Gender differences in structured risk assessment: Comparing the accuracy of five instruments.

Abstract

Structured risk assessment should guide clinical risk management, but it is uncertain which instrument has the highest predictive accuracy among men and women. In the present study, the authors compared the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003); the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (HCR-20; C. D. Webster, K. S. Douglas, D. Eaves, & S. D. Hart, 1997); the Risk Matrix 2000-Violence (RM2000[V]; D. Thornton et al., 2003); the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; V. L. Quinsey, G. T. Harris, M. E. Rice, & C. A. Cormier, 1998); the Offenders Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS; J. B. Copas & P. Marshall, 1998; R. Taylor, 1999); and the total previous convictions among prisoners, prospectively assessed prerelease. The authors compared predischarge measures with subsequent offending and instruments ranked using multivariate regression. Most instruments demonstrated significant but moderate predictive ability. The OGRS ranked highest for violence among men, and the PCL-R and HCR-20 H subscale ranked highest for violence among women. The OGRS and total previous acquisitive convictions demonstrated greatest accuracy in predicting acquisitive offending among men and women. Actuarial instruments requiring no training to administer performed as well as personality assessment and structured risk assessment and were superior among men for violence.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 130 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.