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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.9.1102 · Cited by 8,596
A common language effect size statistic
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.361 · Cited by 934
Self-citation
Cited by
The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools.
Yang, M., Wong, S. C. P., & Coid, J. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0020473 · Cited by 525
Self-citation
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.