The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools - PubMed (original) (raw)
Meta-Analysis
. 2010 Sep;136(5):740-67.
doi: 10.1037/a0020473.
Affiliations
- PMID: 20804235
- DOI: 10.1037/a0020473
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools
Min Yang et al. Psychol Bull. 2010 Sep.
Abstract
Actuarial risk assessment tools are used extensively to predict future violence, but previous studies comparing their predictive accuracies have produced inconsistent findings as a result of various methodological issues. We conducted meta-analyses of the effect sizes of 9 commonly used risk assessment tools and their subscales to compare their predictive efficacies for violence. The effect sizes were extracted from 28 original reports published between 1999 and 2008, which assessed the predictive accuracy of more than one tool. We used a within-subject design to improve statistical power and multilevel regression models to disentangle random effects of variation between studies and tools and to adjust for study features. All 9 tools and their subscales predicted violence at about the same moderate level of predictive efficacy with the exception of Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) Factor 1, which predicted violence only at chance level among men. Approximately 25% of the total variance was due to differences between tools, whereas approximately 85% of heterogeneity between studies was explained by methodological features (age, length of follow-up, different types of violent outcome, sex, and sex-related interactions). Sex-differentiated efficacy was found for a small number of the tools. If the intention is only to predict future violence, then the 9 tools are essentially interchangeable; the selection of which tool to use in practice should depend on what other functions the tool can perform rather than on its efficacy in predicting violence. The moderate level of predictive accuracy of these tools suggests that they should not be used solely for some criminal justice decision making that requires a very high level of accuracy such as preventive detention.
Similar articles
- Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fazel S, Singh JP, Doll H, Grann M. Fazel S, et al. BMJ. 2012 Jul 24;345:e4692. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4692. BMJ. 2012. PMID: 22833604 Free PMC article. Review. - Predictive validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version for general and violent recidivism.
Corrado RR, Vincent GM, Hart SD, Cohen IM. Corrado RR, et al. Behav Sci Law. 2004;22(1):5-22. doi: 10.1002/bsl.574. Behav Sci Law. 2004. PMID: 14963878 - Psychopathy and violence: the importance of factor level interactions.
Walsh Z, Kosson DS. Walsh Z, et al. Psychol Assess. 2008 Jun;20(2):114-20. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.114. Psychol Assess. 2008. PMID: 18557688 - Validation of and revision to the VRAG and SORAG: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide-Revised (VRAG-R).
Rice ME, Harris GT, Lang C. Rice ME, et al. Psychol Assess. 2013 Sep;25(3):951-65. doi: 10.1037/a0032878. Epub 2013 May 6. Psychol Assess. 2013. PMID: 23647040 - A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants.
Singh JP, Grann M, Fazel S. Singh JP, et al. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):499-513. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009. Epub 2010 Dec 13. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011. PMID: 21255891 Review.
Cited by
- Psychopathic predators? Getting specific about the relation between psychopathy and violence.
Camp JP, Skeem JL, Barchard K, Lilienfeld SO, Poythress NG. Camp JP, et al. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013 Jun;81(3):467-80. doi: 10.1037/a0031349. Epub 2013 Jan 14. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013. PMID: 23316742 Free PMC article. - Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fazel S, Singh JP, Doll H, Grann M. Fazel S, et al. BMJ. 2012 Jul 24;345:e4692. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4692. BMJ. 2012. PMID: 22833604 Free PMC article. Review. - Prospective Field Validation of the START:AV in a Dutch Secure Youth Care Sample.
De Beuf TLF, de Vogel V, Broers NJ, de Ruiter C. De Beuf TLF, et al. Assessment. 2023 Apr;30(3):633-650. doi: 10.1177/10731911211063228. Epub 2021 Dec 15. Assessment. 2023. PMID: 34907790 Free PMC article. - Risk assessment for aggressive behaviour in schizophrenia.
Välimäki M, Lantta T, Kontio R. Välimäki M, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 May 2;5(5):CD012397. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012397.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38695777 Review. - Machine learning of structural magnetic resonance imaging predicts psychopathic traits in adolescent offenders.
Steele VR, Rao V, Calhoun VD, Kiehl KA. Steele VR, et al. Neuroimage. 2017 Jan 15;145(Pt B):265-273. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.013. Epub 2015 Dec 12. Neuroimage. 2017. PMID: 26690808 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources