There is a growing need in Washington to triage patients being considered for inpatient treatment. There has previously been no risk assessment normed to persons with mental illness in the State of Washington. The Static Risk Assessment (SRA) is used in Washington to assess risk among offenders under State Department of Corrections supervision. The present study sought to create and validate a new risk assessment, the SRA for Mental Health Patients (SRA-MHP), for two mental health populations in Washington. A sample of 16,289 patients involuntarily committed due to being deemed dangerous or gravely disabled, as well as a sample of 8,713 forensic patients undergoing a competency evaluation to stand trial after being charged with a crime, was gathered to assess the utility in applying the SRA-MHP to persons with mental illness. Results indicate that the SRA-MHP has high predictive performance for these samples.
BarnoskiR.AosS. (2003). Washington’s Offender Accountability Act: An analysis of the Department of Corrections’ risk assessment (Document No. 03-12-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
2.
BarnoskiR.DrakeE. K. (2007). Washington’s Offender Accountability Act: Department of Corrections’ static risk assessment. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
3.
BurleyM. (2011). ITA investigations: Can standardized assessment instruments assist in decision making? (Document No. 11-01-3402). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
4.
ChuC. M.ThomasS. D.OgloffJ. R.DaffernM. (2011). The short- to medium-term predictive accuracy of static and dynamic risk assessment measures in a secure forensic hospital. Assessment, 20, 230-241. doi:10.1177/1073191111418298
5.
De VogelV.De RuiterC. (2006). Structured professional judgment of violence risk in forensic clinical practice: A prospective study into the predictive validity of the Dutch HCR-20. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 321-336.
6.
DouglasK. S.OgloffJ. R.HartS. D. (2003). Evaluation of a model of violence risk assessment among forensic psychiatric patients. Evaluation, 54, 1372-1379.
7.
DouglasK. S.OgloffJ. R.NichollsT. L.GrantI. (1999). Assessing risk for violence among psychiatric patients: The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 917-930.
8.
DouglasK. S.SkeemJ. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 347-383.
9.
FawcettT. (2004). ROC graphs: Notes and practical considerations for researchers. Machine Learning, 31, 1-38.
10.
GagliardiG. J.LovellD.PetersonP. D.JemelkaR. (2004). Forecasting recidivism in mentally ill offenders released from prison. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 133-155.
11.
GrayN. S.SnowdenR. J.MacCullochS.PhillipsH.TaylorJ.MacCullochM. J. (2004). Relative efficacy of criminological, clinical, and personality measures of future risk of offending in mentally disordered offenders: A comparative study of HCR-20, PCL: SV, and OGRS. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 523-530.
12.
HamiltonZ. K.CampbellC. M. (2013). A dark figure of corrections failure by way of participation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 180-202.
13.
HareR. D. (1999). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PLC-R). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
KohaviR. (1995). A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 1137-1145).
16.
LambH. R.WeinbergerL. E. (2005). The shift of psychiatric inpatient care from hospitals to jails and prisons. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 33, 529-534.
17.
LiebR.BurleyM. (2011). Competency to stand trial and conditional release evaluations: Current and potential role of forensic assessment instruments (Document Number 11-05-3401). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
18.
MelamedY. (2010). Mentally ill persons who commit crimes: Punishment or treatment?Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 38, 100-103.
19.
MossmanD.SchwartzA. H.ElamE. R. (2011). Risky business versus overt acts: What relevance do actuarial, probabilistic risk assessments have for judicial decisions on involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy, 11, 365.
20.
Revised Code of Washington 10.77.060.
21.
Revised Code of Washington 71.05.240.
22.
Revised Code of Washington 9.94A.010.
23.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620.
24.
TaxmanF. S.ThannerM. (2006). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 28-51.
25.
WhittinghamM. J.StephensP. A.BradburyR. B.FreckletonR. P. (2006). Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour?Journal of Animal Ecology, 75, 1182-1189.
