Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul 7;26(4):682-692.
doi: 10.1080/13218719.2019.1618753. eCollection 2019.

Predictors of Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20:V3) summary risk ratings

Jeremy Cheng  1 , Andrew M Haag  2   3   4 , Mark E Olver  1
Affiliations

Predictors of Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20:V3) summary risk ratings

Jeremy Cheng et al. Psychiatr Psychol Law. .

Abstract

How individual risk factors on structured professional judgement (SPJ) assessment tools translate into SPJ final risk formulations is unclear due to a lack of structured criteria. Understanding pathways to risk formulations is vital, as they serve as intervention targets for risk management. This study examined how Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20:V3) raters weighed varied information sources to complete summary risk ratings (SRRs). Four independent raters retrospectively coded an archived sample of 32 inpatients at a Canadian forensic psychiatric hospital. HCR-20:V3 SPJ SRRs were regressed on the 20 individual items and sample covariates to identify unique predictors of risk formulations across each rater. Raters consistently used HCR-20:V3 items and composite subscales for SRRs. Despite strong inter-rater agreement on the SRRs, there were variations across raters regarding which items informed each SRR. Rater-unique biases were also shown to influence SRRs. Implications for forensic practice and risk management are discussed.

Keywords: HCR–20:V3; final risk formulations; risk assessment; risk management; structured professional judgement; summary risk ratings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jeremy Cheng has declared no conflicts of interest. Andrew M. Haag has declared no conflicts of interest. Mark Olver has declared no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Andrews D. A., & Bonta J (1995). The level of supervision inventory–revised (Vol. 106, pp. 19–52). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
    1. Belfrage H., Strand S., Storey J. E., Gibas A. L., Kropp P. R., & Hart S. D (2012). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide. Law and Human Behavior, 36(1), 60–67 doi:10.1037/h0093948 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bjørkly S., Eidhammer G., & Selmer L. E (2014). Concurrent validity and clinical utility of the HCR-20V3 compared with the HCR-20 in forensic mental health nursing: Similar tools but improved method. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 10(4), 234–242. doi:10.1097/JFN.0000000000000047 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Borum R. (1996). Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment: Technology, guidelines, and training. American Psychologist, 51(9), 945–956. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.945 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cohen J. E. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

LinkOut - more resources