Predictive validity of the HKT-R risk assessment tool::Two and 5-year violent recidivism in a nationwide sample of Dutch forensic psychiatric patients

This study has examined the predictive validity of the Historical Clinical Future [Historisch Klinisch Toekomst] Revised risk assessment scheme in a cohort of 347 forensic psychiatric patients, which were discharged between 2004 and 2008 from any of 12 highly secure forensic centers in the Netherlands. Predictive validity was measured 2 and 5 years after release. Official reconviction data obtained from the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice were used as outcome measures. Violent reoffending within 2 and 5 years after discharge was assessed. With regard to violent reoffending, results indi... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Bogaerts, Stefan
Spreen, Marinus
Ter Horst, Paul
Gerlsma, Coby
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2018
Reihe/Periodikum: Bogaerts , S , Spreen , M , Ter Horst , P & Gerlsma , C 2018 , ' Predictive validity of the HKT-R risk assessment tool: Two and 5-year violent recidivism in a nationwide sample of Dutch forensic psychiatric patients ' , International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , vol. 62 , no. 8 , pp. 2259-2270 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17717128
Schlagwörter: HKT-R / Predictive validity / violent recidivism / clinical decision making / PERSONALITY-DISORDERS / RELIABILITY / VERSION
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-26671217
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://hdl.handle.net/11370/81d0987e-25da-43da-a0f2-a14cf81ec112

This study has examined the predictive validity of the Historical Clinical Future [Historisch Klinisch Toekomst] Revised risk assessment scheme in a cohort of 347 forensic psychiatric patients, which were discharged between 2004 and 2008 from any of 12 highly secure forensic centers in the Netherlands. Predictive validity was measured 2 and 5 years after release. Official reconviction data obtained from the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice were used as outcome measures. Violent reoffending within 2 and 5 years after discharge was assessed. With regard to violent reoffending, results indicated that the predictive validity of the Historical domain was modest for 2 (area under the curve [AUC] = .75) and 5 (AUC = .74) years. The predictive validity of the Clinical domain was marginal for 2 (admission: AUC = .62; discharge: AUC = .63) and 5 (admission: AUC = .69; discharge: AUC = .62) years after release. The predictive validity of the Future domain was modest (AUC = .71) for 2 years and low for 5 (AUC = .58) years. The total score of the instrument was modest for 2 years (AUC = .78) and marginal for 5 (AUC = .68) years. Finally, the Final Risk Judgment was modest for 2 years (AUC = .78) and marginal for 5 (AUC = .63) years time at risk. It is concluded that this risk assessment instrument appears to be a satisfactory instrument for risk assessment.