Violence Risk Assessment of Civil Psychiatric Patients with the HCR-20: Does Gender Matter?

Strub, Diane S.; Douglas, Kevin S.; Nicholls, Tonia L.

doi:10.1080/14999013.2016.1141438

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was only some support for adding or changing risk factors in the HCR-20v2 with the FAM, and in general, the risk assessment for inpatient violence was not improved by using the FAM. The idea of developing specific instructions for women in an already existing valid tool is very useful though, since women as a population has been shown to manifest risk factors differently than men, when assessing risk for violence [2,3,9,10,[13][14][15]18]. However, there is a need to conduct more research on validating specific risk factors for inpatient violence for women admitted to forensic care before changing validated risk assessment tools in praxis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to make a risk management plan, there is a need of a comprehensive risk assessment performed with a tool with a high validity and reliability for the targeted population within the institution [10]. One of the most common risk assessment tools used within psychiatric facilities, according to Singh et al [11], is the HCR-20v2 [12], which has shown moderate to high validity and reliability within male and female samples in multiple settings [13][14][15][16]. Generally, studies on risk assessment using the HCR-20v2 in forensic psychiatric settings have demonstrated high validity and good reliability for male samples [10,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing risk for inpatient physical violence in a female forensic psychiatric sample – comparing HCR-20v2 with the female additional manual to the HCR-20v2

Strand

Selenius

2019

Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose and aim: Out from the sparse literature on risk assessment for violence committed by women the Female Additional Manual (FAM) was developed to be a complement to the HCR-20v2. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the psychometrics of the HCR-20v2 with and without the FAM on risk for inpatient physical violence for female forensic psychiatric patients. Methods: The participants were 100 female patients admitted to forensic psychiatric care in a highsecurity clinic, assessed by clinicians with the HCR-20v2 during their admission. Researchers performed the FAM, both retrospectively and prospectively. The follow-up period was 12 months before being discharged. Results: Four main results were found; first, many risk factors were present although the summary risk ratings were mainly low to moderate. Secondly, the reliability was in general good, where the HCR-20v2 mainly showed higher reliability without than with the FAM, indicating that FAM risk factors did equal or did not contribute to a higher reliability. Third, the internal validity was higher for the HCR-20v2 than for the FAM. Risk factors correlated stronger with the summary risk ratings for the HCR-20v2 than for the FAM. Fourth, the validity for inpatient physical violence was high for the total score of both the HCR-20v2 and the FAM, but contradictory to previous finding the validity for summary risk ratings was not significant. Conclusions: The results support the use of HCR-20v2 when assessing risk for inpatient violence for female forensic psychiatric patients, but with only some support for adding or changing risk factors according to the FAM.

show abstract