settings (Welsh, Bader, & Evans, 2013).…”

Section: Predictive Validity Of Protective Factors For Violence Riskmentioning

confidence: 94%

Protective Factors in Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of the SAPROF and HCR-20^V3

Neil

O’Rourke

Ferreira

et al. 2019

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research and practice in violence risk assessment in forensic mental health primarily focuses on risk factors; however consideration of protective factors may improve the accuracy and utility of assessments. Using a pseudo-prospective design, the predictive and incremental validity of protective factors was explored using the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors (SAPROF) and Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20V3) in 75 male inpatients in a secure setting. Over a twelve month period, protective factors significantly predicted the absence of inpatient (institutional) violence and risk factors, particularly dynamic factors, predicted the presence of violence. Hierarchical logistic regression did not establish the incremental validity of the SAPROF. Preliminary evidence for the predictive and incremental validity of the Integrative Final Risk Judgment was found with individuals judged high risk being almost seven times more likely to engage in violence than those assessed as moderate risk. High risk ratings were associated with fewer protective factors and more risk factors. Therefore, whilst dynamic risk factors are clear targets for risk management, consideration of protective factors may contribute to overall estimates of risk and provide additional targets for intervention.

show abstract

“…Additionally, research into the relationship between situational and environmental factors and inpatient aggression have suggested that the physical environment, crowding, ward organization, hospital management style, institutional responses to violence, staff mixture, staff training, patient population, uninvolved psychiatric leadership, as well as temporal and location factors can all influence the frequency and severity of aggression within psychiatric hospitals. [24][25][26][27][28] Studies have shown that violent patients can evoke anger and fear in staff members leading to team splitting and treatment disagreements, 29 staff members becoming passive and engaging in scapegoating, 30 and experiencing strong negative feelings (countertransference) towards patients. 31 Based on this literature, patients who are psychiatrically stable and continue to be violent towards staff might create even stronger reactions in staff and significantly undermine the therapeutic milieu that the inpatient psychiatric unit is attempting to facilitate.…”

Section: Violence In Psychiatric Hospitalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The indistinguishables: determining appropriate environments for justice involved individuals

Evans¹,

Bader

2019

CNS Spectr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminalizing those with mental illness is a controversial topic with a long and complex history in the United States. The problem has traditionally been dichotomized between criminals (i.e., “bad”) in need of placement in jails and prisons and the mentally ill (i.e., “mad”) who are need of treatment in psychiatric facilities. Recent trends demonstrate significant increases in the rates of mental illness in jails and prisons, as well as increased rates of violence within psychiatric hospitals. This would suggest that there are a group of justice involved individuals who are “indistinguishable” within the traditional dichotomous categories of dangerousness and mental illness. The authors argue for a more nuanced model that dimensionally conceptualizes dangerousness and mental illness; increased attention to situational factors that create facilities appropriate for those who are dangerous and mentally ill and more diversion programs for those inappropriate for incarceration or hospitalization.

show abstract

Situational variables related to aggression in institutional settings

Cited by 36 publications

References 29 publications

Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments

Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments

Protective Factors in Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of the SAPROF and HCR-20^V3

The indistinguishables: determining appropriate environments for justice involved individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Situational variables related to aggression in institutional settings

Cited by 36 publications

References 29 publications

Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments

Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments

Protective Factors in Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of the SAPROF and HCR-20V3

The indistinguishables: determining appropriate environments for justice involved individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Protective Factors in Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of the SAPROF and HCR-20^V3