Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-9hf5z Total loading time: 0.995 Render date: 2023-02-06T15:59:26.965Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Chapter 3 - The evolution of violence risk assessment

from Section 2 - Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2021

Katherine D. Warburton
University of California, Davis
Stephen M. Stahl
University of California, San Diego
Get access


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Kraemer, H, Kazdin, A, Offord, D, et al. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 1997; 54: 337343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmarais, S, Van Dorn, R, Johnson, K, et al. Community violence perpetration and victimization among adults with mental illness. Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print, February 13, 433 2014: e1–e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monahan, J. The inclusion of biological risk factors in violence risk assessments. In: Singh, I, Sinnott-Armstrong, W, Savulescu, J, eds. BioPrediction, Biomarkers, and Bad Behavior: Scientific, Legal, and Ethical Implications. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013: 5776, 439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B, Bonnie, R, Monahan, J. Understanding and applying Virginia’s new statutory civil commitment criteria. Developments in Mental Health Law. 2009; 28(1): 127139.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota; 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ægisdóttir, S, White, M, Spengler, P, et al. The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist. 2006; 34(3): 341382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeem, J, Monahan, J. Current directions in violence risk assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011; 20: 3842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardiff, K. Clinical risk assessment of violence. In: Simon, R, Tardiff, K, eds. Textbook of Violence Assessment and Management. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2008: 316.Google Scholar
Webster, C, Douglas, K, Eaves, D, Hart, S. HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence (Version 2). Vancouver: Simon Fraser University; 2007.Google Scholar
Douglas, K, Hart, Webster, C, Belfrage, H. HCR-20 (Version 3): Assessing Risk for Violence. Burnaby, BC, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 2013.Google Scholar
Douglas, K, Hart, S, Groscup, J, Litwack, T. Assessing violence risk. In: Weiner, I, Otto, R, eds. The Handbook of Forensic Psychology, 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2014: 385442.Google Scholar
Monahan, J, Steadman, H, Silver, E, et al. Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
Monahan, J. The classification of violence risk. In: R. Otto, R, Douglas, K, eds. Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment. New York:Routledge; 2010: 187198.Google Scholar
Sturup, J, Kristiansson, M, Monahan, J. Gender and violent behavior in Swedish general psychiatric patients: a prospective clinical study. Psychiatr. Serv. 2013; 64(7): 688693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinsey, V, Harris, G, Rice, M, Cormier, C. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M, Harris, G, Lang, C. Validation of and revision to the VRAG and SORAG: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide—Revised (VRAG-R). Psychol. Assess. 2013; 25(3): 951965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, C, Mulvey, E, Gardner, W. The accuracy of predictions of violence to others. JAMA. 1993; 269(8): 10071011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, M, Wong, S, Coid, J. The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychol. Bull. 2010; 136(5): 740767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroner, D, Mills, J, Morgan, B. A coffee can, factor analysis, and prediction of antisocial behavior: the structure of criminal risk. Int. J. Law Psychiatry. 2005; 28(4): 360374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skeem, J, Manchak, S, Peterson, J. Correctional policy for offenders with mental disorder: creating a new paradigm for recidivism reduction. Law Hum. Behav. 2011; 35(2): 110126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, S, Michie, C, Cooke, D. Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group v. individual predictions of violence. Br. J. Psychiatry Suppl. 2007; 49: s60s65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, D, Michie, C. Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: a challenge for forensic practice. Law Hum. Behav. 2010; 34(4): 259274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, R, Howard, P. Individual confidence intervals do not inform decision-makers about the accuracy of risk assessment evaluations. Law Hum. Behav. 2010; 34(4): 275281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scurich, N, Monahan, J, John, R. Innumeracy and unpacking: bridging the nomothetic/idiographic divide in violence risk assessment. Law Hum. Behav. 2012; 36(6): 548554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abraham, K. Distributing Risk: Insurance, Legal Theory, and Public Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989.Google Scholar
Faigman, D, Monahan, J, Slobogin, C. Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony. University of Chicago Law Review. 2014; 81(2).Google Scholar
Baird, C. A question of evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in the justice system. National Council on Crime & Delinquency website. Published February 2009. Accessed November 25, 2013.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of correctional assessment and treatment. In: Dvoskin, J, Skeem, J, Novaco, R, Douglas, K, eds. Using Social Science to Reduce Violent Offending. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012: 127156.Google Scholar
Monahan, J, Skeem, J. Risk redux: The resurgence of risk assessment in criminal sanctioning. Federal Sentencing Reporter. 2014; 26(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbrun, K. Prediction versus management models relevant to risk assessment: the importance of legal decision-making context. Law Hum. Behav. 1997; 21(4): 347359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, P, Dixon, L. Identifying change in the likelihood of violent recidivism: causal dynamic risk factors in the OASys violence predictor. Law Hum. Behav. 2013; 37(3): 163174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroner, D, Yessine, A. Changing risk factors that impact recidivism: in search of mechanisms of change. Law Hum. Behav. 2013; 37(5): 321336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menzies, R, Webster, C, Sepejak, D. Hitting the forensic sound barrier: predictions of dangerousness in a pre-trial psychiatric clinic. In: Webster, C, Ben-Aron, M, Hucker, S, eds. Dangerousness: Probability and Prediction, Psychiatry and Public Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1985: 115143.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P. Reference guide on mental health evidence. In: Federal Judicial Center. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011: 813896.Google Scholar
Singh, J, Petrila, J. Measuring and interpreting the predictive validity of violence risk assessments. Behav. Sci. Law. 2013; 31(1): 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadeh, N, Binder, R, McNiel, D. Recent victimization increases risk for violence in justice-involved persons with mental illness. Law Hum. Behav. Advance online publication July 15, 2013. doi:10.1037/lhb0000043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knock, M, Park, J, Finn, C, et al. Measuring the suicidal mind: Implicit cognition predicts suicidal behavior. Psychol. Sci. 2010; 21(4): 511517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeem, J, Manchak, S, Lidz, C, Mulvey, M. The utility of patients’ self-perceptions of violence risk: consider asking the person who may know best. Psychiatr. Serv. 2013; 64(5): 410415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aharonia, E, Vincent, GM, Harenskia, CL, et al. Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U S A. 2013; 110(15): 62236228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats