- Introduction to the Special Issue of the HCR-20 Version 3
- Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20V3): Development and Overview
- Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the HCR-20 Version 3
- The Validity of Version 3 of the HCR-20 Violence Risk Assessment Scheme Amongst Offenders and Civil Psychiatric Patients
- Adapting the HCR-20V3 for Pre-trial Settings
- The HCR-20 Version 3: A Case Study in Risk Formulation
- Professional Training on the HCR-V3
Taylor & Francis has made the recently published Special Issue of the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health available for free download until the end of the year. Check out these great articles on the HCR-20 Version 3.
Introduction to the Special Issue of the HCR-20 Version 3
Author
Kevin S. DouglasAbstract
The HCR-20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3) was published in 2013, after several years of development and revision work. It replaces Version 2, published in 1997, on which there have been more than 200 disseminations based on more than 33,000 cases across 25 countries. This article explains (1) why a revision was necessary, (2) the steps we took in the revision process, (3) key changes between Version 2 and Version 3, and (4) an overview of HCR-20V3‘s risk factors and administration steps. Recommendations for evaluating Version 3 are provided.
Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20V3): Development and Overview
Authors
Kevin S. DouglasStephen D. HartChristopher D. WebsterHenrik BelfrageLaura S. GuyCatherine M. WilsonAbstract
The HCR-20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3) was published in 2013, after several years of development and revision work. It replaces Version 2, published in 1997, on which there have been more than 200 disseminations based on more than 33,000 cases across 25 countries. This article explains (1) why a revision was necessary, (2) the steps we took in the revision process, (3) key changes between Version 2 and Version 3, and (4) an overview of HCR-20V3‘s risk factors and administration steps. Recommendations for evaluating Version 3 are provided.
Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the HCR-20 Version 3
Authors
Kevin S. DouglasHenrik BelfrageAbstract
We evaluated the interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the HCR-20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3). 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-20V3. Implications for use of HCR-20V3 by professionals and agencies are discussed.
The Validity of Version 3 of the HCR-20 Violence Risk Assessment Scheme Amongst Offenders and Civil Psychiatric Patients
Authors
Diane S. StrubKevin S. DouglasTonia L. NichollsAbstract
The current study presents an empirical evaluation of the performance of the third version of the HCR-20. This prospective research project was conducted using a sample of 106 offenders and psychiatric patients who were transitioning out of institutions and into the community. Results provided strong support for the bivariate associations between the ratings of the presence and relevance of risk factors, as well as summary risk ratings, and violence at 4 to 6 weeks and 6 to 8 months. Although relevance ratings did not add incrementally to presence ratings, summary risk ratings added incrementally to both. Findings were not moderated by either sub-sample or gender. Version 3 of the HCR-20 was highly correlated with Version 2. Associations with violence were comparable between instruments. Findings were supportive of these basic elements of Version 3.
Adapting the HCR-20V3 for Pre-trial Settings
Authors
Shannon Toney SmithShannon E. KelleyAllison RulsehKarolina SörmanJohn F. EdensAbstract
The present study investigated the use of the HCR-20V3 (Douglas, Hart, Webster, & Belfrage, 2013) among a sample of 84 male inmates in a pre-trial correctional facility. Overall, results indicated that the newly revised instrument can be adapted for use in a pre-trial context, although some scoring obstacles (e.g., participants’ uncertain legal status) were encountered when attempting to rate certain HCR-20V3 items. Also, some group differences in risk ratings were found when comparing our sample to HCR-20V3 data collected from external psychiatric inpatient and post-adjudication samples. Implications for clinical forensic practice are reviewed, focusing on modifications that may be helpful or necessary for use in pre-trial settings.
The HCR-20 Version 3: A Case Study in Risk Formulation
Author
Caroline LoganAbstract
The third edition of the HCR-20 (HCR-20V3, Douglas, Hart, Webster, et al., 2013) consolidates essential recent thinking about risk assessment and management using the structured professional judgement approach. As with the preceding Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (Hart, Kropp, Laws et al., 2003), risk factors for violence are now assessed for their relevance as well as presence, scenario planning has a central place in anticipating the nature, severity, imminence and likelihood of future harm, and risk management strategies must incorporate a combination of treatment, supervision, monitoring and victim safety planning interventions and recommendations. However, the key process now proposed for linking the assessment and overall management of risk is risk formulation—the act of understanding the underlying mechanism of an individual’s harm potential in order to develop sensitive and proportionate hypotheses to facilitate change (embodied within the risk management plan). In this paper, the process of risk formulation is described and illustrated with a case study—Paul. A brief report of the risk assessment, formulation and management recommendations for Paul illustrate the key features of what is recommended in the new version of this internationally renowned violence risk guide. However, empirical research into risk formulation remains outstanding.
Professional Training on the HCR-V3
CONCEPT is pleased to offer online professional training on the development, administration, scoring, interpretation, and clinical implementation of the HCR-V3. The training program takes approximately 20 hours to complete. Professionals are taken through the development of Version 3 and the rationale for revision and update of this instrument. The training program describes why and how the HCR-20 was revised, how Version 3 differs from its predecessors, initial research validation of the HCR-V3, what its risk factors are and how to rate them, how to formulate a case and engage in risk management planning using the HCR-V3. The program includes both didactic and interactive components and allows the opportunity to apply the HCR-V3 to a clinical case. More information on this professional training program is available here.
