Violence risk assessment in psychiatric patients in China: A systematic review

Abstract

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review on violence risk assessment instruments used for psychiatric patients in China.

Methods:

A systematic search was conducted from 1980 until 2014 to identify studies that used psychometric tools or structured instruments to assess aggression and violence risk. Information from primary studies was extracted, including demographic characteristics of the samples used, study design characteristics, and reliability and validity estimates.

Results:

A total of 30 primary studies were identified that investigated aggression or violence; 6 reported on tools assessing aggression while an additional 24 studies reported on structured instruments designed to predict violence. Although measures of reliability were typically good, estimates of predictive validity were mostly in the range of poor to moderate, with only 1 study finding good validity. These estimates were typically lower than that found in previous work for Western samples.

Conclusion:

There is currently little evidence to support the use of current violence risk assessment instruments in psychiatric patients in China. Developing more accurate and scalable approaches are research priorities.

Keywords

Violence risk assessment systematic review prediction China

Introduction

Treatment practice guidelines in many Western countries recommend the assessment of violence risk in individuals with serious mental illness, particularly schizophrenia (American Psychiatric Association, 2004; McGorry et al., 2005; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009). Until late 2012, however, there were no national mental health laws in China and no legislation to mandate the assessment of violence risk in those with a serious mental illness. Article 30 of the new National Mental Health Law, however, provides for the involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons providing that two conditions are met: (1) the individual is diagnosed with a serious mental illness and (2) the individual poses a risk to either self or others (Shao and Xie, 2013). Both these criteria must be satisfied through a diagnostic and risk assessment (Zhao and Dawson, 2014). Survey data suggest that China has an estimated 173 million psychiatric patients (Phillips et al., 2009), and 728 hospitals as of 2012 (Chinese Health Statistics Yearbook, 2013). The introduction of this new law will therefore have widespread implications.

Traditionally, mental health professionals in China have tended to rely on unstructured clinical judgment when assessing violence risk in psychiatric patients (Ho et al., 2013). In many Western countries, however, structured assessment instruments are commonly used in both forensic and general psychiatric units for violence risk assessment (Archer et al., 2006; Higgins et al., 2005; Khiroya et al., 2009). Although these tools are rarely used as the sole basis for clinical decision-making owing to their low positive predictive values (PPVs) (Ryan et al., 2010), the way in which the dangerousness criterion is to be operationalized under China’s new mental health law is, at present, unclear (Shao and Xie, 2013), leaving the decision as to how to satisfy this requirement open to the discretion of those undertaking the assessment (Ding, 2014). Determining violence risk from structured clinical judgment (SCJ) tools may represent one approach that mental health professionals in China may adopt to satisfy this criterion. More likely, though, these tools are being introduced as part of a range of measures to improve patient care, and identifying high-risk groups could enable targeted interventions to be introduced and resources to be directed toward those at highest risk of adverse outcomes.

These instruments, however, have mostly been developed and validated in Western samples. Given that China’s culture, legislation and psychiatry services are different, it has been argued that these violence risk assessment instruments may be associated with lower predictive validity when used in Chinese psychiatric populations (Yao et al., 2014b). A recent review concluded that some SCJ tools provide high levels of reliability and validity in Chinese samples, particularly the Chinese version of the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20) and the Violence Risk Screening–10 (V-RISK-10) (Gu et al., 2014). However, this review was limited in four ways: (1) it focused on mentally disordered offenders rather than general psychiatric patients and offender populations, (2) it did not consider three popular tools currently used to assess violence risk in China (i.e. the Violence Risk Scale–Chinese version [VRS-C], the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised [PCL-R] and the Brøset Violence Checklist [BVC]), (3) it did not compare the predictive validity of Chinese-developed instruments to Western-developed ones and (4) the review lacked clear inclusion and exclusion criteria.

We have therefore conducted a systematic review of the use of risk assessment instruments for the prediction of violence to synthesize the evidence base for the reliability and validity of such tools in Chinese samples. Our aim was to examine three main areas: (1) the current state of risk assessment research in China, (2) the instrument most frequently used to assess aggression and violence risk in China and finally (3) whether these instruments are associated with a similar degree of predictive validity as found in Western samples.

Methods

Search strategy

Eight computerized databases were searched for studies published between 1 January 1980 and 3 June 2014: Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), National Science and Technology Library (NST), WANFANG data and the Database Research Center of the Chongqing Branch of the Institute of Scientific & Technical Information of China (CB-ISTIC). Combinations of the following keywords were used to identify relevant studies: aggression OR violence OR psychopathy AND risk assessment OR prediction. Reference lists were also hand-searched to identify additional studies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were conducted in mainland China and examined the reliability and/or validity of a psychometric tool or risk assessment instrument designed to assess or predict the likelihood of either aggression or violence. Although previous work suggests that the inclusion of studies based on the original calibration sample will lead to effect size inflation (Blair et al., 2008), we nevertheless included such studies as we wished to provide an overview of all instruments, including locally developed instruments, currently used in psychiatric practice in China.

Studies that used violence risk assessment instruments to estimate the prevalence of violence, but did not report data on the reliability or predictive validity of these instruments were excluded (Chen and Zhou, 2012). Where multiple publications used overlapping samples, we included only the study with the largest sample size to avoid double-counting.

Data extraction

Data were extracted by two researchers working independently (J.Z. and X.Z.) using a standardized form, which included information on demographic and descriptive features of the sample, and reliability and validity statistics from each study. Measures of reliability included Cronbach’s alpha, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), test–retest reliability, split-half reliability and the inter-rater consistency coefficient. Measures of validity included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs). No one measure of reliability or validity was preferred; rather, a combination of statistics should be examined as part of any judgment about the performance of any tool. Additionally, for locally developed tools, information on item content was also extracted. If there were any uncertainties, these were clarified in consultation with one of the co-authors (K.W.).

Results

Characteristics of the included studies

The initial search identified a total of 528 records including 481 in Chinese and 47 in English. Another 8 records (6 in Chinese and 2 in English) were identified after searching reference lists of other reviews. Following application of the inclusion criteria, the number of potentially eligible records was reduced to 89 (64 in Chinese and 25 in English). When exclusion criteria were applied, the final number of records included in this review was reduced to 30 (22 in Chinese and 8 in English) (Figure 1). Studies were most commonly excluded because they were not concerned with the assessment of violence risk.

Figure 1.

Systematic review search strategy flow diagram.

Tools for aggression assessment

Six of the 30 primary studies assessed the reliability and validity of tools measuring aggression (Table 1). The instruments used for the assessment of aggression were the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS; k = 5; 83%) and a locally developed instrument (k = 1; 17%). Half of these studies were conducted in mixed adult forensic and general psychiatric samples (k = 3).

Table 1.

An overview of tools assessing aggression in China.

Reference	Tool/s	Approach	n	Age	Sex	Study setting	Study design	Aggression risk factors
Chen and Deng (2012)	Self-developed instrument	Actuarial	1465	Violent group: 35.8 ± 11.5 years. Nonviolent group: 35.1 ± 11.3 years.	Males: 100%.	General psychiatric hospital.	Prospective	Delusions, hallucinations, mood state, treatment adherence and substance abuse.
Shao et al. (2010)	SSP and MOAS	Actuarial	400	Overall sample: 15–18 years.	Males: 100%.	Youth detention center.	Retrospective	Impulsiveness, trait irritability, verbal trait aggression and physical trait aggression.
Wang (2012)	MOAS, PANSS and TPQ	Actuarial	122	Violent group: 40.7 ± 9.7 years. Nonviolent group: 48.5 ± 11.4 years.	Males: 100%.	Forensic and general psychiatric hospitals.	Cross-sectional	Novelty seeking and reward dependence.
Yang (2007)	MMPI, MOAS	Actuarial	101	Overall sample: 18–50 years.	Males: 100%.	Prison.	Retrospective	Unemployment, young age, previous violence, impulsiveness, lack of social supports, experienced childhood abuse, lack of regret, mental state and substance abuse.
Zhang and Hu (2011)	MOAS	Actuarial	490	Violent group: 36 ± 12 years. Nonviolent group: 39 ± 18 years.	Males: 40.6% (n = 199). Females: 31.8% (n = 156). Unreported: 27.1% (n = 133).	Forensic and general psychiatric hospitals.	Retrospective
Zhuang et al. (2006)	MOAS	Actuarial	78	Violent group: 36.2 ± 11.5 years.Nonviolent group: 38.6 ± 10.1 years.	Males: 67.9% (n = 53).Females: 32.1% (n = 25).	Forensic and general psychiatric units.	Retrospective	Positive psychotic symptoms, depression or paranoid personality disorder, past violence and alcohol abuse history, early aversive family environment.

SSP: Swedish University Scales of Personality; MOAS: Modified Overt Aggression Scale; PANSS: Positive and Negative Symptom Scale; TPQ: Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire; MMPI: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Tools for violence risk assessment and prediction

The remaining 24 primary studies reported information for a violence risk assessment tool (Table 2). Ten reports (42%) employed a locally developed violence risk assessment instrument, another 14 (60%) used tools developed in Western countries. These included the Violence Risk Scale (VRS; k = 4; 17%), the HCR-20 (k = 3; 12%), the PCL-R (k = 2; 8%), the V-RISK-10 (k = 3; 12%), the BVC (k = 2; 8%), the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; k = 1; 4%), the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R; k = 1; 4%) and a Chinese modified version of the Violence Scale (VS-CM; k = 1; 4%). The majority of these studies were conducted in adult general psychiatric cohorts (k = 11; 44%).

Table 2.

Study characteristics, reliability and validity information for violence risk assessment tools in China.

Reference	Tool/s	Approach	n	Age	Sex	Study design	Study setting	Inpatient/ outpatient	Domains assessed	Reliability	Validity
Chan (2014)	CRAT-P	Actuarial	2225	18 years or above.	Male: 100%.	Retrospective	Community		Static, dynamic		AUC: 0.76. Sensitivity: 61.0%. Specificity: 64.2%.
Chen et al. (2014)	VS-CM	Actuarial	107	33.4 ± 11.9 years.	Male: 30.8% (n = 33). Female: 69.2% (n = 74).	Prospective	Acute psychiatric ward	Inpatients	Static, dynamic		AUC: 0.80. Sensitivity: 97.0%. Specificity: 35.0%.
Deng et al. (2008)	SD	Actuarial	1440	35.0 ± 10.9 years.	Males: 66.3% (n = 955). Females: 33.7% (n = 485).	Prospective	General psychiatry hospital	Inpatients	Static, dynamic
Han and Zhao (2013)	SD	Actuarial	397	15–40 years.	Males: 55.2% (n = 219). Females: 44.8% (n = 178).	Prospective	General psychiatric hospital	Inpatients	Static, dynamic
Ho et al. (2013)	HCR-20	SCJ	220	19–78 years.	Males: 75.0% (n = 165). Females: 25.0% (n = 55).	Prospective and retrospective	General and forensic psychiatric hospital	Outpatients	Static, dynamic	ICC: H subscale score: 0.71. C subscale score: 0.43. R subscale score: 0.37. Total score: 0.73.	AUC: Total score (6 months): 0.70. Total score (12 months): 0.67.
Wang et al. (2009)	SAVRY	SCJ	109	Violent group: 16.1 ± 1.3 years. Nonviolent group: 16.1 ± 1.2 years.	Males: 100%.	Retrospective	Youth Detention Centers (YDCs)		Static
Li et al. (2010)	SD	SCJ	860	47.9 ± 14.3 years.	Males: 47.3% (n = 407). Females: 52.7% (n = 453).	Retrospective	Community	Outpatients	Static	Cronbach’s alpha: 0.86.
Liu et al. (2010b)	SD	Actuarial	878	Offenders: 23.6 ± 1.7 years. Controls:23.6 ± 1.7 years.	Males: 100%.	Prospective	Prison		Static	Cronbach’s alpha: Violence outcome: 0.78. Antisocial behavior outcome: 0.74. Anger outcome: 0.89. Violent attitude outcome: 0.83. Test–retest reliability: Violence outcome: 0.80. Antisocial behavior outcome: 0.83. Anger outcome: 0.80. Violent attitude outcome: 0.77.
Liu et al. (2010a)	PCL-R	Actuarial	60	20–38 years.	Males: 100%.	Retrospective	Prison		Static	ICC: 0.81. Cronbach’s alpha: 0.85.	Correlation coefficient: Between PCL-R and PDQ: 0.59.
Lv et al. (2013)	HCR-20	SCJ	156	33.8 ± 11.3 years.	Males: 100%.	Prospective + retrospective	General psychiatric hospital	Inpatients	Static, dynamic	Cronbach’s alpha: Historical subscale: 0.62. Clinical subscale: 0.58. Risk management subscale: 0.66. Total score: 0.78. Intraclass correlation coefficient: Historical subscale: 0.97. Clinical subscale: 0.92. Risk management subscale: 0.82. Total score: 0.85. Test–retest reliability: Historical subscale: 0.95. Clinical subscale: 0.52. Risk management subscale: 0.77. Total score: 0.88.	AUC: Historical subscale: 0.73. Clinical subscale: 0.63. Risk management subscale: 0.60. Total score: 0.72. PPV: 60.0%. NPV: 77.3%. Percent correctly classified: 75.6%.
Shi et al. (2012)	PCL-R	Actuarial	109	31.6 ± 12.1 years.	Males: 76.1% (n = 83). Females: 23.9% (n = 26).	Retrospective	Forensic psychiatry hospital	Inpatients	Static
Shi et al. (2014)	BVC, V-RISK-10	Actuarial	118	35.6+13.5 years.	Males: 57.6% (n = 68). Females: 42.4% (n = 50).	Prospective	General psychiatric hospital	Inpatients	Static, dynamic	BVC ICC: 0.95. Cronbach’s alphas: 0.81. V-RISK-10 ICC: 0.91. Cronbach’s alphas: 0.69.	BVC AUC: 0.79. Sensitivity/specificity: 96.3%/60.9%. PPV: 67.5%. V-RISK-10 AUC: 0.72. Sensitivity/specificity: 87.0%/57.8%. PPV: 63.5%.
Tian (2013)	SD	Actuarial	57	34.8 ± 5.9 years.	Males: 61.4% (n = 35). Females: 38.6% (n = 22).	Prospective	General psychiatric hospital	Inpatients	Static, dynamic
Wang (2012)	SD	Actuarial	6633	15.1 ± 0.9 years.	Boys: 49.4% (n = 3280). Girls: 50.6% (n = 3353).	Retrospective	School		Static	Cronbach’s alphas: Boys: 0.92, girls: 0.89. Test–retest reliability: 0.76.	Correlation coefficient: Between the instrument and aggressive behavior subscales of YSR: 0.54. Between the instrument and rule-breaking behavior subscales of YSR: 0.68.
Wang (2012)	VRS	Actuarial	501	41 ± 15 years.	Males: 49.7% (n = 249). Females: 50.3% (n = 252).	Retrospective	Community		Static
Wei and Ma (2013)	SD	Actuarial	148	18–54 years.	Males: 100%.	Prospective	General psychiatric hospital	Inpatients	Static, dynamic
Xiao et al. (2010)	HCR-20	SCJ	60	Violent group: 31.4 ± 9.4 years. Nonviolent group: 31.1 ± 10.1 years.	Males: 100%.	Retrospective	Forensic and general psychiatry hospital	Outpatients	Static, dynamic	Cronbach’s alphas: 0.92. Test–retest reliability: 0.90.	Correlation coefficient: Between HCR-20 and MOAS: 0.84.
Yang and Zhao (2011)	SD	SCJ	10	15–23 years.	Males: 50.0% (n = 5). Females: 50.0% (n = 5).	Retrospective	YDC		Static
Yao et al. (2012)	VRS	Actuarial	376	34.7 ± 12.5 years.	Males: 46.5% (n = 175). Females: 53.5% (n = 201).	Prospective	General psychiatric hospital	Inpatients	Static, dynamic	ICC: 0.89.	AUC: 0.63. Sensitivity/specificity: 0.80/0.38. PPV: 34%. NPV: 82%.
Yao et al. (2014a)	BVC	Actuarial	281	34.5 ± 11.6 years.	Males: 43.1% (n = 121). Females: 56.9% (n = 160).	Prospective	General psychiatric hospital	Inpatients	Static, dynamic		AUC: 0.85. Sensitivity/specificity: 78.5%/ 88.2%.
Yao et al. (2014b)	VRS	Actuarial	397	34.1 ± 12.4 years.	Males: 56.9% (n = 226). Females: 43.1% (n = 171).	Prospective	General psychiatric hospital	Outpatients	Static, dynamic		AUC: 0.62. Sensitivity/specificity: 79.2%/33.3%. PPV: 9.9%. NPV: 94.5%.
Zhan et al. (2013)	V-RISK-10	Actuarial	109	33.1 ± 11.2 years.	Males: 60.6% (n = 66). Females: 39.4% (n = 43).	Prospective	General psychiatric hospital	Inpatients and outpatients	Static	Cronbach’s alphas: 0.83.	Correlation coefficient: Between each of the 10 items with the MOAS total score were from 0.30 to 0.59.
Zhang et al. (2012)	VRS	Actuarial	125	32.5 ± 10.9 years.	Males: 76.0% (n = 95). Females: 24.0% (n = 30).	Retrospective	Forensic psychiatry hospital	Inpatients	Static	ICC: 0.80. Cronbach’s alpha: 0.92. Split-half reliability: 0.91.
Zhang and Liu (2014)	LSI-R	Actuarial	305	31.3 ± 12.9 years.	Males: 88.2% (n = 269). Females: 11.8% (n = 36).	Retrospective, prospective	Community		Static, dynamic	Cronbach’s alpha: LSI-R total: 0.85. Criminal history: 0.75. Education/Employment: 0.78. Finance: 0.12. Family/Marital: 0.68. Accommodation: 0.66. Leisure/Recreation: 0.62. Companions: 0.80. Alcohol/Drug problems: 0.77. Emotional/Personal problems: 0.21. Attitudes/Orientations: 0.77.

SCJ: structured clinical judgment instrument; HCR-20: Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20; SD: self-developed tool; SAVRY: Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth; VRS: Violence Risk Scale; V-RISK-10: Violence Risk Screening–10; YSR: Youth Self-Report Form; PCL-R: Psychopathy Checklist–Revised; CRAT-P: Chinese Risk Assessment Tool for Perpetrators; BVC: Brøset Violence Checklist; VS-CM: Chinese modified version of the Violence Scale; PDQ: Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire; ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient; AUC: Area Under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) Curve; PPV: Positive Predictive Value; NPV: Negative Predictive Value; LSI-R: Level of Service Inventory–Revised; MOAS: Modified Overt Aggression Scale.

Reliability and validity of tools for the assessment of aggression

None of the six included studies of aggression tools reported information on reliability or validity. Rather, they all investigated risk factors associated with aggression. Substance abuse was most commonly identified as a significant risk factor for aggression in these studies (k = 3; 50%), followed by a previous history of aggression and/or violence (k = 3; 50%), positive symptomatology (k = 2; 33%) and impulsiveness (k = 3; 33%). Demographic factors, such as young age, unemployment and early adverse experiences, were also described as risk factors in three studies.

Reliability and validity of tools for the assessment of violence risk

Of the 24 included studies, 15 (63%) reported information on reliability, which was assessed using the following statistics: Cronbach’s alpha, the ICC, test–retest reliability, split-half reliability and the inter-rater consistency coefficient. Most of the locally developed instruments did not report reliability and validity statistics. A summary of these statistics is provided in Table 3.

Table 3.

Summary of the reliability and validity statistics for Western-developed violence risk assessment instruments used in China.

Statistic	Reference	Poor/small	Acceptable/moderate	Good/fair	Excellent
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha^a		0.5 ⩾ α < 0.6	0.6 ⩾ α < 0.7	0.7 ⩾ α < 0.9	α ⩾ 0.9
	Shi et al. (2014)		V-RISK-10	BVC
	Liu et al. (2010a)			PCL-R
	Lv et al. (2013)			HCR-20
	Zhan (2013)			V-RISK-10
	Zhang and Liu (2014)			LSI-R
	Zhang et al. (2012)				VRS
	Xiao et al. (2010)				HCR-20
ICC^b		⩽0.40	0.41 ⩾ ICC ⩽ 0.60	0.61 ⩾ ICC ⩽ 0.80	0.81 ⩾ ICC ⩽ 1.00
	Zhang et al. (2012)			VRS
	Ho et al. (2013)			HCR-20
	Yao (2014b)				V-RISK-10
	Liu et al. (2010a)				PCL-R
	Yao et al. (2012)				VRS
	Shi et al. (2014)				BVC
					V-RISK-10
Test–retest reliability				⩾0.70
	Xiao et al. (2010)			HCR-20
Validity
AUC^c		0.60 ⩾ AUC > 0.70	0.70 ⩾ AUC > 0.80	0.80 ⩾ AUC > 0.90	AUC ⩾ 0.90
	Yao (2014b)	V-RISK-10
	Yao et al. (2014b)
	Shi et al. (2014) Lv et al. (2013)		BVC HCR-20
	Shi et al. (2014)		V-RISK-10
	Ho et al. (2013)	HCR-20 (12 months)	HCR-20 (6 months)
	Chan (2014)		CRAT-P
	Chen et al. (2014)			VS-CM
	Yao et al. (2014a)			BVC

V-RISK-10: Violence Risk Screening–10; BVC: Brøset Violence Checklist; PCL-R: Psychopathy Checklist–Revised; HCR-20: Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20; LSI-R: Level of Service Inventory–Revised; VRS: Violence Risk Scale; ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient; AUC: Area Under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) Curve; CRAT-P: Chinese Risk Assessment Instrument for Perpetrators; VS-CM: Chinese modified version of the Violence Scale.

References for the interpretive cut-points for the reliability and validity statistics used in this table:

Kline (2000).

Landis and Koch (1977).

Swets (1988).

Using Cronbach’s alpha, there was evidence of good reliability for five instruments: the BVC, PCL-R, HCR-20, V-RISK-10 and the LSI-R, and excellent reliability for two instruments: the VRS and HCR-20. According to the ICC, there was evidence of good reliability for the VRS and HCR-20, and excellent reliability for the V-RISK-10, the PCL-R, the VRS and the BVC. Only one study using the HCR-20 reported the test–retest reliability.

Information on validity was reported in 12 studies (50%) using the following statistics: AUC, sensitivity and specificity and positive and negative predictive values. Validity statistics are also summarized in Table 3. Using the AUC, there was evidence of poor validity for the V-RISK-10, the VRS and the HCR-20 over a 12-month follow-up period. There was evidence of moderate validity for the BVC, V-RISK-10, the HCR-20 over a 6-month follow-up period and the CRAT-P.

Discussion

As China invests more into mental health care, increasing attention will be paid to reducing adverse outcomes in patient groups. One approach that this has taken in many countries is to introduce the routine use of violence risk assessment instruments to assist in identifying high-risk groups and manage violence risk more actively. In addition, the 2012 new National Mental Health Law may also increase the use of such instruments as an aid to clinical decision-making regarding involuntary treatment in hospital. This systematic review therefore investigated the reliability and validity of structured violence risk assessment instruments in China. A total of 15 risk assessment tools were identified, 7 involving instruments originally calibrated and validated in Western samples and 8 developed in Chinese populations. Data on both reliability and validity of these instruments were extracted from 24 studies involving 15,681 participants. Results of this review have three main implications for research into the assessment of violence risk in China and clinical practice.

First, although Western-developed instruments, such as the HCR-20, demonstrated good reliability in this review, predictive validity estimates were often noticeably lower than those found in Western samples (Singh et al., 2011), suggesting there is little evidence to support the use of current instruments for the prediction of future violence risk in China at present. The lower predictive validity of these instruments observed in this review is particularly important as it suggests that these instruments should not be used as sole determinants for eligibility for involuntary detention under Article 30 of China’s new Mental Health Law or for other medico-legal decisions in patients.

The lower predictive validity of existing instruments may stem from the inclusion of items within these violence risk assessment schemes that have little salience for the prediction of risk in Chinese samples. Work, for example, suggests that Asian Americans score significantly lower on a number of the historical items on the HCR-20 as compared to Caucasian patients. Instead, violence in Asian American psychiatric patients was more strongly associated with scores on the clinical subscale of the HCR-20 (Fujii et al., 2005). Further work suggests that the AUC of established violence risk assessment instruments cannot distinguish between violent and nonviolent offenders at greater than chance levels for those patients of Middle Eastern descent (Långström, 2004). The improvement of violence risk assessment in China may therefore benefit from the development of evidence-based instruments based on local research. Furthermore, the sheer scale of psychiatric patient numbers in China suggests that scalable instruments need to be developed, rather than those that require external training, take considerable time to implement and require money to use.

A number of investigations included in the review assessed validity using correlation coefficients against tools that assess aggression or psychopathy. These are of limited interest as the violence risk assessment tools considered in this review are intended to be used to predict more serious outcomes. Most included studies investigated predictive validity using the AUC. Predictive validity, however, can be broken down into two components: discrimination and calibration. The AUC, however, captures only discrimination. Given that a goal of violence risk assessment is to correctly stratify individuals into risk categories, the calibration ability of a risk assessment instrument is arguably of greater concern (Cook, 2007). As there are presently no guidelines as to how to combine aspects of discrimination and calibration (Witt et al., 2015), the assessment of predictive validity should employ statistics that adequately capture both discrimination and calibration (Singh, 2013). Recent work, for example, suggests that, at the very least, information on a combination of predictive validity estimates, including: PPVs and NPVs, sensitivity and specificity, number needed to detain (NNDs) and number safely released (NSRs) should be reported (Fazel et al., 2012). PPVs represent the proportion of patients predicted by an instrument to be at risk of violence who ultimately do commit a violent act while NPVs indicate the proportion judged at low risk of violence who do not commit a violent act (Singh, 2013). Greater adherence to existing guidelines for the reporting of clinical risk prediction research may also help to improve the reliability and applicability of work in this area (Bouwmeester et al., 2012).

Finally, we were unable to undertake a meta-analytic summary of the predictive validity of these instruments as the information required to calculate pooled AUCs was not routinely reported in the studies included in this review. While this approach may allow for comparison with the performance of these tools in Western samples, our focus in this paper was to evaluate the extent to which these tools could be used as a basis to justify involuntary treatment under China’s new Mental Health Law and for clinical decision-making in Chinese settings. A comparison of the predictive performance of these instruments between countries is beyond the scope of this paper.

Conclusion

Although there are a large number of violence risk assessment instruments that are currently available to assist in the prediction of violence risk, these have almost entirely been developed and validated in Western samples. Presently, there is little evidence to support the use of these Western-developed violence risk assessment instruments in China. The assessment of violence risk in this population should be sensitive to a range of factors, including ease of use, cost and possibly risk factors unique to Chinese populations. Therefore, the development of more accurate and scalable approaches should improve the assessment of violence risk in psychiatric patients in China, and are urgently required.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Funding

This work was supported by the Key Projects in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program during the Twelfth Five-Year Plan Period (No. 2012BAK16B00), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, 81371500), the World Health Organization (WHO), China’s Ministry of Health, Chinese Psychiatrist Association (CPA) and the Mental Health Pilot Construction Project of National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China. S.F. is supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant Number: 095806).

References

American Psychiatric Association (2004) Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Archer

Buffington-Vollum

Stredny

. (2006) A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment 87: 84–94.

Blair

Marcus

Boccaccini

(2008) Is there an allegiance effect for assessment instruments? Actuarial risk assessment as an exemplar. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 15: 346–360.

Bouwmeester

Zuithoff

Mallett

. (2012) Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: A systematic review. PLoS Medicine 9: 1–12.

Chan

(2014) Assessing the risk of intimate partner violence in the Chinese population: The Chinese Risk Assessment Tool for Perpetrator (CRAT-P). Violence against Women. DOI: 10.1177/1077801214535107.

Chen

Deng

(2012) Aggression assessment and intervention in mentally disordered inpatients. Medical Journal of Chinese People’s Health 24: 2935–2936.

Chen

Zhou

(2012) Aggression of Chinese inpatients with schizophrenia: A systematic literature review. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 37: 752–756.

Chen

Hwu

(2014) Clinical prediction of violence among inpatients with schizophrenia using the Chinese modified version of Violence Scale: A prospective cohort study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 51: 198–207.

Chinese Health Statistics Yearbook (2013) The People’s Health Publishing House. Available at: www.nhfpc.gov.cn/htmlfiles/zwgkzt/ptjnj/year2013/index2013.html

10.

Cook

(2007) Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 115: 928–935.

11.

Deng

Liang

Xie

. (2008) Study on the classification of violence risk of mental inpatient and its intervention. Modern Hospital 8: 8–10.

12.

Ding

(2014) Involuntary detention and treatment of the mentally ill: China’s 2012 Mental Health Law. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 37: 581–588.

13.

Fazel

Singh

Doll

. (2012) Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 345: e4692.

14.

Fujii

Tokioka

Lichton

. (2005) Ethnic differences in prediction of violence risk with the HCR-20 among psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatric Services 56: 711–716.

15.

Singh

Yun

. (2014) A review of violence risk assessment for mentally disordered patients in mainland of China. Criminal Justice and Behavior 41: 1398–1405.

16.

Han

Zhao

(2013) Violence risk assessment and intervention of nursing in psychiatric wards. Chinese Community Doctors 15: 317–318.

17.

Higgins

Watts

Bindman

. (2005) Assessing violence risk in general adult psychiatry. Psychiatric Bulletin 29: 131–133.

18.

RMY

Lau

JSF

Cheung

HHK

. (2013) Evaluation of a model of violence risk assessment (HCR-20) among adult patients discharged from a gazetted psychiatric hospital in Hong Kong. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 24: 479–495.

19.

Khiroya

Weaver

Maden

(2009) Use and perceived utility of structured violence risk assessments in English medium secure forensic units. Psychiatric Bulletin 33: 129–132.

20.

Kline

(2000) Reliability of tests: Practical issues. In: Kline

(ed.) Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2nd Edition. London: Routledge, pp. 7–17.

21.

Landis

Koch

(1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174.

22.

Långström

(2004) Accuracy of actuarial procedures for assessment of sexual offender recidivism risk may vary across ethnicity. Sex Abuse 16: 107–120.

23.

Song

Liang

. (2010) Development of a risk assessment scale for severe psychiatric patients in community. Chinese Mental Health Journal 24: 202–205.

24.

Liu

Huang

(2010a) A study of psychopathy in offenders. Psychological Science 33: 223–225.

25.

Liu

Guan

Liu

. (2010b) Development of violent risk evaluation scale. China Journal of Health Psychology 18: 358–360.

26.

Han

Wang

(2013) The reliability and validity of the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 Chinese version. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology 21: 984–987.

27.

McGorry

Killackey

Lambert

. (2005) Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39: 1–30.

28.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009) Core Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Primary and Secondary Care. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

29.

Phillips

Zhang

Shi

. (2009) Prevalence, treatment, and associated disability of mental disorders in four provinces in China during 2001-05: An epidemiological survey. The Lancet 373: 2041–2053.

30.

Ryan

Nielssen

Paton

. (2010) Clinical decisions in psychiatry should not be based on risk assessment. Australasian Psychiatry 18: 398–403.

31.

Shao

Xie

(2013) Operationalizing the involuntary treatment regulations of China’s new mental health law. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry 25: 384–386.

32.

Shao

Xie

Qiao

. (2010) Application of Swedish University Scales of personality in male adolescent delinquents with violent behavior. Chinese Mental Health Journal 24: 849–853.

33.

Shi

Zhang

. (2012) The relationship between the psychopathy and violence. Guangdong Gongan Ke Ji 110: 31–33.

34.

Shi

Ying

. (2014) Study on predicting ability of Chinese version of Violence Risk Scale for violence behaviors of psychiatric patients. Chinese Nursing Research 28: 247–249.

35.

Singh

(2013) Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: A methodological primer. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 31: 8–22.

36.

Singh

Serper

Reinharth

. (2011) Structured assessment of violence risk in schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders: A systematic review of the validity, reliability, and item content of 10 available instruments. Schizophrenia Bulletin 37: 899–912.

37.

Swets

(1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240: 1285–1293.

38.

Tian

(2013) Application of violence risk assessment form in mania patients. Hu Li Shi Jian Yu Yan Jiu 10: 76–78.

39.

Wang

Lin

. (2009) Study on the Stroop test in the male juvenile violent criminals. Journal of Neuroscience and Mental Health 9: 470–472.

40.

Wang

Cai

. (2012a) Development and psychometric properties of the health-risk behavior inventory for Chinese adolescents. BMC Medical Research Methodology 12: 94.

41.

Wang

Lin

Cao

. (2012b) Three-dimensional personality characteristics of male schizophrenia patients with violence behavior. Guangdong Medical Journal 33: 2303–2305.

42.

Wei

(2013) Application of violence risk assessment in psychiatric clinical nursing work. Medical Journal of Chinese People’s Health 25: 85–102.

43.

Witt

Lichtenstein

Fazel

(2015) Improving risk assessment in schizophrenia: Epidemiological investigation of criminal history factors. British Journal of Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.14485.

44.

Xiao

Wang

Jiang

(2010) Study of the reliability and validity of HCR-20 for assessing violent risk of patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Research 27: 405–408.

45.

Yang

Zhao

(2011) Risk assessment of adolescent violence. Shan Dong Sheng Tuan Xiao Xue Bao 84: 1–6.

46.

Yang

(2007) Evaluation of risk factors associated with violence and individual cognitive-behavior intervention. Master’s Thesis, Chong Qing Medical University, Chongqing, China.

47.

Yao

Arthur

. (2012) The application of a violence risk assessment tool among Chinese psychiatric service users: A preliminary study. Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health Nursing 19: 438–445.

48.

Yao

Arthur

. (2014a) Acceptability and psychometric properties of Brøset Violence Checklist in psychiatric care settings in China. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 21: 848–855.

49.

Yao

Arthur

. (2014b) Validation of the violence risk screening-10 instrument among clients discharged from a psychiatric hospital in Beijing. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 23: 79–87.

50.

Zhan

Yao

Tan

. (2013) Reliability and validity of Chinese version of the Violence Risk Screening-10 in patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 23: 361–364.

51.

Zhang

Liu

(2014) Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the LSI-R with probationers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Epub ahead of print 13 June. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X14538396.

52.

Zhang

(2011) Application of Modified Overt Aggression Scales on risk behavior assessment of patient with mental illness. Journal of Forensic Medicine 27: 342–345.

53.

Zhang

Chen

Cai

. (2012) Reliability of the violence risk scale of Chinese version. Journal of Forensic Medicine 28: 32–35.

54.

Zhuang

Yang

. (2006) Analysis of predictive factors for domestic violence behavior in patients with mental disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychology Medical Settings 16: 195–196.

55.

Zhao

Dawson

(2014) The new Chinese Mental Health Law. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 21: 669–686.