There is emerging evidence that the performance of risk assessment instruments is weaker when used for clinical decision‐making than for research purposes. For instance, research has found lower agreement between evaluators when the risk assessments are conducted during routine practice. We examined the field interrater reliability of the Short‐Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV). Clinicians in a Dutch secure youth care facility completed START:AV assessments as part of the treatment routine. Consistent with previous literature, interrater reliability of the items and total scores was lower than previously reported in non‐field studies. Nevertheless, moderate to good interrater reliability was found for final risk judgments on most adverse outcomes. Field studies provide insights into the actual performance of structured risk assessment in real‐world settings, exposing factors that affect reliability. This information is relevant for those who wish to implement structured risk assessment with a level of reliability that is defensible considering the high stakes.
Risk assessment instruments are widely used to predict risk of adverse outcomes, such as violence or victimization, and to allocate resources for managing these risks among individuals involved in criminal justice and forensic mental health services. For risk assessment instruments to reach their full potential, they must be implemented with fidelity. A lack of information on administration fidelity hinders transparency about the implementation quality, as well as the interpretation of negative or inconclusive findings from predictive validity studies. The present study focuses on adherence, a dimension of fidelity. Adherence denotes the extent to which the risk assessment is completed according to the instrument’s guidelines. We developed an adherence measure, tailored to the ShortTerm Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV), an evidence-based risk assessment instrument for adolescents. With the START:AV Adherence Rating Scale, we explored the degree to which 11 key features of the instrument were adhered to in 306 START:AVs forms, completed by 17 different evaluators in a Dutch residential youth care facility over a two-year period. Good to excellent interrater reliability was found for all adherence items. We identified differences in adherence scores on the various START:AV features, as well as significant improvement in adherence for those who attended a START:AV refresher workshop. Outcomes of risk assessment instruments potentially impact decision-making, for example, whether a youth’s secure placement should be extended. Therefore, we recommend fidelity monitoring to ensure the risk assessment practice was delivered as intended.
Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20V3, and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.
MULTIFILE
