The Leave Risk Assessment (LRA) is an actuarial risk assessment tool composed of both historical and treatment-related subscales, developed to assess the risk of serious reoffending by forensic psychiatric patients. This study examines the psychometric properties of the Leave Risk Assessment. The sample was drawn from the same population on which the tool was developed consisting of 195 Dutch forensic psychiatric patients; 78 who re-offended during leave and 117 non-reoffenders. The Leave Risk Assessment had moderate predictive validity (AUC = .84) as well as incremental predictive value over the HCR-20. The results show that the LRA can have a significant contribution in the decision-making process regarding authorized leave.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlaauwE.HoeveM., Van MarleH.SheridanL.2002. Mentally disordered offenders: nternational perspectives on how to deal with criminally irresponsible offenders., The Hague, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
2.
CallahanL.A.SilverE.1998. Revocation of conditional release: A comparison of individual and program characteristics across four U.S. states.. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 21: 177–186.
3.
CraigL.A.BrowneK.D.StringerI.BeechA.2005. Sexual recidivism: A review of static, dynamic and actuarial predictors. Journal of Sexual Aggression., 11: 65–84.
4.
DernevikM.FalkheimM.HolmqvistR.SandellR.2001. “Implementing risk assessment procedures in a forensic psychiatric setting: Clinical judgment revisited”. In Sex and violence: The psychology of crime and risk assessment Edited by: FarringtonD.HollinC.McMurranM.83–101. London, UK: Routledge
5.
De VogelVDe RuiterC.2004. Differences between clinicians and researchers in assessing risk of violence in forensic psychiatric patients. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology., 15: 145–164.
6.
De VogelV.RuiterC.de HildebrandM.BosB.Van de VenP.2004. Type of discharge and risk of recidivism measured by the HCR-20: A retrospective study in a Dutch sample of treated forensic psychiatric patients. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health., 3: 149–165.
7.
DouglasK.S.OgloffJ.R. P.HartS.D.2003. Evaluation of a model of violence risk assessment among forensic psychiatric patients. Psychiatric Services., 54: 1372–1379.
8.
DouglasK.S.OgloffJ.R. P.NichollsT.L.GrantI.1999. Assessing the risk of violence in psychiatric outpatients: The predictive validity of the HCR-20 risk scheme. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology., 67: 917–930.
9.
DouglasK.S.ReevesK.A.2009. “Historical-Clinical-Risk management-20 (HCR-20) violence risk assessment scheme: Rationale application, and empirical overview.”. In Handbook of violence risk assessment Edited by: OttoR. K.DouglasK. S.147–186. New York, NY: Routledge
10.
DouglasK.S.SkeemJ.2005. Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law., 11: 347–383.
11.
FleissJ.L.1986. The design and analysis of clinical experiments, New York, NY: Wiley.
12.
GobeilR.SerinR.2009. Preliminary evidence of adaptive decision making techniques used by parole board members. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 8: 97–104.
13.
HansonR.K.Morton-BourgonK.E.2005. The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology., 73: 1154–1163.
14.
HareR.D.1991. The Revised Psychopathy Checklist, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
15.
HartS.D.MichieC.CookD.J.2007a. Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: Evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group v. individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(suppl. 949): 60–65.
16.
HildebrandM.2006. Onderzoek Onttrekkingen en incidenten TBS 2000–2005 [Research into absconding and incidents during TBS, 2000-2005]., Utrecht: Expertisecentrum Forensische Psychiatrie.
17.
HildebrandM.HesperB.L.SpreenM.NijmanH.L. I.2005. De waarde van gestructureerde risicotaxatie en van de diagnose psychopathie: Een onderzoek naar de betrouwbaarheid en predictieve validiteit van de HCR-20, HKT-30 en PCL-R[The value of structured risk assessment and of the diagnosis psychopathy: A research to the reliability and predictive validity of the HCR-20, HKT-30 and PCL-R], Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Expertisecentrum Forensische Psychiatrie.
18.
HiltermanE.L. B.2000. Tijdens de oefening terug naar af: Een onderzoek naar de predictie van ernstige recidive door TBS-gestelden [Back to square one: prediction of serious recidivism during leave by TBS patients]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie., 42: 232–252.
19.
HiltermanE.L. B.2001. Statische vergelijking van tijdens verlof recidiverende en niet- recidiverende TBS-gestelden [Static comparison of during leave recidivating and non-recidivating TBS patients]. Proces., 80: 121–127.
20.
HiltermanE.L. B.ChakhssiF. September. The HCR-20, BSI & LRA: A comparison of three methods of prospective risk assessmentPaper presented at the 12th annual conference of the European Association of Psychology and Law, Leuven, Belgium
21.
KronerD.G.MillsJ.F.2001. The accuracy of five risk appraisal instruments in misconduct and new convictions. Criminal Justice and Behavior., 28: 471–489.
22.
McDermottB.E.ScottC.L.BusseD.AndradeF.ZozayaM.QuanbeckC.D.2008. The conditional release of insanity acquittees: Three decades of decision-making. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36: 329–336.
23.
McDermottB.E.ThompsonJ.W.2006. The review panel process: An algorithm for the conditional release of insanity acquittees. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29: 101–111.
24.
MossmanD.1994. Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology., 62: 783–792.
25.
MossmanD.SellkeT.M. July. “Avoiding errors about ‘margins of errors’”. In British Journal of PsychiatryElectronic letters sent to the journal available from: http:/bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/letters/190/49/s60–5674
26.
MurrayJ.ThomsonM.E.2010. Applying decision making theory to clinical judgments in violence risk assessment. Europe's Journal of Psychology., 2: 150–171.
27.
MurrayJ.ThomsonM.E.CookeD.J.CharlesK.E.2011. Influencing expert judgment: Attributions of crime causality. Legal and Criminological Psychology., 16: 126–143.
28.
QuinseyV.L.HarrisG.T.RiceM.E.CormierC.A.1998. Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29.
SjöstedtG.GrannM.2002. Risk assessment: What is being predicted by actuarial prediction instruments?. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1: 179–183.
30.
SkeemJ.MulveyE.2002. “Monitoring the violence potential of mentally disordered offenders being treated in the community”. In Care of the mental lydisordered offender in the community, Edited by: BuchananA.111–142. New York, NY: Oxford Press.
31.
Van MarleH.J.C.2002. The Dutch entrustment act (TBS): Its principles and innovations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health., 1: 83–92.
32.
VincentG.M.RossD.J.WhittemoreK.EavesD.HartS.D.OgloffJ.R. P. April. Using the HCR-20: File-based researcher ratings vs. file + interview- based clinician ratings, Vancouver, BC, Canada: Paper presented at the Founding conference of the International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services.
33.
WebsterC.D.DouglasK.S.EavesD.HartS.D.1997. The HCR-20 scheme: Assessing risk for violence - version 2, Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
