Violence Risk Assessment

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the legal and ethical issues raised by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in predicting criminal behavior. In fact, ever since Cesare Lombroso’s L’uomo delinquente, scientists, on one side, and jurists, on the other, have been discussing the ‘criminal brain’. Violence risk assessment tools have been applied in criminal courts for more than sixty years, yet the discussion has found once again importance thanks to the development of new AI techniques (such as machine learning) and to their application in both the medical and the criminal justice area. The new frontier is represented by the enhancement of these instruments through the combination of AI and neuropredictions. This paper presents critical reflections on the benefits and drawbacks of applying these technologies to predictions of violence in criminal justice. The inquiry concludes with a number of open questions which are hoped will contribute to the ongoing debate and work as a primer for future investigations on the matter.

What is the risk of reoffending for released terrorist prisoners and what are appropriate processes and systems for managing and risk assessing such individuals? This paper explores these and related issues to help inform wider discussion and debates on appropriate policy in this area. The paper starts by critically analysing what we mean when we talk about ‘recidivism.’ This is followed by a discussion of terrorist recidivism in a range of international contexts, ranging from Northern Ireland to Sri Lanka, the United States to Israel. Taking a broad perspective, helps facilitate both a greater understanding of the factors related to terrorist recidivism rates and to identity key policy recommendations.

En un estudio recientemente publicado sobre Tasa de reincidencia Penitenciaria 2014 en Cataluña se ofrecen, entre otra información de gran interés, los resultados de aplicar el RisCanvi como herramienta de valoración del riesgo de violencia a un conjunto de internos, y la comparación entre el riesgo de reincidencia violenta predicho y la reincidencia violenta efectivamente observada. En dicho estudio se valora muy positivamente la capacidad predictiva del RisCanvi; sin embargo, en este trabajo sostengo que debe hacerse una interpretación diferente de los datos que conduce a conclusiones menos optimistas. Ello se debe a que es necesario diferenciar con claridad entre sensibilidad y valor predictivo, y entre estimaciones de riesgo relativas y absolutas, lo que aconseja utilizar tanto el RisCanvi como otros instrumentos de valoración del riesgo con mucha prudencia en determinados contextos, especialmente cuando de estas valoraciones dependan decisiones sobre la libertad u otros derechos fundamentales de los internos.
A study recently published about prison recidivism rate in Catalonia 2014 offers, among other interesting information, the results of applying RisCanvi as a violence risk assessment tool to a sample of inmates, and the comparison between the risk of violent recidivism predicted and the violent recidivism actually observed. The study makes a very positive evaluation of the RisCanvi’s predictive ability, but this paper maintains that data in that study should be interpreted differently, which leads to less optimistic conclusions. It is necessary to differentiate carefully between sensitivity and predictive value, and between relative and absolute predictive accuracy;, and this in turn recommends a very cautious utilization of this and other predictive tools in determinatespecific contexts, especially when decisions about each inmate’s liberty or fundamental rights depend upon the risk assessment

Our understanding of the risk assessment of terrorist and extremist prisoners is in its infancy, yet this is clearly a critical issue. How can one tell if a prisoner is still dangerous or not? What are valid measures to assess risk and what type of evidence is worth examining? In considering risk assessment of terrorists and extremists in prison settings there are a range of essential issues to consider.  Crucially, not all terrorist and extremist prisoners are the same and factors which apply clearly to one individual will not apply equally strongly to others. As a result, effective risk assessment processes need to be nuanced. This chapter highlights the range of issues which are likely to be of most use when considering risk assessment in the context of a terrorist prisoner, and also identifies what sources of information can provide the necessary insight to inform this assessment.

Douglas, K. S., Shaffer, C. S., Blanchard, A. J. E., Guy, L. S., Reeves, K., & Weir, J. (2014, 2017). Historical Clinical-Risk Management 20 violence risk assessment scheme: Overview and annotated bibliography (2002 –2016). Historical Clinical-Risk Management 20 Violence Risk Assessment White Paper Series, #1. Burnaby, BC: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

Since the publication of Version 1 in 1995 and Version 2 in 1997, the HCR-20 has become one of the world’s most widely used and best validated violence risk assessment instruments. It has been translated into 20 languages and adopted or evaluated in more than 35 countries. Version 3, developed over 5 years on the basis of extensive clinical beta testing and empirical evaluation, was released in 2013. This extensive HCR-20 Review and Annotated Bibliography identifies significant research carried out with the three versions of the HCR-20. This review has been maintained and updated since the mid-1990s and since then has grown to include 22 disseminations with the V3 (with many more underway) and 233 disseminations with earlier versions (with updates of recent years coming).

La legitimidad de las medidas de seguridad depende de que puedan demostrar su capacidad para alcanzar el fin  que las justifica: evitar la comisión de delitos futuros. Esta racionalidad instrumental presupone a su vez que  ha de ser posible identificar con claridad su presupuesto de aplicación: la probabilidad de comisión de futuros  delitos por un sujeto concreto. Si la peligrosidad no puede establecerse con un suficiente grado de certeza, la  aplicación de las medidas sería arbitraria y, en consecuencia, ilegítima. Este trabajo analiza los porcentajes de  acierto que evidencian los distintos métodos de predicción de la peligrosidad criminal, y da cuenta de las  limitaciones estructurales que presentan a partir de los datos ofrecidos por recientes investigaciones en relación  con los instrumentos de predicción estadísticos o actuariales y de juicio clínico estructurado. A partir de dicho  análisis se concluye no sólo que la capacidad para identificar correctamente a los sujetos que volverán a  delinquir es muy limitada sea cual sea el método empleado para predecir la peligrosidad, sino también que dicha  capacidad predictiva no parece probable que vaya a mejorar de manera significativa en un futuro cercano. Ello  hace que resulten cuestionables diversos aspectos de las medidas de seguridad, y en particular la legitimidad de  las medidas imponibles a sujetos responsables de forma acumulada a la pena correspondiente al injusto  culpable.

Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) aim is to reduce serious harm and homicide for the highest risk domestic violence victims. Little work has been done in establishing what outcomes they actually lead to for victims. This qualitative study has utilised interviews with professionals (n = 9) and victims (n = 2) to examine what outcomes and impacts those involved in MARACs are able to identify, the efficacy of the process and the experience for victims. Findings suggest that MARACs lead to both positive and negative outcomes. Positive outcomes were centred around ease of access to services, coordination of support, and MARACs giving victims priority status. However, negative impacts were widely identified, including alienation of victims, the process exerting control over victims and leading to loss of trust in associated professional agencies. A model is proposed that harnesses the strengths of MARACs while providing a more victim led approach to providing support for high risk victims.

Resumen: El movimiento contemporáneo tendente a la sustitución de la noción de peligrosidad por el enfoque de la valoración del riesgo (risk assessment), que se inició en el ámbito del derecho penitenciario y de ejecución de las penas, está llegando a otras fases del proceso penal , como la de sentencia. Presentándose como una práctica «basada en la evidencia» (evidence-based sentencing), propugna tomar en con-sideración las valoraciones estructuradas del riesgo de reincidencia a la hora de determinar la clase y cuantía de la pena a imponer, para adecuarla mejor a las necesidades de prevención especial. El presen-te trabajo analiza críticamente una de las primeras sentencias de un tribunal supremo estatal de los EEUU que se ha enfrentado a los pro-blemas que plantea esta propuesta, y en particular al siguiente: ¿es compatible con el derecho al debido proceso agravar la pena sobre la base de la valoración de riesgo hecha por un algoritmo, cuyo funcio-namiento no se desvela al acusado porque está protegido como secre-to de empresa? Palabras clave: peligrosidad, valoración del riesgo de reincidencia, al-goritmos secretos, determinación de la pena, derecho al debido proceso
Abstract: The contemporary tendency towards replacing the old notion
of dangerousness by the risk assessment approach, that began in the correctional settings, is reaching other stages of the criminal justice, particularly the sentencing phase. Presenting itself as an evidence-based practice (evidence-based sentencing), it promotes introducing structured risk assessments in sentencing in order to help the judge impose the penalty that best prevents recidivism. This paper critically examines one of the first State Supreme Court decisions in the USA that has had to face the problems posed by this approach, and especially the following: is it compatible with due process rights to impose an enhanced sentence based on the risk assessment made by a secret algorithm, the details of which are not disclosed to the defendant due to its proprietary nature?
Keywords: dangerousness, violence risk assessment, secret algorithms,
sentencing, due process

The current article presents an application of attribution theory to clinical judgment, with a focus on the theory’s application to clinical judgments of violence risk assessment. While attribution theory has been applied to many diverse fields of human behavior, a comparatively limited level of research and discussion has been raised regarding its application to the very relevant and practical study of clinical decision making (Elbogen, 2002). The current article argues that is not only important for practicing clinicians to understand the way in which their client attributes causality to their behaviour in order to improve upon the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, but also emphasizes the importance of recognizing and understanding the way in which the clinician attributes causality to the clients behaviour, and how this may affect the development of suitable therapeutic interventions and risk management plans. Through better understanding the effects of attribution on clinical judgments of violence risk assessment, it is argued that improvements to the effectiveness of clinical judgments in violence risk assessment may be possible.

full paper attached.

The wellbeing and nurture of children is a paramount concern for every country, culture, and community. Internationally, notable numbers of children undergo maltreatment, leading to significant lifelong implications (WHO 2016).

In UAE, child welfare, safety, and protection have been evidently intensifying in many spheres - political, social and cultural. Legalism, bureaucracy, and procedures are recognized as key drivers of child protection systems. Governments at both federal and local levels have developed policy frameworks for child protection and safety as part of community-based change initiatives.

Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) has been closely monitoring the safety and well-being of children as part of its evaluation of the schools. However, policy and research on child maltreatment are under-researched and under-conceptualized remains in its infancy.

Shaffer, C. S., Blanchard, A. J. E., & Douglas, K. S. (2017). Risk assessment, violence, and  aggression. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of violence and aggression: Assessment of individuals. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mental health professionals are routinely required to assess the risk of violence towards others and identify associated management needs.  In this chapter, we provide a general introduction to the practice of violence risk assessment and consolidate the existing literature on best practices in the field. In the first section of this chapter, we discuss risk factors commonly considered when reaching judgments about violence risk. In the second section, we discuss general issues in understanding a client’s potential for violence, including issues in the selection and evaluation of different risk assessment approaches and tools. In the third section, we discuss strategies for bridging the gap between risk assessment and risk management practices. This chapter concludes with a discussion of conceptual issues in assessing and managing violence risk that warrant further investigation.

Blanchard, A. J. E., Shaffer, C. S., & Douglas, K. S. (2016). Decision support tools in the evaluation of risk for violence. In P. Kleespies (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral emergencies and crises (pp. 262-288).  New York: Oxford University Press.

Professionals often utilize some form of structured approach (i.e., decision support tool or risk assessment instrument) when evaluating the risk of future violence and associated management needs.  This chapter presents an overview of decision support tools, used to assist professionals when conducting a violence risk assessment, that have received considerable empirical evaluation and professional uptake.  The relative strengths and weaknesses of the two main approaches to evaluations of risk (actuarial and structured professional judgment) are discussed, including a review of empirical findings regarding their predictive validity.  Following a summary of commonalities amongst the tools, the chapter provides a brief description of ten decision support tools focusing on their applicability and purpose, content and characteristics, and available empirical research.  Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of several critical considerations regarding the appropriate use and selection of tools.

La valoración del riesgo de violencia o de reincidencia con herramientas estructuradas, que cada vez está más presente en el ámbito de la justicia penal, es un procedimiento complejo, y para comprender correctamente sus resultados es necesario un conocimiento mínimo de algunos conceptos estadísticos. La forma en que usualmente se presenta en la literatura criminológica especializada la información sobre la capacidad de estas herramientas para predecir con acierto el riesgo de violencia no favorece una correcta interpretación de su alcance, pues se tiende a destacar aquellos aspectos en que estas herramientas funcionan mejor, y a subrayar mucho menos aquéllos otros en que sus resultados son más pobres, haciendo hincapié además en indicadores que pueden tener escasa relevancia para la práctica judicial. Este trabajo pretende ilustrar sobre la complejidad de esta problemática con el ejemplo del área bajo la curva ROC (AUC), y advertir sobre el peligro de que se extienda un optimismo injustificado sobre el rendimiento de estas herramientas, que en el ámbito forense podría favorecer la toma de decisiones limitativas de derechos fundamentales de los acusados o condenados carentes de suficiente fundamento, y en el ámbito de la política criminal puede alentar la proliferación de instituciones jurídicas cuyo presupuesto sea el riesgo de reincidencia en la creencia de que dicho riesgo puede comprobarse empíricamente con facilidad, cuando ello no es así.

Violence or recidivism risk assessment using actuarial tools, which is gaining importance in the field of criminal justice, is a complex procedure, and some basic knowledge of statistics is required in order to correctly understand its results. The way in which the information about the predictive accuracy of structured risk assessment tools is presented in the specific criminological literature does not contribute to a correct interpretation of its scope, because the published studies tend to emphasize the accuracy indicators that obtain satisfactory values, and less so those that achieve lower scores, focusing, in addition, on indicators that may be of little or no relevance in the criminal judicial practice. This paper tries to illustrate the complexity of this issue with the example of the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and warns against unjustified optimism around the predictive accuracy of these tools that in the criminal process could lead to adopting decisions that restrict fundamental rights of the accused without enough justification, and in the wider context of public policy could contribute to the spread of penalties or other punitive measures that are based on the probability of future recidivism, relying on the assumption that this probability can be estimated easily, which is not the case.

The present article discusses the three main approaches to violence risk assessment, clinical judgement, actuarial assessment, and structured clinical judgement, informing the reader of the comparative benefits and short-comings of these methods of violence risk assessment. In particular, the present article highlights the controversy within the literature surrounding clinical judgement in comparison to actuarial assessments of violence risk, and proposes that the statistically significant ‘improvements’ of violence prediction when using actuarial scales in comparison to clinical predictions of dangerousness do not necessarily measure the skill of the clinician adequately. Specifically, an assessment of ‘dangerousness’ does not equal a prediction of violent recidivism. It is argued that clinicians are not predictive forecasters of risk, as in actuarial scales, but are, rather, trained to manage risk. In addition, suggestions for future research directions in the field of improving violence risk assessments are made.

full paper attached.

Viljoen, J. L., Shaffer, C. S., Gray, A. L., & Douglas, K. S. (2017). Are risk assessment tools sensitive to change? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.  Law and Human Behavior, 41, 244-257.

Although many adolescent risk assessment tools include an emphasis on dynamic factors, little research has examined the extent to which these tools are capable of measuring change. In this article, we outline a framework to evaluate a tool’s capacity to measure change. This framework includes the following: (a) measurement error and reliable change, and (b) sensitivity (i.e., internal, external, and relative sensitivity). We then used this framework to evaluate the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Research assistants conducted 509 risk assessments with 146 adolescents on probation (101 male, 45 female), who were assessed every 3 months over a 1-year period. Internal sensitivity (i.e., change over time) was partially supported in that a modest proportion of youth showed reliable changes over the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. External sensitivity (i.e., the association between change scores and reoffending) was also partially supported. In particular, 22% of the associations between change scores and any and violent reoffending were significant at a 6-month follow-up. However, only 1 change score (i.e., peer associations) remained significant after the Bonferroni correction was applied. Finally, relative sensitivity was not supported, as the SAVRY and YLS/CMI was not more dynamic than the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV). Specifically, the 1-year rank-order stability coefficients for the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV Total Scores were .78, .75, and .76, respectively. Although the SAVRY and YLS/CMI hold promise, further efforts may help to enhance sensitivity to short-term changes in risk.

La crisi della pericolosità sociale. - 2.1. Il perito si fa giudice. - 2.1.1. Nuove supplenze in arrivo da oltreoceano? - 2.2. Il diritto penale si fa terapia? - 3. Alla ricerca di strumenti di "controllabilità" del giudizio di pericolosità sociale. - 4. La limitazione (in bonam partem) della base del giudizio di pericolosità sociale. In bilico fra vecchie e nuove supplenze. - 4.1. Il rifiuto della storica supplenza: il diritto penale (non) si fa (più) welfare. - 4.2. Rischi di nuove supplenze.

Viljoen, J. L., Bhanwer, A., Shaffer, C. S., & Douglas, K. S. (2018). Assessing protective factors for adolescent offending: A conceptually-informed examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.  Assessment. Advance online publication, 1-17.

Although the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) are among the most widely used adolescent risk assessment tools, they conceptualize and measure strengths differently.  As such, in this study, we compared the predictive validity of SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total, and tested conceptual models of how these measures operate (i.e., risk vs. protective effects, direct vs. buffering effects, causal models).  Research assistants conducted 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. They rated protective factors at baseline, and again at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up periods.  The SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total inversely predicted any charges in the subsequent two years (area under the curve scores [AUCs] = .61 and .60, respectively, p < .05).  Furthermore, when adolescents’ protective total scores increased, their self-reported violence decreased, thus providing evidence that these factors might play a causally-relevant role in reducing violence.  However, protective factors did not provide incremental validity over risk factors.  In addition, because these measures are brief and use a dichotomous rating system, they primarily captured deficits in protective factors (i.e., low scores).  This suggests a need for more comprehensive measures.

