Within the prison system, it is often not feasible to administer comprehensive risk assessment for all incarcerated persons because of limited time and resources. To enhance prison safety and facilitate the structured evaluation of concerns about violence risk for all individuals, the Risk Screener Violence (RS-V) was developed. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the RS-V (N = 571) is able to retrospectively predict postrelease violent (re)offending for males (81%) and females (19%). The RS-V was scored with excellent interrater reliability and demonstrated medium to large predictive validity for all follow-up periods. Surprisingly, the predictive validity for females was even stronger than for males. This study demonstrates that the RS-V offers a promising new method for the efficient screening of concerns regarding violent behavior among incarcerated males and females. Further prospective studies in prison practice will have to consolidate these findings.
BurghartM.de RuiterC.HynesS. E.KrishnanN.LevtovaY.UyarA. (2023). The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity. Psychological Assessment, 35(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001184
5.
CampbellM.FrenchS.GendreauP. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809333610
6.
CampbellT. C.HoffmannN. G.HoffmannT. D.GillaspyJ. A. (2005). Uncope: A screen for substance dependence among state prison inmates. The Prison Journal, 85(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885504274287
CoidJ.YangM.UllrichS.ZhangT.SizmurS.RobertsC.FarringtonD. P.RogersR. D. (2009). Gender differences in structured risk assessment: Comparing the accuracy of five instruments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015155
9.
DesmaraisS. L.JohnsonK. L.SinghJ. P. (2016). Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in U.S. correctional settings. Psychological Services, 13(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000075
10.
De VogelV.BruggemanM.LancelM. (2019). Gender-sensitive violence risk assessment: Predictive validity of six tools in female forensic psychiatric patients. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(4), 528–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818824135
11.
De VogelV.De RuiterC.BoumanY.De Vries RobbéM. (2012). SAPROF manual: Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (Version 2). SAPROF International.
12.
De VogelV.NichollsT. L. (2016). Gender matters: An introduction to the special issues on women and girls. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2016.1141439
13.
De Vries RobbéM.Van den EndM. (2020). Risicoscreener Geweld Gevangeniswezen handleiding. Risicoscreener voor volwassenen in detentie: Beoordeling van zorgen over toekomstig gewelddadig gedrag op basis van risico-en beschermende factoren. Handleiding [Risk screener violence for the prison setting manual. Risk screener for adult detainees: Assessment of concerns regarding violent behavior based on risk and protective factors]. The Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency.
14.
De Vries RobbéM.Van den EndM.KempesM. (2021). Onderzoeksrapport pilot “Risicoscreening in detentie” [Research report Pilot “risk screening in the prison setting”]. The Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency.
15.
De Vries RobbéM.WillisG. M. (2017). Assessment of protective factors in clinical practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.006
16.
DouglasK. S.HartS. D.WebsterC. D.BelfrageH. (2013). HCR-20V3: Assessing risk for violence: User guide. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
ElwoodR. W. (1993). Psychological tests and clinical discriminations: Beginning to address the base rate problem. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(5), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(93)90012-B
19.
FleissJ. L. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments. John Wiley.
20.
GeraghtyK. A.WoodhamsJ. (2015). The predictive validity of risk assessment tools for female offenders: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.002
21.
GrayN. S.FitzgeraldS.TaylorJ.MaccullochM. J.SnowdenR. J. (2007). Predicting future reconviction in offenders with intellectual disabilities: The predictive efficacy of VRAG, PCL-SV, and the HCR-20. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 474–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.474
22.
GrissoT. (2006). Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT): Guidelines for mental health screening in jails. Psychiatric Services, 57(7), 1049–1050. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2006.57.7.1049a
HarrisG.RiceM.QuinseyV. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854893020004001
25.
HartS. D.DouglasK. S.GuyL. S. (2017). The structured professional judgement approach to violence risk assessment: Origins, nature, and advances. In The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment and treatment of sexual offending (vol. 2, pp. 643–666). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118574003.wattso030
26.
NichollsT. L.LeeZ.CorradoR. R.OgloffJ. R. P. (2004). Women inmates’ mental health needs: Evidence of the validity of the Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT). International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 3(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2004.10471205
27.
OgloffJ. R. P.DaffernM. (2006). The Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression: An instrument to assess risk for imminent aggression in psychiatric inpatients. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(6), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.741
28.
OgloffJ. R. P.SheaD. E.DaffernM. D. (2018). The development and validation of the violence risk Scale—S5 screen. Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology.
29.
PlaisierJ.Van DitzhuijzenJ. (2008). Risicotaxatie bij verlof van gedetineerden. Een (Inter)nationale Vergelijking Van Instrumenten En Procedures [Risk assessment for detainees on leave. An (inter)national comparison of measures and procedures]. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC).
30.
RiceM.HarrisG. (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
31.
RoaldsetJ. O.LinakerO. M.BjørklyS. (2012). Predictive validity of the MINI suicidal scale for self-harm in acute psychiatry: A prospective study of the first year after discharge. Archives of Suicide Research, 16(4), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2013.722052
32.
RussoJ.VermeerM. J. D.WoodsD.JacksonB. A. (2020). Risk and needs assessments in prisons: Identifying high-priority needs for using evidence-based practices. RAND Corporation.
33.
WalmsleyR. (2006). World female imprisonment list. World Prison Brief.
34.
WebsterC. D.MartinM. L.BrinkJ.NichollsT. L.MiddletonC. (2004). Manual for the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) (Version 1.0, consultation ed.). St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission.
