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
. 2024 Feb 27:15:1342445.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1342445. eCollection 2024.

The predictive validity of the V-RISK-10 and BVC among involuntarily admitted patients

Tilmann Kös  1   2 , Peter Bräunig  1 , Joscha Hausam  2
Affiliations

The predictive validity of the V-RISK-10 and BVC among involuntarily admitted patients

Tilmann Kös et al. Front Psychiatry. .

Abstract

Although endangerment towards others is a criterion for an involuntary admission in many countries, research on risk assessment of endangerment among involuntarily admitted individuals is limited. In this retrospective case-control study, we calculated scores for a German-translated version of the Violence Risk Screening-10 (V-RISK-10) and the Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) in a sample of 111 people undergoing an involuntary admission in Reinickendorf, Berlin. Outcomes were violence, coercive measures, and readmission. In line with our hypotheses, the BVC demonstrated stronger predictive validities for short-term, and V-RISK-10 for long-term events. There was an incremental validity for both instruments for restraint 24 hours after admission and any violence until discharge. These findings support the evidence that structured risk assessment instruments may be useful for individuals undergoing an involuntary admission. Ethical considerations about screening procedures are discussed.

Keywords: acute psychiatry; involuntary admission; mental disorder; risk assessment; violent behavior.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wertz M, Schobel S, Schiltz K, Rettenberger M. A comparison of the predictive accuracy of structured and unstructured risk assessment methods for the prediction of recidivism in individuals convicted of sexual and violent offense. Psychol Assess. (2022) 35:152–64. doi: 10.1037/pas0001192 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grove WM, Zald DH, Lebow BS, Snitz BE, Nelson C. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychol Assess. (2000) 12:19–30. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Falzer PR. Valuing structured professional judgment: Predictive validity, decision-making, and the clinical-actuarial conflict. Behav Sci Law. (2013) 31:40–54. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2043 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ægisdóttir S, White MJ, Spengler PM, Maugherman AS, Anderson LA, Cook RS, et al. . The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Couns Psychol. (2006) 34:341–82. doi: 10.1177/0011000005285875 - DOI
    1. Ogonah MG, Seyedsalehi A, Whiting D, Fazel S. Violence risk assessment instruments in forensic psychiatric populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. (2023) 10:780–9. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00256-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources