Increasing criminal danger among inmates of correctional institutions and mental health institutions has become a threat to the public safety of society, and the safety of inmates and workers in these institutions. This situation prompted the criminal justice system to take measures to assess inmates and determine the extent of the risk, their behavior might pose to others, and to take the necessary measures to prevent this risk. The assessment was initially based on the personal experience of judges and prison officers, but it was not accurate. Accurate assessment of criminal risk requires the use of scales and measures that are valid, reliable, and able to predict their occurrence during a certain period. Over the last four decades, more than 150 risk assessment measures have emerged. This report provides an overview of the current state of these scales and reviews the most used scales for assessing and predicting the risk of violence among inmates of penal and correctional institutions. The report shows the emergence and development of criminal risk assessment measures and their types since the end of the 1920s, to the growing research movement in the 1980s. Several measures of assessment of dangerousness have emerged in the arena, which have been classified into four basic models, arranged according to their historical development, namely: First: the clinical model, that relies on the professional experience of judges, correctional officers and health practitioners in the risk assessment of violence. Due to the dependence of this method on personal experience in the absence of objective criteria, studies have confirmed that its evaluation does not exceed the probability of chance. Second: The statistical actuarial model, which came because of the criticism of the previous model, assumes that past behavior is an indicator of predicting future behavior and uses statistical algorithms to predict the risk of violence through the historical information of the individual. One of the shortcomings of this method is that it suffices with historical factors and does not consider the current dynamic factors in risk assessment. Third: The structured professional judgment model, which tries to avoid the defects of the two previous models, as it combines the historical and clinical factors that are associated with crime, along with the assessment of experts and health practitioners. Fourth: the integrating model that focuses on monitoring of individuals with risk management, which aims to maximize the benefits of treatment and rehabilitation for inmates to reduce criminal risk. The report also presents instructions about, the application of structured methods for assessing risk of violence, and how to design a scale to assess the risks of violence among inmates of penal institutions in the Arab countries.
أولاً: المراجع العربية
• بيراز، جمال؛ وسعدي، حيدرة (2021). الخطورة الإجرامية كمعيار للحكم بعقوبة العمل للنفع العام. مجلة الرسالة للدراسات والبحوث الإنسانية، 6(2)، 228-237.
• سرور، أحمد فتحي (2013). الوسيط في قانون العقوبات، القسم العام، الطبعة الخامسة. القاهرة: دار النهضة العربية.
• كميل، محمد (2020). الخطورة الإجرامية وأثرها في تقدير العقوبة البديلة في التشريع الجنائي الفلسطيني. مجلة الحقوق والعلوم السياسية (1)، 47-64.
• لحرش، أيوب التومي؛ والنحوي، سليمان (2020). دور العدالة الجنائية في الحد من الخطورة الإجرامية أثناء تنفيذ العقوبة. المجلة الأكاديمية للبحوث القانونية والسياسية، 4(2)، 799-808.
• لريد، محمد أحمد (2016). الخطورة الإجرامية ودورها في السياسة الجنائية المعاصرة. الدراسات القانونية المقارنة. 2(1)، 1-21.
• منصور، إسحاق إبراهيم (2006). الموجز في علم الإجرام وعلم العقاب. الجزائر: ديوان المطبوعات الجامعية.
ثانياً: المراجع الأجنبية
• American Psychiatric Association. (1974). Clinical aspects of violent individuals. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
• Andrews, D. A. (2012). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of correctional assessment and treatment. In J. A. Dvoskin, J. L. Skeem, R. W. Novaco, & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Using social science to reduce violent offending (pp. 127–156). New York, NY: Oxford
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson
• Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
• Arai, K., Takano, A., Nagata, T., & Hirabayashi, N. (2017). Predictive accuracy of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 for violence in forensic psychiatric wards in Japan.Criminal behavior and mental health,27(5), 409-420.
• Belfrage, H. (1998). Implementing the HCR-20 scheme for risk assessment in a forensic psychiatric hospital: Integrating research and clinical practice.The journal of forensic Psychiatry,9(2), 328-338.
• Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.),Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply(pp. 18–32). Sage Publications, Inc.
• Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2007). Risk and need assessment.Developments in social work with offenders, 131-152.
• Bonta, J., Harman, W. G., Han, R. G., & Cormier, R. B. (1996). The prediction of recidivism among federally sentenced offenders: A re-validation of the SIR scale. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38(1), 61–79.
• Brinkley, C., A. (2015) Use of Assessment Measures for the Evaluation of Future Risk. In Pietz, C. A. andMattson, C. A. (Eds). Violent Offenders Understanding and Assessment. Oxford University Press.
• Burgess, E.W. (1928). Factors determining success or failure on parole. In A. A. Bruce, A. J. Harno, E. W. Burgess, & J. Landesco (Eds.), The workings of the indeterminate‑sentence law and the parole system in Illinois (pp. 221-234). Springfield, IL: State Board of Parole.
• Campbell, M. A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2007).Assessing the utility of risk assessment tools and personality measures in the prediction of violent recidivism for adult offenders. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.
• Campbell, M., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta- analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 567– 590.
• Churcher FP, Mills JF, Forth AE. The predictive validity of the Two-Tiered Violence Risk Estimates Scale (TTV) in a long-term follow-up of violent offenders. Psychol Serv. 2016 Aug;13(3):232-245.
• Churcher, Frances P. (2015). The Predictive Validity of the Two-Tiered Violence Risk Estimates Scale (TTV) in a Long-Term Follow-Up of High-Risk Federal Offenders. https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/etd/fa58aee7-63e0-4982-960b-1cf4222ef3ef/etd_pdf/51ea8e26ef2fda0c174c4509a42efa93/churcher-thepredictivevalidityofthetwotieredviolence.pdf
• Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Zhang, T., Sizmur, S., Roberts, C., ... & Rogers, R. D. (2009). Gender differences in structured risk assessment: comparing the accuracy of five instruments.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,77(2), 337.
• Conroy, M. A. (2012). Assessing Juveniles for Risk of Violence. In Grigorenko, E. L. (ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-0905-2_15, © Springer Science Business Media, LLC
• Conroy, M.A., & Morrie, D.C. (2007). Forensic assessment of violence risk: A Guide for Risk Assessment and Risk Management Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.
• De Page, L.; Englebert, j. and Titeca, P. (2020). L’Žvaluation du risque de violence. Comment Žvaluer le risque sans concession sur la primautŽ de la clinique ? Annales MŽdico-psychologiques, revue psychiatrique, 178, (4),335-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2019.04.013.
• De Vogel, V., & de Ruiter, C. (2005). The HCR-20 in personality disordered female offenders: A comparison with a matched sample of males.Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice,12(3), 226-240.
• De Vogel, V., Bruggeman, M., & Lancel, M. (2019). Gender-sensitive violence risk assessment: Predictive validity of six tools in female forensic psychiatric patients.Criminal justice and behavior,46(4), 528-549.
• De Vogel, V., De Beuf, T., Shepherd, S., & Schneider, R. D. (2022). Violence risk assessment with the HCR-20V3 in legal contexts: A critical reflection. Journal of personality assessment, 104(2), 252-264.
• DeMatteo, David & Olver, Mark E. (2022) Use of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in Legal Contexts: Validity, Reliability, Admissibility, and Evidentiary Issues, Journal of Personality Assessment, 104:2, 234-251, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2021.1955693
• Desmarais, S. L., & Singh, J. P. (2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States.Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.
• Desmarais, S. L., & Zottola, S. A. (2019). Violence risk assessment: Current status and contemporary issues. Marq. L. Rev., 103, 793.
• Diane S. Strub, Kevin S. Douglas & Tonia L. Nicholls (2016) Violence Risk Assessment of Civil Psychiatric Patients with the HCR-20: Does Gender Matter? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15:1, 81-96, DOI: 10.1080/14999013.2016.1141438
• Douglas, Hart, Groscup and Litwack (2013) Assessing Violence Risk. In Weiner, I. B., & Otto, R. K. (Eds.). The handbook of forensic psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
• Douglas, K. S. & Otto, R. K. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of violence risk assessment (2nd ed.). Routledge
• Douglas, K. S. (2014). Version 3 of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20V3): Relevance to violence risk assessment and management in forensic conditional release contexts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(5), 557-576.
