Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

The study found that there is evidence of some convergence around a small number of high-performing instruments and identification of the components of a high-quality evaluation approach, including AUC analysis; and, furthermore, the upper limits (AUC ≥ 0.85) of instrument-based prediction have probably been achieved and are unlikely to be exceeded using instruments alone

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

R Whittington,1,* JC Hockenhull,2 J McGuire,3 M Leitner,4 W Barr,1 MG Cherry,2 R Flentje,4 B Quinn,1 Y Dundar,2 R Dickson,2 

1 Health and Community Care Research Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
2 Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
3 Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
4 Infotech UK Research (Medical Division of ER&IC Ltd), Cheshire, UK
* Corresponding author ; Email:

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue:{{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://dx.doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This review systematically examines the research literature published in the period 2002-8 on structured violence risk assessment instruments designed for use in mental health services or the criminal justice system. It adopted much broader inclusion criteria than previous reviews in the same area in order to capture and summarise data on the widest possible range of available instruments.

OBJECTIVES

To address two questions: (1) what study characteristics are associated with a risk assessment instrument score being significantly associated with a violent outcome? and (2) which risk assessment instruments have the highest level of predictive validity for a violent outcome?

DATA SOURCES

Nineteen bibliographic databases were searched from January 2002 to April 2008, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Education Resources Information Centre, The Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria for studies were (1) evaluation of a structured risk tool; (2) outcome measure of interpersonal violence; (3) participants aged 17 years or over; and (4) participants with a mental disorder and/or at least one offence and/or at least one indictable offence. A series of bivariate analyses using either a chi-squared test or Spearman's rank-order correlation were conducted to explore associations between study characteristics and outcomes. Data from a subset of studies reporting area under the curve (AUC) analysis were combined to provide estimates of mean validity.

RESULTS

For the overall set of included studies (nâ =â 959), over three-quarters (77%) were conducted in the USA, Canada or the UK. Two-thirds of all studies were conducted with offenders who had either no formal mental health diagnosis (43%) or forensic samples with a formal diagnosis (25%). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised was tested in the largest number of studies (nâ =â 192). Most studies (78%) reported a statistically significant (pâ <â 0.05) relationship between the instrument score and a violent outcome. Prospective data collection (chi-squared =â 4.4, pâ =â 0.035), number of people recruited (Uâ =â 27.8, pâ =â 0.012) and number of participants at end point (Uâ =â 26.9, pâ =â 0.04) were significantly associated with predictive validity. For those instruments tested in five or more studies reporting AUC values, the General Statistical Information on Recidivism instrument had the highest mean AUC (0.73).

LIMITATIONS

Agreement between pairs of reviewers in the initial pilot exercises was good but less than perfect, so discrepancies may be present given the complexity and subjectivity of some aspects of violence research. Only five of the seven calendar years (2003-7) are completely covered, with partial coverage of 2002 and 2008. There is no weighting for sample or effect sizes when results from studies are aggregated.

CONCLUSIONS

A very large number of studies examining the relationship between a structured instrument and a violent outcome were published in this relatively short 7-year period. The general quality of the literature is weak in places (e.g. over-reliance on cross-sectional designs) and a vast range of distinct instruments have been tested to varying degrees. However, there is evidence of some convergence around a small number of high-performing instruments and identification of the components of a high-quality evaluation approach, including AUC analysis. The upper limits (AUCâ â ¥â 0.85) of instrument-based prediction have probably been achieved and are unlikely to be exceeded using instruments alone.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment and Research for Patient Benefit programmes.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This review systematically examines the research literature published in the period 2002-8 on structured violence risk assessment instruments designed for use in mental health services or the criminal justice system. It adopted much broader inclusion criteria than previous reviews in the same area in order to capture and summarise data on the widest possible range of available instruments.

OBJECTIVES

To address two questions: (1) what study characteristics are associated with a risk assessment instrument score being significantly associated with a violent outcome? and (2) which risk assessment instruments have the highest level of predictive validity for a violent outcome?

DATA SOURCES

Nineteen bibliographic databases were searched from January 2002 to April 2008, including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Education Resources Information Centre, The Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria for studies were (1) evaluation of a structured risk tool; (2) outcome measure of interpersonal violence; (3) participants aged 17 years or over; and (4) participants with a mental disorder and/or at least one offence and/or at least one indictable offence. A series of bivariate analyses using either a chi-squared test or Spearman's rank-order correlation were conducted to explore associations between study characteristics and outcomes. Data from a subset of studies reporting area under the curve (AUC) analysis were combined to provide estimates of mean validity.

RESULTS

For the overall set of included studies (nâ =â 959), over three-quarters (77%) were conducted in the USA, Canada or the UK. Two-thirds of all studies were conducted with offenders who had either no formal mental health diagnosis (43%) or forensic samples with a formal diagnosis (25%). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised was tested in the largest number of studies (nâ =â 192). Most studies (78%) reported a statistically significant (pâ <â 0.05) relationship between the instrument score and a violent outcome. Prospective data collection (chi-squared =â 4.4, pâ =â 0.035), number of people recruited (Uâ =â 27.8, pâ =â 0.012) and number of participants at end point (Uâ =â 26.9, pâ =â 0.04) were significantly associated with predictive validity. For those instruments tested in five or more studies reporting AUC values, the General Statistical Information on Recidivism instrument had the highest mean AUC (0.73).

LIMITATIONS

Agreement between pairs of reviewers in the initial pilot exercises was good but less than perfect, so discrepancies may be present given the complexity and subjectivity of some aspects of violence research. Only five of the seven calendar years (2003-7) are completely covered, with partial coverage of 2002 and 2008. There is no weighting for sample or effect sizes when results from studies are aggregated.

CONCLUSIONS

A very large number of studies examining the relationship between a structured instrument and a violent outcome were published in this relatively short 7-year period. The general quality of the literature is weak in places (e.g. over-reliance on cross-sectional designs) and a vast range of distinct instruments have been tested to varying degrees. However, there is evidence of some convergence around a small number of high-performing instruments and identification of the components of a high-quality evaluation approach, including AUC analysis. The upper limits (AUCâ â ¥â 0.85) of instrument-based prediction have probably been achieved and are unlikely to be exceeded using instruments alone.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment and Research for Patient Benefit programmes.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

 

Responses to this report

 

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions