Structured approaches to violence risk assessment: A critical review

Michael Brook*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This article critically reviews the theory, methodology, and empirical evidence pertaining to the various approaches employed by mental health professionals in expert testimony regarding the probability of future violence for people within the jurisprudence system. Many professionals rely on unstructured clinical assessment, which allows the evaluator to fully capitalize on their clinical experience but is vulnerable to cognitive and situational biases that negatively affect the validity and reliability of the evaluation. In contrast, actuarial assessment involves statistical estimation of violence risk based on certain combinations of criminogenic variables derived from prospective analysis of recidivism in various offender groups. Structured professional judgment relies on professional expertise with a structured checklist application, and thus attempts to minimize the limitations of unstructured clinical and actuarial assessment while retaining the strengths of each. Although an improvement on unstructured assessment, structured applications have significant limitations, highlighting the importance of a multimethod approach to violence risk assessment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)454-459
Number of pages6
JournalPsychiatric Annals
Volume47
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2017

Fingerprint

Violence
Expert Testimony
Jurisprudence
Checklist
Reproducibility of Results
Mental Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{ab09be59d18b48e5813371c8850f8347,
title = "Structured approaches to violence risk assessment: A critical review",
abstract = "This article critically reviews the theory, methodology, and empirical evidence pertaining to the various approaches employed by mental health professionals in expert testimony regarding the probability of future violence for people within the jurisprudence system. Many professionals rely on unstructured clinical assessment, which allows the evaluator to fully capitalize on their clinical experience but is vulnerable to cognitive and situational biases that negatively affect the validity and reliability of the evaluation. In contrast, actuarial assessment involves statistical estimation of violence risk based on certain combinations of criminogenic variables derived from prospective analysis of recidivism in various offender groups. Structured professional judgment relies on professional expertise with a structured checklist application, and thus attempts to minimize the limitations of unstructured clinical and actuarial assessment while retaining the strengths of each. Although an improvement on unstructured assessment, structured applications have significant limitations, highlighting the importance of a multimethod approach to violence risk assessment.",
author = "Michael Brook",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
doi = "10.3928/00485713-20170803-02",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "454--459",
journal = "Psychiatric Annals",
issn = "0048-5713",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "9",

}

Structured approaches to violence risk assessment : A critical review. / Brook, Michael.

In: Psychiatric Annals, Vol. 47, No. 9, 09.2017, p. 454-459.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Structured approaches to violence risk assessment

T2 - A critical review

AU - Brook, Michael

PY - 2017/9

Y1 - 2017/9

N2 - This article critically reviews the theory, methodology, and empirical evidence pertaining to the various approaches employed by mental health professionals in expert testimony regarding the probability of future violence for people within the jurisprudence system. Many professionals rely on unstructured clinical assessment, which allows the evaluator to fully capitalize on their clinical experience but is vulnerable to cognitive and situational biases that negatively affect the validity and reliability of the evaluation. In contrast, actuarial assessment involves statistical estimation of violence risk based on certain combinations of criminogenic variables derived from prospective analysis of recidivism in various offender groups. Structured professional judgment relies on professional expertise with a structured checklist application, and thus attempts to minimize the limitations of unstructured clinical and actuarial assessment while retaining the strengths of each. Although an improvement on unstructured assessment, structured applications have significant limitations, highlighting the importance of a multimethod approach to violence risk assessment.

AB - This article critically reviews the theory, methodology, and empirical evidence pertaining to the various approaches employed by mental health professionals in expert testimony regarding the probability of future violence for people within the jurisprudence system. Many professionals rely on unstructured clinical assessment, which allows the evaluator to fully capitalize on their clinical experience but is vulnerable to cognitive and situational biases that negatively affect the validity and reliability of the evaluation. In contrast, actuarial assessment involves statistical estimation of violence risk based on certain combinations of criminogenic variables derived from prospective analysis of recidivism in various offender groups. Structured professional judgment relies on professional expertise with a structured checklist application, and thus attempts to minimize the limitations of unstructured clinical and actuarial assessment while retaining the strengths of each. Although an improvement on unstructured assessment, structured applications have significant limitations, highlighting the importance of a multimethod approach to violence risk assessment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029392547&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029392547&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3928/00485713-20170803-02

DO - 10.3928/00485713-20170803-02

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85029392547

VL - 47

SP - 454

EP - 459

JO - Psychiatric Annals

JF - Psychiatric Annals

SN - 0048-5713

IS - 9

ER -