There is ongoing debate on the cultural appropriateness of violence risk assessment tools, particularly for marginalised populations such as Australian First Nations peoples, in determining court outcomes.
Objective
This scoping review aims to evaluate existing validated violence risk assessment tools for use among Australian First Nations adults with diagnosed mental disorders.
Design
A search across databases, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science, identified 1202 studies, of which 31 met eligibility criteria. Two studies were ultimately included.
Results
The review found two studies examining the cultural appropriateness of these tools, both highlighting a significant lack of cultural validation. Existing instruments were criticised for potentially misidentifying violence risk in First Nations populations.
Conclusions
The scarcity of studies underscores the urgent need for culturally sensitive research and validation of risk assessment tools for Australian First Nations adults. This review questions the ethics of using unvalidated tools in sentencing and advocates for developing culturally appropriate methodologies for First Nations populations.
BontaJAndrewsDA. The psychology of criminal conduct. Taylor & Francis, 2016.
6.
ShepherdSMLewis-FernandezR. Forensic risk assessment and cultural diversity: contemporary challenges and future directions. Psychol Publ Pol Law2016; 22(4): 427–438.
7.
JaberFSMahmoudKF. Risk tools for the prediction of violence: ‘VRAG, HCR-20, pcl-r’. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs2015; 22(2): 133–141.
8.
DouglasKSHartSDWebsterCD, et al.HCR-20V3: assessing risk of violence–user guide. Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University, 2013.
9.
BarnaoMWardTRobertsonP. The Good Lives Model: a new paradigm for forensic mental health. Psychiatr Psychol Law2016; 23(2): 288–301.
10.
LiellGCFisherMJJonesLF (eds). Challenging Bias in Forensic Psychological Assessment and Testing: Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Working with Diverse Populations. Taylor & Francis, 2022.
11.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018; 169(7): 467–473.
12.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th edWashington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2013.
13.
World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of diseases, eleventh revision (ICD-11).2021. Available from: https://icd.who.int/browse11
14.
CarrollAMcSherryBWoodD, et al.Drug-associated psychoses and criminal responsibility. Behav Sci Law2008; 26(5): 633–653.
15.
Covidence systematic review software, Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. Available from: https://www.covidence.org
16.
ShepherdSM. Violence risk instruments may be culturally unsafe for use with Indigenous patients. Australas Psychiatry2016; 24(6): 565–567.
17.
SchmidtSHeffernanRWardT. Why dynamic risk factors cannot Be applied universally: their normative nature and the importance of cultural awareness in risk assessment and intervention. Challenging Bias in Forensic Psychological Assessment and Testing. Routledge, 2022, pp. 52–68.
18.
ShariatSVAssadiSMNoroozianM, et al.Psychopathy in Iran: a cross-cultural study. J Pers Disord2010; 24(5): 676–691.
19.
Commonwealth of Australia. National aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health plan 2021–2031. Canberra: Department of Health, 2021.
20.
The Magnolia Project and Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (SA). Practice Guide for preparing mental health pre-sentence reports with aboriginal people in the criminal justice system. Adelaide, South Australia: The Magnolia Project and Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (SA). 2023.
21.
Lewis-FernándezRAggarwalNKHintonL, et al. (eds). DSM-5® Handbook on the Cultural Formulation Interview. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc, 2016.
22.
ParkerRMilroyH. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health: an overview. Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice2014; 2: 25–38.
23.
WatkinsI. The utility of Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) assessments within NSW correctional environments. Sydney, NSW: NSW Corrective Services, Corporate Research, Evaluation and Statistics, 2011.
24.
SmallboneSRallingsM. Short-term predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99-R for indigenous and nonindigenous Australian sexual offenders. Sex Abuse2013; 25(3): 302–316.
25.
HsuCICaputiPByrneMK. Level of Service inventory–revised: assessing the risk and need characteristics of Australian indigenous offenders. Psychiatr Psychol Law2010; 17(3): 355–367.
26.
HarrisGTRiceMEQuinseyVL, et al.Violent offenders: appraising and managing risk. 3rd ed. American Psychological Association, 2015.
27.
HiltonNHarrisGRiceM, et al.Domestic violence risk appraisal guide (DVRAG). 2008.
28.
HarrisAPhenixAHansonRK, et al.Static-99 coding rules: revised 2003. Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness2003.
29.
HansonRKHarrisAJRScottT, et al.Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: the dynamic supervision project (corrections research user report No. 2007-05). Public Safety Canada2007.
30.
HartSDBoerDP. Structured professional judgment guidelines for sexual violence risk assessment: the sexual violence risk-20 (SVR-20) versions 1 and 2 and risk for sexual violence protocol (RSVP). Handbook of violence risk assessment. Routledge, 2020, pp. 322–358.
31.
QuinseyVLHarrisGTRiceME, et al.Violent offenders: appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998.
32.
HartSDKroppPRLawsDR, et al.The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP). Structured professional guidelines for assessing risk for sexual violence. Canada: Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University, 2003.
33.
PrentkyRARighthandS. The juvenile sex offender assessment protocol-II (J-SOAP-II). In: DouglasKSOttoRK (eds). Handbook of violence risk assessment. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2021, pp. 294–321.
34.
BoerDPToughSHaavenJ. Assessment of risk manageability of intellectually disabled sex offenders. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil2004; 17: 275–283.
35.
HareRD. The Hare Psychopathy checklist-revised. 2nd ed.Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems, 2003.
