Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 499

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Accuracy of Predictions of Violence to Others

Lidz, Charles W.·1993·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of clinicians in predicting violence in mental patients. Specifically, to determine if clinicians can predict violence when variation in rates of violence attributable to age, race, and sex is controlled. DESIGN: Two samples of psychiatric patients, matched on age, race, sex, and admission status, were followed up in the community during a 6-month period. One group included individuals assessed by psychiatric emergency department clinicians as likely to be violent to another person during the follow-up period; the other was a comparison group. Patients provided self-reports of violent incidents, and a "collateral," ie, an individual with detailed knowledge of the patient's life, provided this same information. Official records were also reviewed. SETTING: Patients were recruited in the emergency department of a metropolitan psychiatric hospital. Patients and collaterals were interviewed in their homes or in public places in the community. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of individuals coming into a psychiatric emergency department during daylight and evening shifts was obtained. A total of 2452 patients were approached for consent and 1948 consented. A final sample of 357 patients whom clinicians assessed as likely to be violent and their matched comparison patients were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients', collaterals', and official records' reports of incidents in which the patient laid hands on another person or threatened someone with a weapon. RESULTS: Violence during the follow-up period was reported in approximately 45% of the cases: 36% in the comparison group and 53% in the cases predicted to be violent. Overall clinical accuracy was significantly better than chance, but predictions of female patients' violence were not better than chance. CONCLUSIONS: The level of patient violence reported using self-reports and collateral reports was higher than has been obtained using other methods. Clinical judgment adds to predictive accuracy, but overall accuracy was modest and particularly low for female patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1993.03500080055032

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 499

Metadata

Authors
Lidz, C. W.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1993-02-24
Volume
269
Issue
8
Pages
1007
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2154327629
Cited by
499
References
22
FWCI
20.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Accuracy of Predictions of Violence to Others. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1993.03500080055032
The paper
Lidz, C. W. (1993). The Accuracy of Predictions of Violence to Others. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03500080055032

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.