历史临床风险- 20的批判,版本3,风险评估工具

Rachel C. Judges, Vincent Egan, Grant Broad
{"title":"历史临床风险- 20的批判,版本3,风险评估工具","authors":"Rachel C. Judges, Vincent Egan, Grant Broad","doi":"10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this critique is to provide an overview of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, version 3, exploring its psychometric properties, considering its clinical and research applications, while also taking into account its use in forensic mental health settings. The HCR-20 is considered the most researched and best empirically guided risk assessment of violence, and it has been widely adopted. Version 3 of the instrument was introduced in 2013 and as such the evidence base for its reliability, validity, and clinical utility is still in its infancy. However, if it maintains the core principles of the HCR-20V2, it may prove itself a similarly reliable and valid assessment. Despite some limitations, the research to date is supportive, demonstrating high levels of internal and interrater reliability, and good levels of concurrent and predictive validity. Its clinical utility has also been supported.","PeriodicalId":89973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"304 - 320"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critique of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, Version 3, Risk Assessment Instrument\",\"authors\":\"Rachel C. Judges, Vincent Egan, Grant Broad\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The aim of this critique is to provide an overview of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, version 3, exploring its psychometric properties, considering its clinical and research applications, while also taking into account its use in forensic mental health settings. The HCR-20 is considered the most researched and best empirically guided risk assessment of violence, and it has been widely adopted. Version 3 of the instrument was introduced in 2013 and as such the evidence base for its reliability, validity, and clinical utility is still in its infancy. However, if it maintains the core principles of the HCR-20V2, it may prove itself a similarly reliable and valid assessment. Despite some limitations, the research to date is supportive, demonstrating high levels of internal and interrater reliability, and good levels of concurrent and predictive validity. Its clinical utility has also been supported.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic psychology practice\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"304 - 320\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic psychology practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

这篇评论的目的是提供历史临床风险- 20,版本3的概述,探索其心理测量特性,考虑其临床和研究应用,同时也考虑到它在法医心理健康环境中的使用。人权高专办-20被认为是研究最多、经验指导最好的暴力风险评估,并已被广泛采用。该仪器的第三版于2013年推出,因此其可靠性、有效性和临床实用性的证据基础仍处于起步阶段。然而,如果它保持了HCR-20V2的核心原则,它可能会证明自己是一个同样可靠和有效的评估。尽管存在一些局限性,但迄今为止的研究是支持性的,证明了高水平的内部和外部信度,以及良好的并发效度和预测效度。它的临床应用也得到了支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Critique of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, Version 3, Risk Assessment Instrument
ABSTRACT The aim of this critique is to provide an overview of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, version 3, exploring its psychometric properties, considering its clinical and research applications, while also taking into account its use in forensic mental health settings. The HCR-20 is considered the most researched and best empirically guided risk assessment of violence, and it has been widely adopted. Version 3 of the instrument was introduced in 2013 and as such the evidence base for its reliability, validity, and clinical utility is still in its infancy. However, if it maintains the core principles of the HCR-20V2, it may prove itself a similarly reliable and valid assessment. Despite some limitations, the research to date is supportive, demonstrating high levels of internal and interrater reliability, and good levels of concurrent and predictive validity. Its clinical utility has also been supported.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hindsight Bias in Forensic Mental Health Novices and Experts: An Exploratory Study Medical Knowledge-Related Suicide in Hemodialysis Therapy Among Older Adults with Severe Comorbidities - A Case Report The Role of Nurses in the Implementation of Positive Behavior Support in a Secure Forensic Setting ‘Honor’ and Its Upholders: Perpetrator Types in ‘Honor’-Based Abuse Exploring Extreme Violence: Forensic and Psychiatric Analysis of Overkill and Brutal Homicide Cases in Türkiye
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1