Most items in structured risk assessment instruments do not predict violence
Abstract
The predictive ability of static risk assessment instruments may be explained by a limited number of their items. This study examined the independent predictive accuracy of individual items in the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) for violent reconvictions following release among 1353 male prisoners in England and Wales. The study found most items in the three instruments were not independently predictive. Items not independently predictive were removed and all significant items in the original three instruments were combined, resulting in negligible gains in predictive accuracy for the VRAG and HCR-20, but a small improvement in the PCL-R. The study demonstrated that the predictive power of the PCL-R, VRAG and HCR-20 are based on a small number of their items. This may partly explain the ‘glass-ceiling’ effect beyond which further improvement cannot be achieved. Instruments lack outcome-specificity for violence, and independently predictive items include measures of general criminality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many items in other violence risk assessment tools are also not predictive.
“as it has been shown that many items in other violence risk assessment tools are also not predictive [26].”
From The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) Risk Assessment Instrument in Predicting Deadly or Persistent Domestic Abuse (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
Cites
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing
Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Dashing hopes? The predictive accuracy of domestic abuse risk assessment by police
Turner, E., Medina, J., & Brown, G. (2019) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azy074 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
The validity and utility of risk assessment for inpatient suicide
Large, M., Ryan, C., & Nielssen, O. (2011) · Australasian Psychiatry · doi:10.3109/10398562.2011.610505 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Caulfield, K. M., Gray, N. S., Edwards, A., & Snowden, R. J. (2025) · Forensic Sciences · doi:10.3390/forensicsci5040064
“Again, this should not be regarded as specific to the DASH scheme, as it has been shown that many items in other violence risk assessment tools are also not predictive [26].”
- Authors
- Coid, J. W., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Zhang, T., Sizmur, S., Farrington, D., & Rogers, R.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Picker Institute Europe (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Warneford Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Coid, Jeremy W.
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-21
- ISSN
- 1478-9949 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-9957
- OpenAlex
- W2005468295
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 6.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- violence risk prediction, Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, prisoner reoffending, glass ceiling, incarcerated men
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