The HCR-20^V3in Germany

Version 3 of the Historical‐Clinical‐Risk Management‐20 (HCR‐20V3): Relevance to Violence Risk Assessment and Management in Forensic Conditional Release Contexts

“…In addition to beta‐testing including roughly 30 clinicians with 50 patients in three settings (de Vogel, van den Broek, & de Vries Robbé, ; Douglas & Belfrage, ; Kötter et al ., ), research areas that have been subjected to peer review to date include interrater reliability (IRR; de Vogel et al ., ; Douglas & Belfrage, ; Doyle et al ., ; Kötter et al ., ; Smith et al ., ), concurrent validity between HCR‐20 Versions 2 and 3 (Bjørkly, Eidhammer, & Selmer, ; de Vogel et al ., ; Douglas & Belfrage, ; Strub, Douglas, & Nicholls, ), predictive validity of risk factor and/or summary risk ratings (de Vogel et al ., ; Doyle et al ., ; Strub et al ., ), incremental validity of summary risk ratings and relevance ratings vis‐à‐vis presence ratings (Strub et al ., ), and the influence of relevance and presence ratings in terms of influencing summary risk ratings (Smith et al ., ).…”

“…Despite a small sample, they reported ICC 1 values as follows: H scale (0.92), C scale (0.67), and R scale (0.68 institutional; 0.88 community). Kötter and colleagues () had five clinicians who were previously unacquainted with the HCR‐20 rate 30 patients, after having undergone training. The ICC 1 value for summary risk ratings was 0.86.…”

Validating the Hamilton Anatomy of Risk Management–Forensic Version and the Aggressive Incidents Scale

“…A large body of literature supports the reliability and validity of the previous version of the HCR-20 (Version 2; see Douglas, Shaffer, et al, 2014). Research to date also suggests that Version 3 is significantly correlated with Version 2 of the HCR-20 (Douglas & Belfrage, 2014; Douglas et al, 2013; Strub, Douglas, & Nicholls, 2014), and there is growing support for the utility, interrater reliability, and predicative validity of the HCR-20 V3 across various samples and settings, including psychiatric inpatient settings (de Vogel, van den Broek, & de Vries Robbé, 2014; Douglas & Belfrage, 2014; Doyle et al, 2014; Kötter et al, 2014; Penney, McMaster, & Wilkie, 2014; Strub et al, 2014). Taken together, the HCR-20 V3 is appropriate for evaluations of validity of other risk assessment tools for general violence risk.…”

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

“…Tal como expusieron los investigadores, los altos niveles de fiabilidad encontrados fueron similares a los de investigaciones en otros medios . El número de casos que compone la muestra se estimó teniendo en cuenta investigaciones previas, de similares características, que han tenido resultados significativos y de suficiente poder estadístico con muestras de entre 20 y 32 casos (De Vogel et al, 2014;Doyle et al, 2014;Kötter et al, 2014;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).…”