Gender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments.
Structured risk assessment should guide clinical risk management, but it is uncertain which instrument has the highest predictive accuracy among men and women. In the present study, the authors compared the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003); the Historical, Clinical, Risk...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2009
|
| _version_ | 1797094579959234560 |
|---|---|
| author | Coid, J Yang, M Ullrich, S Zhang, T Sizmur, S Roberts, C Farrington, D Rogers, R |
| author_facet | Coid, J Yang, M Ullrich, S Zhang, T Sizmur, S Roberts, C Farrington, D Rogers, R |
| author_sort | Coid, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Structured risk assessment should guide clinical risk management, but it is uncertain which instrument has the highest predictive accuracy among men and women. In the present study, the authors compared the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003); the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (HCR-20; C. D. Webster, K. S. Douglas, D. Eaves, and S. D. Hart, 1997); the Risk Matrix 2000-Violence (RM2000[V]; D. Thornton et al., 2003); the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; V. L. Quinsey, G. T. Harris, M. E. Rice, and C. A. Cormier, 1998); the Offenders Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS; J. B. Copas and P. Marshall, 1998; R. Taylor, 1999); and the total previous convictions among prisoners, prospectively assessed prerelease. The authors compared predischarge measures with subsequent offending and instruments ranked using multivariate regression. Most instruments demonstrated significant but moderate predictive ability. The OGRS ranked highest for violence among men, and the PCL-R and HCR-20 H subscale ranked highest for violence among women. The OGRS and total previous acquisitive convictions demonstrated greatest accuracy in predicting acquisitive offending among men and women. Actuarial instruments requiring no training to administer performed as well as personality assessment and structured risk assessment and were superior among men for violence. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T04:15:57Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:c96b8fa0-5430-40f1-99e5-adcdf02aa6ad |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T04:15:57Z |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:c96b8fa0-5430-40f1-99e5-adcdf02aa6ad2022-03-27T06:59:00ZGender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:c96b8fa0-5430-40f1-99e5-adcdf02aa6adEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2009Coid, JYang, MUllrich, SZhang, TSizmur, SRoberts, CFarrington, DRogers, RStructured risk assessment should guide clinical risk management, but it is uncertain which instrument has the highest predictive accuracy among men and women. In the present study, the authors compared the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003); the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (HCR-20; C. D. Webster, K. S. Douglas, D. Eaves, and S. D. Hart, 1997); the Risk Matrix 2000-Violence (RM2000[V]; D. Thornton et al., 2003); the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; V. L. Quinsey, G. T. Harris, M. E. Rice, and C. A. Cormier, 1998); the Offenders Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS; J. B. Copas and P. Marshall, 1998; R. Taylor, 1999); and the total previous convictions among prisoners, prospectively assessed prerelease. The authors compared predischarge measures with subsequent offending and instruments ranked using multivariate regression. Most instruments demonstrated significant but moderate predictive ability. The OGRS ranked highest for violence among men, and the PCL-R and HCR-20 H subscale ranked highest for violence among women. The OGRS and total previous acquisitive convictions demonstrated greatest accuracy in predicting acquisitive offending among men and women. Actuarial instruments requiring no training to administer performed as well as personality assessment and structured risk assessment and were superior among men for violence. |
| spellingShingle | Coid, J Yang, M Ullrich, S Zhang, T Sizmur, S Roberts, C Farrington, D Rogers, R Gender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments. |
| title | Gender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments. |
| title_full | Gender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments. |
| title_fullStr | Gender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Gender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments. |
| title_short | Gender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments. |
| title_sort | gender differences in structured risk assessment comparing the accuracy of five instruments |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT coidj genderdifferencesinstructuredriskassessmentcomparingtheaccuracyoffiveinstruments AT yangm genderdifferencesinstructuredriskassessmentcomparingtheaccuracyoffiveinstruments AT ullrichs genderdifferencesinstructuredriskassessmentcomparingtheaccuracyoffiveinstruments AT zhangt genderdifferencesinstructuredriskassessmentcomparingtheaccuracyoffiveinstruments AT sizmurs genderdifferencesinstructuredriskassessmentcomparingtheaccuracyoffiveinstruments AT robertsc genderdifferencesinstructuredriskassessmentcomparingtheaccuracyoffiveinstruments AT farringtond genderdifferencesinstructuredriskassessmentcomparingtheaccuracyoffiveinstruments AT rogersr genderdifferencesinstructuredriskassessmentcomparingtheaccuracyoffiveinstruments |