Predictive Validity of the HCR-20 V3 With Incarcerated Males in Mexico City

Abstract

This prospective study investigated the predictive validity of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management–20, Version 3 (HCR-20^V3) in a sample of incarcerated males in a Mexico City prison. Data were collected from 114 male adults incarcerated in a medium-security prison in Mexico City. Participants were an average of 36.86 years old (SD = 9.93 years) and were all born in Mexico. Data collection for HCR-20^V3 ratings involved clinical interviews and a review of institutional documents. Aggressive incidents for a 3-month period following each completed risk assessment were collected through document review, self-report follow-up interviews, and guard reports. Participants who engaged in institutional violence during the 3-month follow-up period were given significantly higher summary risk ratings and had higher HCR-20 total scores than the participants who did not engage in violence (area under the curve [AUC] ranged from .71 to .77). The study demonstrated support for the cross-cultural utility of the HCR-20^V3 for institutional violence in a Mexican prison.

Keywords

violence risk assessment forensic assessment prison cross-cultural validity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albertie

Bourey

Stephenson

Bautista-Arredondo

(2017). Connectivity, prison environment and mental health among first-time male inmates in Mexico City. Global Public Health, 12(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2015.1091023

Arbach

(2007). Predicción de la conducta violenta en pacientes psiquiátricos [Predicting violence in psychiatric inpatients]. Universitat de Barcelona.

Arbach

Andrés-Pueyo

(2005). Escala Modificada de Agresión Manifiesta [Modified Overt Aggression Scale Spanish translation]. Universitat de Barcelona.

Belfrage

Fransson

Strand

(2000). Prediction of violence using the HCR-20: A prospective study in two maximum-security correctional institutions. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11, 167–175.

Butcher

K. F.

Piehl

A. M.

(2007). Why are immigrants’ incarceration rates so low? Evidence on selective immigration, deterrence, and deportation (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 13229). https://doi.org/10.3386/w13229

Campbell

M. A.

French

Gendreau

(2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809333610

Carson

E. A.

(2018). Prisoners in 2016 (NCJ 251149). Washington, DC: U.S. department of justice office of justice programs bureau of justice statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf

Carter

R. T.

Forsyth

J. M.

(2007). Examining race and culture in psychology journals: The case of forensic psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.2.133

Chu

C. M.

Thomas

S. D.

Ogloff

J. R.

Daffern

(2013). The short- to medium-term predictive accuracy of static and dynamic risk assessment measures in a secure forensic hospital. Assessment, 20, 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111418298

10.

Cirlugea

Benuto

Leany

B. D.

(2013). Assessing risk, recidivism, and dangerousness in Hispanics. In Benuto

L. T.

(Ed.), Guide to psychological assessment with Hispanics (pp. 377–388). Springer Science + Business Media.

11.

Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos. (2017). Diagnóstico nacional de supervisión penitenciaria 2017 [National diagnosis of penitentiary supervision 2017]. http://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/doc/sistemas/DNSP/DNSP_2017.pdf

12.

Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos. (2019a). Estudio sobre el cumplimiento e impacto de las recomendaciones generales, informes especiales y pronunciamientos penitenciarios de la CNDH 2001-2017 [Study on the compliance and impact of the general recommendations, special reports and penitentiary pronouncements of the National Human Rights Commission 2001-2017]. https://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/default/files/documentos/2019-07/Estudio-Cumplimiento-Impacto-Recomendaciones-Generales.pdf

13.

Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos. (2019b). Diagnóstico nacional de supervisión penitenciaria 2019 [National diagnosis of penitentiary supervision 2019]. https://www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/doc/sistemas/DNSP/DNSP_2019.pdf

14.

Desmarais

Singh

J. P.

(2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Council of State Governments Justice Center.

15.

de Vries Robbé

de Vogel

Wever

E. C.

Douglas

K. S.

Nijman

H. L

. (2016). Risk and protective factors for inpatient aggression. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 1364–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816637889

16.

Douglas

K. S.

Belfrage

(2014). Interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the HCR-20 Version 3. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.908429

17.

Douglas

K. S.

Hart

S. D.

Webster

C. D.

Belfrage

(2013). HCR-20 (Version 3): Assessing risk for violence. Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

18.

Douglas

K. S.

Hart

S. D.

Webster

C. D.

Belfrage

(2015). HCR-20 V3. Valoración del riesgo de violencia [HCR-20V3. Violence risk assessment—Spanish adaptation] ( Arbach-Lucioni

Andrés-Pueyo

, Trans.). TEA Ediciones.

19.

Douglas

K. S.

Shaffer

Blanchard

A. J. E.

Guy

L. S.

Reeves

Weir

(2014). HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Overview and annotated bibliography. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

20.

Folino

J. O.

(2015). Predictive efficacy of violence risk assessment instruments in Latin-America. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.006

21.

Folino

J. O.

Villalba

D. K.

Singh

J. P.

(2016). Violence risk assessment in Latin America. In Singh

J. P.

Bjørkly

Fazel

(Eds.), International perspectives on violence risk assessment (pp. 181–191). Oxford University Press.

22.

Godoy-Cervera

Dzib

Ortega

I. A.

Villalba

D. K.

Singh

J. P.

(2016). The assessment of violence risk: The state-of-the-art in Mexico. In Singh

J. P.

Bjørkly

Fazel

(Eds.), International perspectives on violence risk assessment (pp. 258–269). Oxford University Press.

23.

Goldstein

N. E.

Houck

M. J.

Folino

J. O.

(2015). Tópicos actuales de la investigación internacional sobre riesgo de violencia [Current topics regarding international research on the violence risk]. Revista Criminalidad, 57, 27–43. https://www.policia.gov.co/revistacriminalidad

24.

Gómez Pérez

. (2017). Los derechos humanos en las cárceles y centros de reclusión penitenciaria de México [Human rights in jails and prisons in Mexico]. In Ramírez

S. García

Mariscal

O. Islas de González

(Eds.), Evolución del sistema penal en México: Tres cuartos de siglo [Evolution of the penal system in Mexico: Three-quarters of a century] (pp. 77–98). Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Penales. https://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/bjv/detalle-libro/4770-evolucion-del-sistema-penal-en-mexico-tres-cuartos-de-siglo-coleccion-nuevo-sistema

25.

Gonzalez

Varela

Boccaccini

Damnjavonic

Lawrence

(2014). Risk assessment and cultural diversity: A study space analysis [Conference presentation]. American Psychology-Law Society, Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, United States.

26.

Hogan

N. R.

Olver

M. E.

(2016). Assessing risk for aggression in forensic psychiatric inpatients: An examination of five measures. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000179

27.

Howe

Rosenfeld

Foellmi

Stern

Rotter

(2016). Application of the HCR-20 Version 3 in civil psychiatric patients. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 398–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815605527

28.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2017). Encuesta Nacional de Población Privada de Libertad (ENPOL) 2016: Principales resultados [National survey of the incarcerated population (ENPOL) 2016 : Main results]. https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/enpol/2016/doc/2016_enpol_presentacion_ejecutiva.pdf

29.

Johnson

K. L.

Desmarais

S. L.

Tueller

S. J.

Van Dorn

(2019). Methodological limitations in the measurement and statistical modeling of violence among adults with mental illness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 28, Article e1776. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1776

30.

Kay

S. R.

Wolkenfeld

Murrill

L. M.

(1988). Profiles of aggression among psychiatric patients: I. Nature and prevalence. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 176, 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198809000-00007

31.

Kroner

D. G.

Mills

J. F.

(2001). The accuracy of five risk appraisal instruments in predicting institutional misconduct and new convictions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385480102800405

32.

Lee

M. T.

Martinez

(2009). Immigration reduces crime: An emerging scholarly consensus. In LaFree

Bursik

R. J.

Short

J. F.

Taylor

R. B.

(Eds.), The nature of crime: Continuity and change (pp. 485–524). National Institute of Justice Criminal Justice.

33.

Leguízamo

Lee

S. C.

Jeglic

E. L.

Calkins

(2017). Utility of the Static-99 and Static-99R with Latino sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 29, 765–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215618377

34.

León-Mayer

Cortés

M. S.

Folino

J. O.

(2014). Descripción multidimensional de la población carcelaria chilena [A multi-dimensional description of Chilean inmates]. Psicoperspectivas, 13(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-vol13-issue1-fulltext-243

35.

McDermott

B. E.

Edens

J. F.

Quanbeck

C. D.

Busse

Scott

C. L.

(2008). Examining the role of static and dynamic risk factors in the prediction of inpatient violence: Variable-and person-focused analyses. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9094-8

36.

McGraw

K. O.

Wong

S. P.

(1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30

37.

McNiel

D. E.

Gregory

A. L.

Lam

J. N.

Binder

R. L.

Sullivan

G. R.

(2003). Utility of decision support tools for assessing acute risk of violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 945–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.945

38.

Morrissey

Hogue

Mooney

Allen

Johnston

Hollin

Lindsay

W. R.

Taylor

J. L.

(2007). Predictive validity of the PCL-R in offenders with intellectual disability in a high secure hospital setting: Institutional aggression. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 18, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08990220601116345

39.

Nijdam-Jones

García-López

Aparcero

Rosenfeld

(2020). How do Latin American professionals approach violence risk assessment? A qualitative exploratory study. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 19(3), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2019.1707330

40.

Ochoa-Balarezo

J. V.

Guillén

X. K.

Ullauri Ortega

Narváez

León-Mayer

Folino

J. O

. (2017). Sistematización de la evaluación de riesgo de violencia con instrumentos de juicio profesional estructurado en Cuenca, Ecuador [Systematization of violence risk assessment with structured professional judgment instruments in Cuenca, Ecuador]. MASKANA, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18537/mskn.08.01.01

41.

O’Shea

L. E.

Mitchell

A. E.

Picchioni

M. M.

Dickens

G. L.

(2013). Moderators of the predictive efficacy of the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management-20 for aggression in psychiatric facilities: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.016

42.

Persson

Belfrage

Fredriksson

Kristiansson

(2017). Violence during imprisonment, forensic psychiatric care, and probation: Correlations and predictive validity of the risk assessment instruments COVR, LSI-R, HCR-20V3, and SAPROF. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 16, 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2016.1266420

43.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7

44.

Sada

Robles-García

Martínez-López

Hernández-Ramírez

Tovilla-Zarate

C.-A.

López-Munguía

Suárez-Alvarez

Ayala

Fresán

(2016). Assessing the reliability, predictive and construct validity of Historical, Clinical and Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) in Mexican psychiatric inpatients. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 70, 456–461. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2016.1159330

45.

Sánchez Galindo

. (2011). Situación general de las prisiones en la actualidad a nivel nacional [Current general situation of national prisons]. In Ramírez

S. García

Mariscal

O. Islas de González

(Eds.), La situación actual del sistema penal en México [The current situation of the penal system in Mexico] (pp. 317–325). Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/7/3064/25.pdf

46.

Shepherd

S. M.

Lewis-Fernandez

(2016). Forensic risk assessment and cultural diversity: Contemporary challenges and future directions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000102

47.

Singh

J. P.

Condemarin

Folino

(2013). El uso de instrumentos de evaluación de riesgo de violencia en Argentina y Chile [The use of violence risk assessment instruments in Argentina and Chile]. Revista Criminalidad, 55, 279–290. https://www.policia.gov.co/revistacriminalidad

48.

Singh

J. P.

Grann

Fazel

(2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009

49.

Smith

S. T.

Kelley

S. E.

Rulseh

Sörman

Edens

J. F.

(2014). Adapting the HCR-20V3 for Pre-trial Settings. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.906520

50.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2014). Comparing self-report to official measures of inmate misconduct. Justice Quarterly, 31, 1074–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.723031

51.

Subsecretaría de Sistema Penitenciario. (2020). Población penitenciaria al 28 de febrero de 2020 [Prison population as of February 28, 2020]. https://penitenciario.cdmx.gob.mx/poblacion-penitenciaria

52.

Tapias-Saldaña

. (2011). Aplicación de los instrumentos de reincidencia en violencia HCR-20 y SVR-20 en dos grupos de delincuentes colombianos [Application of the violence recidivism instruments HCR-20 and SVR-20 in two groups of Colombian offenders]. Revista Criminalidad, 53, 307–327. https://www.policia.gov.co/revistacriminalidad

53.

Universitat de Barcelona. (2018). HCR-20 V3. Valoración del riesgo de violencia: Guía del evaluador [HCR-20V3. Violence risk assessment: User guide]. Retrieved June 1, 2018 from http://www.publicacions.ub.edu/ficha.aspx?cod=08343

54.

Varela

J. G.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Murrie

D. C.

Caperton

J. D.

Gonzalez

(2013). Do the Static-99 and Static-99R perform similarly for White, Black, and Latino sexual offenders? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12, 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2013.846950

55.

Walmsley

(2018). World prison population list (12th ed.). Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Birkbeck University of London. http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf

56.

Webster

C. D.

Douglas

K. S.

Eaves

Hart

S. D.

(1997). The HCR–20: Assessing risk for violence (Version 2). Simon Fraser University and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission of British Columbia.

57.

Yang

Wong

S. C.

Coid

(2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 740–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020473