Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale: A treatment-friendly violence risk assessment tool.

Wong, Stephen C. P., Gordon, Audrey·2006·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Abstract

The development of risk assessment tools that use dynamic variables to predict recidivism and to inform and facilitate violence reduction interventions is the next major challenge in the field of risk assessment and management. This study is the first in a 2-step process to validate the Violence Risk Scale (VRS), a risk assessment tool that integrates violence assessment, prediction, and treatment. Ratings of the 6 static and 20 dynamic VRS variables assess the client's level of risk. Ratings of the dynamic variables identify treatment targets linked to violence, and ratings of the stages of change of the treatment targets assess the client's treatment readiness and change. The VRS scores of 918 male offenders showed good interrater reliability and internal consistency and could predict violent and nonviolent recidivism over both short- and longer term (4.4-year) follow-up. The probability of violent and nonviolent recidivism varied linearly with VRS scores. Dynamic and static variables performed equally well. The results support the contention that the VRS can be used to assess violent risk and to guide violence reduction treatment.

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 · 10.1037/1076-8971.12.3.279

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 298

Metadata

Authors
Wong, S. C. P., & Gordon, A.
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Published
2006-08
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
279-309
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
OpenAlex
W2072047636
Cited by
298
References
2
FWCI
8.56
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

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.