• Douglas, K. S., & Kropp, P. R. (2002). A prevention-based paradigm for violence risk assessment: Clinical and research applications.Criminal Justice and Behavior,29(5), 617-658.
• Douglas, K. S., & Reeves, K. (2009). HCR- 20 violence assessment scheme: Rationale, application and empirical overview. In R. Otto & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 147– 185). New York: Routledge
• Douglas, K. S., Blanchard, A. J., Guy, L. S., Reeves, K. A., & Weir, J. (2010). HCR: 20 violence risk assessment schemes: Review and annotated bibliography (Current up to September 1, 2010).
• Douglas, K. S., Cox, D. N., & Webster, C. D. (1999). Violence risk assessment: Science and practice. Legal and criminological psychology, 4(2), 149-184.
• Douglas, K. S., Shaffer, C., Blanchard, A. J. E., Guy, L. S., Reeves, K., & Weir, J. (2014). HCR- 20 violence risk assessment scheme: Overview and annotated bibliography. HCR- 20 violence risk assessment white paper series, no. 1. Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
• Douglas, K.S Hart, S. D.; Groscup, J.L. and Litwack, T. R. (2013). Assessing Violence Risk. In I. B. Weiner and R. K. Otto (Eds). The Handbook of Forensic Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc
• Drake, E. (2014). Predicting criminal recidivism: A systematic review of offender risk
• Fazel, S., Singh, J. P., Doll, H., & Grann, M. (2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behavior in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj, 345.
• Fyfe & Gailey. (2011). e Scottish Approach to High-Risk Oenders: Early Answers or Further Questions. InDangerous People(pp. 213-228). Routledge.
• Glover et al. (2017). A cross-validation of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised (VRAG-R) within a correctional sample. Law and Human Behavior.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000257
• Gray N., McGleish A., MacCulloch M., et al. (2003) Prediction of violence and self-harm in mentally disordered offenders: A Prospective study of the efficacy of HCR-20, PCL–R, and psychiatric symptomatology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71, 443–450. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.3.443.
• 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.
• Hamilton Z, Kigerl A, Campagna M. (2016) Designed to Fit: The Development and Validation of the STRONG-R Recidivism Risk Assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2016;43(2):230-263.
• Hamilton, Z., Tollefsbol, E., Campagna, M., & van Wormer, J. (2017). Customizing Criminal Justice Assessments. In F.S. Taxman (Ed.), Handbook on Risk and Need Assessment: Theory and Practice, Volume 1 (333-377). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999).Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders(Vol. 2). Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General Canada.
• Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). STATIC-99: Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
• Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of STATIC-2002. User Report 2003—01. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
• Harcourt, B., E. (2007). Against Prediction: Sentencing, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound. Working Paper
• Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
• Hare, R. D. (2007). Psychological instruments in the assessment of psychopathy. In A. R. Felthous & H. Sass (Eds.), International handbook on psychopathic disorders and the law (pp. 41-67). New York: Wiley & Sons.
• Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multi-site comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15, 413—125.
• Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Quinsey, V.L. (2016). Violence Risk Appraisal Guide-Revised, 2013: User Guide. Data Services, Queen’s University Library.
• Hart, S. D., Douglas, K. S., & Guy, L. S. (2016). The structured professional judgement approach to violence risk assessment: Origins, nature, and advances.The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment and treatment of sexual offending,2, 643-666.
• Heilbrun, K. (2009).Evaluation for risk of violence in adults. OUP USA.
• Helmus, L. M., & Quinsey, V. L. (2020). Predicting violent reoffending with the VRAG-R: Overview, controversies, and future directions for actuarial risk scales. In J. S. Wormith, L. A. Craig and T. Hogue (Eds.) The Wiley Handbook of what works in violence risk management: Theory, research, and practice. (119-143). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Herrschaft, Bryn A. (2015). Evaluating the Reliability and Validity of the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) Tool: Implications for Community Corrections Policy. Presented at the Center for Court Innovation, January, New York, NY.
