Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the HCR-20 Version 3

Abstract

We evaluated the interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the HCR-20 Version 3 (HCR-20^V3). Three sets of ratings were completed by experienced clinicians for 35 forensic psychiatric patients, for both HCR-20 Versions 2 and 3. Reliability analyses focused on ratings of the presence of Version 3 risk factors, presence of Version 3 risk factor sub-items, relevance ratings for Version 3 risk factors, and Version 3 summary risk ratings for future violence. Concurrent validity analyses focused on the correlational association between Versions 2 and 3 in terms of the number of risk factors present. Findings indicated that Versions 2 and 3 were strongly correlated (.69 – .90). Interrater reliability was consistently excellent for the presence of risk factors and for summary risk ratings. The majority of relevance and sub-item ratings were in the good to excellent range, although there was a minority of such ratings in the fair or poor categories. Findings support the concurrent validity and interrater reliability of HCR-20^V3. Implications for use of HCR-20^V3 by professionals and agencies are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Belfrage

(1998). Implementing the HCR-20 scheme for risk assessment in a forensic psychiatric hospital: Integrating research and clinical practice. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 328–338. doi: 10.1080/09585189808402200

Campbell

M. A.

, French

, & Gendreau

(2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 567–590. doi: 10.1177/0093854809333610

Dernevik

(1998). Preliminary findings on reliability and validity of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Assessment in a forensic psychiatric setting. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 4, 127–137. doi: 10.1080/10683169808401753

Douglas

K. S.

, Hart

S. D.

, Groscup

J. L.

, & Litwack

T. R.

(2014). Assessing violence risk. In Weiner

& Otto

R. K.

(Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Douglas

K. S.

, Hart

S. D.

, Webster

C. D.

, & Belfrage

(2013). HCR-20^V3: Assessing risk for violence – User guide. Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

Douglas

K. S.

, & Reeves

(2010). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Overview and review of the research. In Otto

& Douglas

K. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 147–185). Oxford, UK: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Douglas

K. S.

, Shaffer

, Blanchard

, Guy

L. S.

, Reeves

, & Weir

(2014). HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Overview and annotated bibliography. HCR-20 Violence Risk Assessment White Paper Series, #1. Mental Health, Law, & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada. Available at HCR-20.com.

Fazel

, Singh

J. P.

, Doll

, & Grann

(2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, e4692.

Fleiss

J. L.

(1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

10.

Guy

L. S.

(2008). Performance indicators of the structured professional judgment approach for assessing risk for violence to others: A meta-analytic survey. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.

11.

Guy

L. S.

, Douglas

K. S.

, & Hendry

M. C.

(2010). The role of psychopathic personality disorder in violence risk assessments using the HCR-20. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 551–580. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2010.24.5.551

12.

Hart

S. D.

, & Boer

D. P.

(2010). Structured professional judgment guidelines for sexual violence risk assessment: The Sexual Violence Risk–20 (SVR-20) and Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP). In Otto

R. K.

& Douglas

K. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

13.

Hart

S. D.

, Kropp

P. R.

, Laws

D. R.

, Klaver

, Logan

, & Watt

K. A.

(2003). The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP): Structured professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.

14.

Kropp

R. P.

, Hart

S. D.

, Webster

C. D.

, & Eaves

(1994). Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment guide. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: The British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.

15.

Landis

, & Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

16.

Singh

J. P.

(March). The international risk survey (IRiS) project: Perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment tools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Portland, OR.

17.

Singh

J. P.

, Grann

, & Fazel

(2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 499–513. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009

18.

Webster

C. D.

, Douglas

K. S.

, Eaves

, & Hart

S. D.

(1997). HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence , version 2. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University.

19.

Webster

C. D.

, Eaves

, Douglas

K. S.

, & Wintrup

(1995). The HCR-20 scheme: The assessment of dangerousness and risk. Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser University and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission of British Columbia.

20.

Yang

, Wong

S. C. P.

, & Coid

(2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 740–767. doi: 10.1037/a0020473