Violence Risk Assessment: Scientific Validity and Evidentiary Admissibility

J. Monahan
{"title":"Violence Risk Assessment: Scientific Validity and Evidentiary Admissibility","authors":"J. Monahan","doi":"10.1037/10523-069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I. Introduction Violence risk assessment is a critical and expanding part of the practice of mental health law in the United States. \"Dangerousness to others\" first became one of the pivotal criteria for involuntary hospitalization of people with mental disorders in the 1960s.(1) Courts first imposed tort liability on clinicians who negligently failed to predict their patients' violence in the 1970s.2 In the 1980s, many states statutes enacted statues authorizing involuntary tWa the other method relies on as informal, \"in the head,\" impressionistic, subjective conclusion, reached ... by a human clinical judge.8 The latter is called the clinical approach and the former the actuarial approach. I will consider each in turn. A. Clinical Approaches to Risk Assessment I reviewed research on the accuracy of clinical judgments at predicting the criterion of \"violent behavior toward others\" in 1981.9 The research concluded that \"psychiatrists and psychologists are accurate in no more than one out of three predictions of violent behavior over a several-year period among institutionalized populations that had both committed violence in the past (and thus had high base rates for it) and who were diagnosed as mentally ill.\"10 Remarkably, only one study of the validity of clinicians at predicting \"violence in the comunity\" was published between 1979 and 1993.(11) This was a study of court-ordered pretrial mental health assessments conducted in 1978.(12) Consistent with the previous literature, 39% of the defendants rated by clinicians as having a \"high\" likelihood for being violent to others were reported to have committed dangerous acts during a two-year follow-up, compared to 26% of defendants considered as having a \"low\" likelihood, a statistically significant difference.13 In the last decade, researchers have shown a renewed interest in the topic of clinical risk assessment.14 For example, Lidz, Mulvey, and Gardner, in what is surely the most sophisticated study published on the clinical prediction of violence, took as their subjects male and female patients being examined in the acute psychiatric emergency room of a large civil hospital. …","PeriodicalId":83483,"journal":{"name":"Washington and Lee law review","volume":"57 1","pages":"901"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington and Lee law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/10523-069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

I. Introduction Violence risk assessment is a critical and expanding part of the practice of mental health law in the United States. "Dangerousness to others" first became one of the pivotal criteria for involuntary hospitalization of people with mental disorders in the 1960s.(1) Courts first imposed tort liability on clinicians who negligently failed to predict their patients' violence in the 1970s.2 In the 1980s, many states statutes enacted statues authorizing involuntary tWa the other method relies on as informal, "in the head," impressionistic, subjective conclusion, reached ... by a human clinical judge.8 The latter is called the clinical approach and the former the actuarial approach. I will consider each in turn. A. Clinical Approaches to Risk Assessment I reviewed research on the accuracy of clinical judgments at predicting the criterion of "violent behavior toward others" in 1981.9 The research concluded that "psychiatrists and psychologists are accurate in no more than one out of three predictions of violent behavior over a several-year period among institutionalized populations that had both committed violence in the past (and thus had high base rates for it) and who were diagnosed as mentally ill."10 Remarkably, only one study of the validity of clinicians at predicting "violence in the comunity" was published between 1979 and 1993.(11) This was a study of court-ordered pretrial mental health assessments conducted in 1978.(12) Consistent with the previous literature, 39% of the defendants rated by clinicians as having a "high" likelihood for being violent to others were reported to have committed dangerous acts during a two-year follow-up, compared to 26% of defendants considered as having a "low" likelihood, a statistically significant difference.13 In the last decade, researchers have shown a renewed interest in the topic of clinical risk assessment.14 For example, Lidz, Mulvey, and Gardner, in what is surely the most sophisticated study published on the clinical prediction of violence, took as their subjects male and female patients being examined in the acute psychiatric emergency room of a large civil hospital. …
暴力风险评估:科学有效性与证据可采性
暴力风险评估是美国精神卫生法实践的一个关键和不断扩大的部分。20世纪60年代,“对他人有危险”首次成为精神障碍患者非自愿住院的关键标准之一。(1)法院在20世纪70年代首次对因疏忽未能预测患者暴力行为的临床医生施加侵权责任在20世纪80年代,许多州制定了法律,授权其他方法所依赖的非自愿tWa作为非正式的,“在头脑中”,印象主义的,主观的结论,达成……由人类临床判断后者称为临床方法,前者称为精算方法。我将依次考虑。我回顾了1981年关于预测“对他人的暴力行为”标准的临床判断准确性的研究。该研究得出的结论是:“在过去有过暴力行为(因此有很高的基本比率)并被诊断为精神疾病的被收容人群中,精神科医生和心理学家对暴力行为的预测准确率不超过三分之一。”值得注意的是,1979年至1993年间,只有一项关于临床医生在预测“社区暴力”方面的有效性的研究发表。(11)这是一项1978年进行的法院命令的审前心理健康评估的研究。(12)与先前的文献一致,39%的被告被临床医生评为对他人有“高”暴力可能性,据报道在两年的随访期间犯下了危险行为。与26%被认为有“低”可能性的被告相比,统计学上有显著差异在过去的十年里,研究人员对临床风险评估这个话题重新产生了兴趣例如,Lidz、Mulvey和Gardner在一项肯定是发表过的最复杂的关于暴力临床预测的研究中,选取了在一家大型民用医院的急性精神病急诊室接受检查的男性和女性患者作为研究对象。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信