• Hertz, P.G., Eher, R., Etzler, S., & Rettenberger (2019). A cross-validation of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG-R) in a sample of individuals convicted of sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse.https://doi.org/10.1177//1079063219841901
• Hertz, P.G., Eher, R., Etzler, S., & Rettenberger, M. (2021). Cross-validation of the revised version of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG-R) in a sample of individuals convicted of sexual offenses.Sexual Abuse, 33, 63-87.
• Herve, H., & Yuille, J. (Eds.). (2007). The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Hilton, N. Z. (2021). Domestic Violence Risk Assessment: Tools for Effective Prediction and Management, Second Edition. American Psychological Association.https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/domestic-violence-risk-assessment-second-editionSelected Publications
• Hilton, N. Z., Radatz, D. L. (2021). Criminogenic needs among intimate partner violence offenders: Association with recidivism and implications for treatment.Psychological Services.https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ser0000450
• Howard, P. (2009) Improving prediction of reoffending using the Offender Assessment System (OASys). Ministry of Justice.
• Judges, R., Egan, V., & Broad, G. (2016) A Critique of the Historical Clinical Risk–20, Version 3, Risk Assessment Instrument, Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16:4, 304-320, DOI: 10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102
• Kleinmuntz, B., Faust, D., Meehl, P.E., & Dawes, R. M. (1990). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, New Series, 247 (4939), 146-147.
• Koh, L. L., Day, A., Klettke, B., Daffern, M., & Chu, C. M. (2020). The predictive validity of youth violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review.Psychology, Crime & Law,26(8), 776-796.
• Kroner, D., Mills, J., & Morgan, B. (2005). A coffee can, factor analysis, and prediction of antisocial behavior: The structure of criminal risk. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 28, 360-374
• Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health.The lancet,360(9339), 1083-1088.
• Lansing, Sharon. 2012, September. New York State COMPAS-Probation Risk and Need Assessment Study: Examining the Recidivism Scale’s Effectiveness and Predictive Accuracy. Criminal Justice Research Report submitted to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
• Leistico, A. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J., & Rogers, R. (in press). A large-scale eta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavio
• Lemke,R;Makarios, M; Smith, Paula; Lowenkamp, C.(2010)The Creation and Validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS), Federal Probation. Volume 74 Number 1:1-15.
• Litwack, T.R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 7 (2), 409-443.
• Mann, L. and Bugaiets, T. (2020). Risk assessment standards and methodologies for diverse stakeholders in Ukraine. Council of Europe.
• Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Reprinted with new Preface. Inin Proceedings of the 1955 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems.
• MŽlanie Voyer, M.; and Senon, J-L. (2012). PrŽsentation comparative des outils d’Žvaluation du risque de violence. L’Information psychiatrique; 88: 445–53. https://www.cairn.info/revue-l-information-psychiatrique-2012-6-page-445.htm
• Millaud, F., & Dubreucq, J. L. (2012). Les outils d›Žvaluation du risque de violence: avantages et limites.L›information psychiatrique,88(6), 431-437.
• Miller, S.L., & Brodsky, S.L. (2011). Risky business:Addressing the consequences of predicting violence. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39, 396–401.
• Mills, J. F., & Gray, A. L. (2013). Two-tiered violence risk estimates: A validation study of an integrated-actuarial risk assessment instrument.Psychological services,10(4), 361.
• Monahan, J. (1981).Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques(pp. 95-128). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
• Monahan, J. (2003). Violence risk assessment. In A. M. Goldstein & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 527–540). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.
• Monahan, J. (2008). Structured risk assessment of violence. In R. Simon and K. Tardiff (Eds.), Textbook of violence assessment and management (pp. 17–33). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
• Nafekh, Mark and Motiuk, Laurence. (2002). The statistical information on recidivism - revised 1 (SIR-R1) Scale: a psychometric examination. Research reportR-126, Canada: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.
• National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. (2007). The superordinate nature of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 102-117.
• Nicholls, T. L., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Douglas, K. S. (2004). Assessing risk for violence among male and female civil psychiatric patients: The HCR-20, PCL:SV, and VSC. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 127–158. doi: 10.1002/bsl.579.
• NOMS (2008b) National rules for tiering cases and associated guidance. Office ProbationCircular08/2008.London:NationalProbationService.Availableat http://www.probation.justice.gov.uk/files/pdf/PC08%202008.pdf
• PromŽ, G. (2020). LesRisques: dŽfinition, types, Žvaluation et gestion. Le Blog des Dispositifs MŽdicaux. https://www.qualitiso.com/risques-definition-types-evaluation-gestion/
• Pycroft, A., & Clift, S. (2012). Risk and Rehabilitation: Management and Treatment of Substance Misuse and Mental Health Problems in the Criminal Justice System. Policy Press.
• Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (2nd ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Quinsey, V. L.; Harris, G.; Rice, M. & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk., (pp. 141-169). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, xviii, 356 pp.
• Radatz, D. L., & Hilton, N. Z. (2021). The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment: Predicting violence among men with a police record of intimate partner violence in the United States.Criminal Justice and Behavior. Advance online publication, 30 July 2021.https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211035816
• Reich, Warren A; Picard-Fritsche, Sarah; Rioja, Virginia Barber and, Rotter, Merrill (2016). Evidence-based risk assessment in a mental health Court
• Rettenberger, M., Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Eher, R. (2017). Actuarial risk assessment of sexual offenders: The psychometric properties of the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 624–638.
• Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1997). Cross validation and extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 231-241.
• Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., Lang, C., & Cormier, C. (2006). Violent sex offenses: How are they best measured from official records? Law and Human Behavior, 30, 525-541.
• Shepherd, S. M., Campbell, R. E., & Ogloff, J. R. (2018). The utility of the HCR–20 in an Australian sample of forensic psychiatric patients.Psychiatry, Psychology and Law,25(2), 273-282.
• Singh, J. P., Bj€orkly, S., & Fazel, S. (Eds.). (2016). International perspectives on risk assessment. Oxford University Press.
• Singh, J. P., Desmarais, S. L., Hurducas, C., Arbach-Lucioni, K., Condemarin, C., Dean, K., ... & Otto, R. K. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries.International Journal of Forensic Mental Health,13(3), 193-206.
• Singh, J. P., Grann, M., & Fazel, S. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical psychology review, 31(3), 499-513.
• Skeem, J. L., & Monahan, J. (2011). Current directions in violence risk assessment.Current directions in psychological science,20(1), 38-42.
• Sreenivasan, S., Kirkish, P., Garrick, T., Weinberger, L. E., & Phenix, A. (2000). Actuarial risk assessment models: A review of critical issues related to violence and sex-offender recidivism assessments.Journal-American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,28, 438-448.
• Steadman, H. J., & Cocozza, J. J. (1974). Careers of the criminally insane: Excessive social control of deviance.
• Storey, J. S., Campbell, V. J., & Hart, S. D. (2013). Expert evidence about violence risk assessment: A study of Canadian legal decisions. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12, 287-296
• Strub, D. S., Douglas, K. S., & Nicholls, T. L. (2016). Violence risk assessment of civil psychiatric patients with the HCR-20: Does gender matter?International Journal of Forensic Mental Health,15(1), 81-96.
• Thornberry, T., & Jacoby, J. E. (1979).The criminally insane: A community follow-up of mentally ill offenders. University of Chicago Press.
• Vincent, G. M., Terry, A. M., & Maney, S. M. (2009). Risk/needs tools for antisocial behavior and violence among youthful populations. In Andrade, J.T. (Ed.). Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment and Treatment. Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
• Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. D. (1997). Assessing risk of violence to others. In C. D. Webster & M. A. Jackson (Eds.),Impulsivity: Theory, assessment, and treatment(pp. 251–277). The Guilford Press.
• Whiting, E. (2007) Comparison of re-offending measures: OGRS2, OGRS3 and the SPP. Unpublishedinternal report. London: Home
• Wong, S. C., Olver, M. E., & Stockdale, K. C. (2009). The utility of dynamic and static factors in risk assessment, prediction, and treatment.Handbook of violence risk assessment and treatment: New approaches for mental health professionals, 83-120.