A Critique of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, Version 3, Risk Assessment Instrument

Rachel C. Judges, Vincent Egan, Grant Broad
{"title":"A Critique of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, Version 3, Risk Assessment Instrument","authors":"Rachel C. Judges, Vincent Egan, Grant Broad","doi":"10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this critique is to provide an overview of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, version 3, exploring its psychometric properties, considering its clinical and research applications, while also taking into account its use in forensic mental health settings. The HCR-20 is considered the most researched and best empirically guided risk assessment of violence, and it has been widely adopted. Version 3 of the instrument was introduced in 2013 and as such the evidence base for its reliability, validity, and clinical utility is still in its infancy. However, if it maintains the core principles of the HCR-20V2, it may prove itself a similarly reliable and valid assessment. Despite some limitations, the research to date is supportive, demonstrating high levels of internal and interrater reliability, and good levels of concurrent and predictive validity. Its clinical utility has also been supported.","PeriodicalId":89973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"304 - 320"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

ABSTRACT The aim of this critique is to provide an overview of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, version 3, exploring its psychometric properties, considering its clinical and research applications, while also taking into account its use in forensic mental health settings. The HCR-20 is considered the most researched and best empirically guided risk assessment of violence, and it has been widely adopted. Version 3 of the instrument was introduced in 2013 and as such the evidence base for its reliability, validity, and clinical utility is still in its infancy. However, if it maintains the core principles of the HCR-20V2, it may prove itself a similarly reliable and valid assessment. Despite some limitations, the research to date is supportive, demonstrating high levels of internal and interrater reliability, and good levels of concurrent and predictive validity. Its clinical utility has also been supported.
历史临床风险- 20的批判,版本3,风险评估工具
这篇评论的目的是提供历史临床风险- 20,版本3的概述,探索其心理测量特性,考虑其临床和研究应用,同时也考虑到它在法医心理健康环境中的使用。人权高专办-20被认为是研究最多、经验指导最好的暴力风险评估,并已被广泛采用。该仪器的第三版于2013年推出,因此其可靠性、有效性和临床实用性的证据基础仍处于起步阶段。然而,如果它保持了HCR-20V2的核心原则,它可能会证明自己是一个同样可靠和有效的评估。尽管存在一些局限性,但迄今为止的研究是支持性的,证明了高水平的内部和外部信度,以及良好的并发效度和预测效度。它的临床应用也得到了支持。
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