A considerable proportion of research in the field of violence risk assessment has focused on the accuracy of clinical judgements of offender dangerousness. This has largely
been determined through research which compares the accuracy of clinical predictions of offender dangerousness or future violence to mathematical predictions. What has
been less researched is the influence of decision making heuristics and biases on clinical judgements of violence risk assessment. The current paper discusses decision making
heuristics and biases and applies the theory to clinical judgements in a violence risk assessment context. Based on the current review, it is suggested that in order to improve
the effectiveness clinical judgements in violence risk assessment, a greater level of empirical research specifically examining the effects of the heuristics and biases in
this context must be conducted, with the possibility of incorporating debiasing training into clinical practice.

full paper attached.

The paper seeks to provide a synthetic overview of the current and potential uses of “predictive algorithms” in the context of criminal justice systems, as well as of the critical issues arising from such tools.In the first part (§§ 2-3), the main uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools within the legal systems which have implemented them will be presented. Then a synthetic framework of the possible fields of application of AI in the context of criminal justice will be provided. In the second part (§§ 4-5), the problems arising from the introduction of algorithmic tools in criminal justice will be analysed, with special attention to the fundamental rights guaranteed at a European level, the general principles of criminal law and procedure and the further juridical limits, provided by supranational and national law. In the conclusions (§ 6), an attempt will be made to define the acceptable scopes of application of algorithmic tools in the criminal justice system and to identify the necessary precautions and conditions for the use of new technologies to be consistent with the national and European legal framework.

Shaffer, C. S., Fuller, E. K., & Guy, L. (2020). Brief and emerging violence risk assessment measures. In R. Otto & K. Douglas (Eds), Handbook of violence risk assessment (Second Edition). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor Francis.

In this chapter, we review ten structured decision-making tools that show considerable clinical promise in the screening or assessment of risk for different types of violence: Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression—Inpatient Version, Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression—Youth Version, Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression: Women’s Version, Violence-Risk Screening-10, Domestic Violence Screening Instrument, Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry, Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool—II, Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management, Stalking Risk Profile, and Assessment of Risk for Honour-Based Violence. Following a summary of shared features amongst the tools, we provide a brief description of each tool, focusing on their purpose, content, and characteristics, available empirical research on psychometric properties, and an analysis of professional uptake. The chapter concludes with directions for future research on the psychometric properties and applicability of these instruments.

Over the past two decades, the role of risk-needs assessment in the criminal justice system has increased substantially. This study provides validation data on the Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R) and the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) using a large male cohort ( N = 975) with a substantial proportion of ethnic minority offenders. In comparing the

El trabajo analiza algunos de los puntos de contacto entre culpabilidad y peligrosidad (imputabilidad disminuida, agravante de reincidencia, medidas de seguridad para imputables peligrosos), y lo que supone en este contexto la sustitución de la vieja noción de peligrosidad por la moderna valoración estructurada del riesgo de reincidencia, de la que se ha dicho que no sólo realiza estimaciones de riesgo más precisas y objetivas, sino en cierto sentido también más ‘justas’: ¿es ello cierto? Para responder a esa pregunta este trabajo explora los importantes problemas valorativos que (además de los metodológicos, que he analizado en otros lugares) suscitan las modernas valoraciones estructuradas de riesgo: los peligros de los sesgos, las profecías autocumplidas, la intensificación de la discriminación de minorías, y el castigo de la pobreza, entre otros.
This paper analyzes some of the contact points between culpability and dangerousness (decreased imputability, recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, security measures for dangerous criminals), and it also describes which are the implications of replacing in this context the old notion of dangerousness by modern structured risk assessments. It has been said that the latter not only offer more precise and objective risk estimations, but also that they are in a certain sense more fair: is that true? To answer this question, this work explores relevant moral and political problems that (in addition to the methodological ones, which I have studied elsewhere) modern structured risk assessments raise: the dangers of biases, self-fulfilling prophecies, intensifying the discrimination of minority groups, and the punishment of poverty, among others.

Neal, T.M.S., Miller, S.L., & Shealy, R.C. (2015). A field study of a comprehensive violence risk assessment battery. 
Criminal Justice & Behavior, online first publication.  doi: 10.1177/0093854815572252.

We used archival data to examine the predictive validity of a pre-release violence risk assessment battery over six years at a forensic hospital (N=230, 100% male, 63.0% African-American, 34.3% Caucasian).  Examining “real world” forensic decision-making is important for illuminating potential areas for improvement.  The battery included the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, Schedule of Imagined Violence, and Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory.  Three outcome “recidivism” variables included contact violence, contact & threatened violence, and any reason for hospital return.  Results indicated measures of general violence risk and psychopathy were highly correlated but weakly associated with reports of imagined violence and a measure of anger.  Measures of imagined violence and anger were correlated with one another.  Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analyses revealed, unexpectedly, that none of the scales or subscales predicted recidivism better than chance.  Multiple regression indicated the battery failed to account for recidivism outcomes.  We conclude by discussing three possible explanations, including timing of assessments, controlled versus field studies, and recidivism base rates.

Gray, A. L., Shaffer, C. S., Bhanwer, A., Viljoen, J. L., & Douglas, K. S. (2016, June). Violent recidivism among adolescent offenders: An examination of the summary risk rating of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. Poster presented at the 77th Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

The current study examined the predictive validity of the summary risk rating (SSR) of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006) in a sample of 156 male and female adolescent offenders. Using a prospective study design, youth were followed for an average follow-up period of 3.36 years yielding a base rate of 25.6% for violent recidivism. Statistical analyses revealed that across the SRR categories, rates of violent reoffending differed significantly with a gradual increase being observed across the Low, Moderate, and High-risk categories (i.e., 6.5%, 19.4%, and 45.3%, respectively). Correlational analyses revealed significant medium to large associations between the SSR and SAVRY protective factors and risk total scores. With respect to predictive accuracy, both the SRR and risk total score generated significantly large AUC values for violent recidivism (AUC = .71 and .72, respectively), whereas the AUC value for the protective factors total score was considered small and non-significant (AUC = .57). Despite the strong association between the SRR and violent recidivism, the SRR failed to provide incremental validity relative to the SAVRY risk and protective factors total scores as revealed by Cox regression. Likewise, however, neither the SAVRY risk nor the protective factors total scores provided incremental validity relative to the SRR.

Child-to-parent violence takes different forms (physical, psychological or economic) and can be addressed in the judicial system or in clinical practice. The current paper compares 61 clinical and 30 judicialized cases that were evaluated using the Child-to-Parent Violence Risk assessment tool (CPVR). Results showed a higher prevalence of risk factors in the judicialsample. This group of aggressors had worse profiles of violence (bidirectionality of the parent/child violence, violenceother than CPV, and more CPV complaints), more psychological issues (low frustration tolerance, little anger management,narcissism, and violent attitudes) and, most notably, more dysfunctional families (violence between parents, cohabitationproblems, inversion of the hierarchy, non-violent conflicts, and even criminal history of the parents). Logistic regressionshowed that narcissism, attitudes justifying violence, violence between parents, and problems of parents themselves(such mental disorders or drug abuse) allowed for correct classification of 89.4% of cases. Total CPVR scores differedbetween groups (25.8 vs. 14.2), and classification was good for both type of group (AUC = .830) and injuries to mother (AUC= .764). A cut-off score between 22 and 23 showed the best results in prediction of group and injuries to mother. Utility ofthe CPVR, and next steps in its development are discussed.

La Violencia Filio-Parental (VFP) puede manifestarse de distintas formas (física, psicológica o económica) y su abordaje puede hacerse desde el sistema judicial o desde la práctica clínica. El presente estudio compara 61 casos clínicos (no judicializados) y 30 judicializados que fueron evaluados con la Guía para la Valoración del Riesgo de Violencia Filio-Parental (RVFP). Los resultados mostraron una mayor prevalencia de los factores de riesgo en la muestra judicial, con un perfil de violencia peor (más bidireccionalidad, más violencia distinta a la VFP y más denuncias por VFP), más complicaciones psicológicas enlos agresores (baja tolerancia a la frustración, poco control de la ira, narcisismo y actitudes violentas) y, en especial, un perfilfamiliar más disfuncional (violencia entre los padres, problemas de convivencia, inversión de jerarquía, conflictos e inclusoantecedentes delictivos en los padres). Una regresión logística puso de manifiesto que el narcisismo, las actitudes que justifican la violencia, la violencia entre los progenitores y los problemas de los padres (como trastorno mental o abuso de drogas) permitían clasificar correctamente al 89.4% de los casos. El grupo midió diferencias en la puntuación en la Guía RVFP (25.8vs. 14.2) y la clasificación fue buena para el tipo de grupo (AUC = .830) y lesiones a la madre (AUC = .764). Un punto de corteentre 22 y 23 mostró los mejores resultados en la predicción del grupo y las lesiones a la madre. Se discute la utilidad de la RVFP y los siguientes pasos en su desarrollo.

In this report, we introduce a tool for risk assessment in written communication – the profile risk assessment tool (PRAT). PRAT extracts a profile consisting of 30 personality and risk-behavior-related variables from any given text. PRAT includes a theoretically generated threat profile to be used as a comparison norm. To assess threat potential, the extracted profile is compared to a theoretical profile as well as 27 834 profiles including known cases of violent lone offenders, school shooters, and social media users from various sources (Google blogs, Stormfront, Reddit, Islamic Awakening, and Boards). A preliminary case study showed that the theoretical profile was highly similar (interclass correlation) to profiles of lone offenders and school shooters but not profiles of individuals from the normal population extracted from text communicated on social media. Another case study examined the extent to which the PRAT-extracted profiles from various sources (e.g., Google blogs vs. violent lone offenders) could be identified using quadratic discriminant analyses. The results of this study showed a promising outcome in some cases but limited in others due to the small number of included cases (e.g., violent lone offenders). Some limitations and challenges of PRAT are identified and will be subject to development and further elaboration. PRAT is aimed to be open for authorized researchers and law enforcement professionals.

Viljoen, J. L., Gray A. L., Shaffer, C. S., Bhanwer, A., Tafreshi, D., & Douglas, K. S. (2016). Does reassessment of risk improve predictions? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.  Psychological Assessment, 29, 1096-1110.

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents’ risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, the authors tested 3 hypotheses as to why reassessment might improve predictions, namely the shelf-life, dynamic change, and familiarity hypotheses. Research assistants (RAs) rated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) every 3 months over a 1-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. The authors then examined charges for violence and any offense over a 2-year follow-up period, and youths’ self-reports of reoffending. Contrary to the shelf-life hypothesis, predictions did not decline or expire over time. Instead, time-dependent area under the curve scores remained consistent across the follow-up period. Contrary to the dynamic change hypothesis, changes in youth’s risk total scores, compared to what is average for that youth, did not predict changes in reoffending. Finally, contrary to the familiarity hypothesis, reassessments were no more predictive than initial assessments, despite RAs’ increased familiarity with youth. Before drawing conclusions, researchers should evaluate the extent to which youth receiving the usual probation services show meaningful short-term changes in risk and, if so, whether risk assessment tools are sensitive to these changes.

Shaffer, C.S., Douglas, K.S. & Viljoen, J. L. (2018, October). Risk assessment of dating violence among youth: Challenges and directions forward.  Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, Whistler, BC, Canada.

Dating violence among adolescents is an ongoing, serious, and global social and public health problem. Given evidence for risk and protective factors associated with dating violence, a next step in applying research to prevent or minimize harm includes the development of risk assessment instruments that aggregate predictors. The current review was undertaken to identify available assessment methods to evaluate risk of dating violence among youth. Three types of instruments were identified: (a) adolescent perpetrator and victim self-report appraisals of risk (e.g., Dating Behavior Survey), (b) adolescent general violent and offending risk assessment instruments (e.g., Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth, Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory) and (c) adult intimate partner violence risk assessments instruments (e.g., Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Scale: Version 3). Each instrument type has promising features.  However, important limitations were also noted which suggest that a risk assessment instrument designed specifically to evaluate the likelihood of dating violence among adolescents is needed.  Future directions for dating violence risk assessment, including steps to adapt the Spousal Risk Assessment Scale for use with adolescents, are discussed.

Forensic Psychological Assessment in Practice: Case Studies presents a set of forensic criminal cases as examples of a scientist-practitioner model for forensic psychological assessment. The cases address forensic issues, such as criminal responsibility, violence risk assessment, treatment planning, and referral to long term forensic care. The authors address a variety of mental disorders including psychosis, posttraumatic stress disorder, psychopathy and other personality disorders. The book will be useful for novice and experienced forensic psychologists and psychiatrists who are looking for case studies that integrate recent empirical evidence with psychological test findings.

There is emerging evidence that the performance of risk assessment instruments is weaker when used for clinical decision-making than for research purposes. For instance, research has found lower agreement between evaluators This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.