Violence risk assessment: Science and practice

Kevin S. Douglas, David N. Cox, Christopher D. Webster

Legal and Criminological Psychology · 1999 · 225 citations · 0 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Clinicians aid researchers, and risk assessments must follow current knowledge, though until recently reliable guidance on violence risk assessment was lacking. The paper demonstrates that risk assessment science has advanced sufficiently to assist clinicians within the scientist‑practitioner framework. It reviews key topics including violence risk assessment, the actuarial‑clinical debate, validity, predictors, empirically validated structured schemes, communication of findings, and training implications. The claim that reliable guidance on violence risk assessment was previously unavailable is no longer tenable.

Abstract

Within the conceptual framework of the scientist‐practitioner model, this paper describes how the science of risk assessment has progressed to a point where it can be of definite assistance to clinicians. Similarly, clinicians can be of marked help to researchers as they play a role in concept definition and as they design and carry out studies to determine the accuracy of their predictions. Risk assessments ought to be carried out in accord with state‐of‐the‐discipline knowledge. Until fairly recently, it may have been argued that the state of knowledge did not provide any sort of reliable or trustworthy direction on violence risk assessment. This position seems no longer tenable. Topic areas discussed include violence and risk assessment generally, the actuarial‐clinical prediction debate, the validity of violence risk assessments, predictors of violence, violence risk assessment schemes (empirically validated structured clinical decision‐making), communication of risk assessment findings, and implications for training.