Risk assessment plays an important role in forensic mental health care. The way the conclusions of those risk assessments are communicated varies considerably across instruments. In an effort to make them more comparable, Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R., Kroner, D. D., Amora, D. A., Thomas, S. S., & Tavarez, L. P. [2017. A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. The Council of State Governments Justice Center. https:// csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/A-Five-Level-Risk-and-Needs-system_Report.pdf] developed the Five-Level Risk and Needs System, placing the conclusions of different instruments along five theoretically meaningful levels. The current study explores a Five-Level Risk and Needs system for violent recidivism to which the numerical codings of the HCR-20 Version 2 and its successor, the HCR-20V3 are calibrated, using a combined sample from six previous studies for the HCR-20 Version 2 (n = 411 males with a violent index offence) and a pilot sample for the HCR-20V3 (n = 66 males with a violent index offence). Baselines for the five levels were defined by a combination of theoretical (e.g. expert meetings) and empirical (e.g. literature review) considerations. The calibration of the HCR-20 Version 2 was able to detect four levels, from a combined level I/II to an adjusted level V. The provisional calibration of the HCR-20V3 showed a substantial overlap with the HCR-20 Version 2, with each level boundary having a 2-point difference. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
DOCUMENT
Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20V3, and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.
MULTIFILE
The HCR-20V3 is a violence risk assessment tool that is widely used in forensic clinical practice for risk management planning. The predictive value of the tool, when used in court for legal decisionmaking, is not yet intensively been studied and questions about legal admissibility may arise. This article aims to provide legal and mental health practitioners with an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the HCR-20V3 when applied in legal settings. The HCR-20V3 is described and discussed with respect to its psychometric properties for different groups and settings. Issues involving legal admissibility and potential biases when conducting violence risk assessments with the HCR-20V3 are outlined. To explore legal admissibility challenges with respect to the HCR-20V3, we searched case law databases since 2013 from Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. In total, we found 546 cases referring to the HCR-20/HCR-20V3. In these cases, the tool was rarely challenged (4.03%), and when challenged, it never resulted in a court decision that the risk assessment was inadmissible. Finally, we provide recommendations for legal practitioners for the cross-examination of risk assessments and recommendations for mental health professionals who conduct risk assessments and report to the court. We conclude with suggestions for future research with the HCR-20V3 to strengthen the evidence base for use of the instrument in legal contexts.
DOCUMENT
