miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
An examination of violence risk communication in practice using a structured professional judgment framework.
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Human Sciences, Department of Social Sciences.
Pro Active ReSolutions Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada .
Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada .
2015 (English)In: Behavioral sciences & the law (Print), ISSN 0735-3936, E-ISSN 1099-0798, Vol. 33, no 1, 39-55 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The increased use of violence risk assessment tools in professional practice has sparked

the development of best-practice guidelines for communicating about violence risk.

The present study examined 166 pre-sentence reports, authored by clinicians and probation

officers, to determine the extent to which they are consistent with those guidelines.

We examined the frequency with which reports contained information about

five topics: the presence of risk factors; the relevance of risk factors; scenarios of future

violence; recommended management strategies; and summary risk judgments. Analyses

revealed that the topics addressed most frequently in reports were the presence of

risk factors and recommended management strategies, but none of the five topics was

addressed consistently, completely, or clearly in reports. This was especially the case

for probation reports. The findings highlight the need to improve practice through

better implementation of guidelines for risk communication. Also needed is research

on the extent to which information in risk communications is comprehended,

accepted, and used by various stakeholder groups.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 33, no 1, 39-55 p.
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-23854DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2156ISI: 000349959200003Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84923083085OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-23854DiVA: diva2:772684
Available from: 2014-12-17 Created: 2014-12-17 Last updated: 2015-07-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Storey, Jennifer E.
By organisation
Department of Social Sciences
In the same journal
Behavioral sciences & the law (Print)
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 83 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf