Tom 14, Nr 1 (2017)
Artykuł przeglądowy
Opublikowany online: 2017-03-01
Wyświetlenia strony
1239
Wyświetlenia/pobrania artykułu
4822
Zastosowanie oraz założenia teoretyczne narzędzi opartych na modelu ustrukturyzowanej oceny ryzyka wystąpienia zachowań związanych z przemocą w praktyce klinicznej
Psychiatr 2017;14(1):21-27.
Streszczenie
W niniejszym artykule opisano problematykę oceny zagrożenia wystąpienia zachowań związanych z przemocą, skupiając się głównie na podejściu nazywanym ustrukturyzowaną profesjonalną oceną (SPJ). Przedstawiono rozwój podejścia i opisano szczegółowo główne założenia modelu, na który składa się przemoc, ryzyko, ocena, zarządzanie, podejmowanie decyzji opartych na dowodach i integracja. Obecnie dwa (HCR-20 v.3 i SAPROF) spośród licznych narzędzi opierających się podejściu SPJ, opisane w niniejszej pracy, zostały przetłumaczone na język polski za zgodą autorów, co pozwoliło na ich wydanie. Przeanalizowano ich zastosowanie w praktyce klinicznej.
Słowa kluczowe: ocena ryzyka przemocyustrukturyzowana profesjonalna ocenaHCR-20 v3SAPROF
Referencje
- Hart SD, Webster CD, Douglas KS. Risk management using the HCR-20: A general overview focusing on historical factors. Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications; University of South Florida Scholar Commons. 2001; 1; 1–27.
- Monahan, J. A jurisprudence of risk assessment: Forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Virginia Law Review. 2006; 92: 391–435.
- Grove W, Meehl P. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 1996; 2(2): 293–323.
- Otto RK, Douglas KS. Handbook of violence risk assessment. Routledge, Oxford 2010: 5–6.
- Brunt BV. Structured Professional JUDGMENT. Harm to Others. 2015: 121–137.
- Gierowski JK., Paprzycki L. Niepoczytalność i psychiatryczne środki zabezpieczające. Zagadnienia prawno-materialne, procesowe, psychiatryczne i psychologiczne. C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2013; 308–327.
- Rogers R. The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law Hum Behav. 2000; 24(5): 595–605.
- Robbé M, Vogel Vde, Stam J. Protective Factors for Violence Risk: The Value for Clinical Practice. Psychology. 2012; 03(12): 1259–1263.
- De Vogel V, De Ruiter C, Bouman Y, De Vries Robbé M. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk, Van der Hoeven Kliniek, Utrecht. 2009; 11–20
- Douglas KS, Hart SD, Webster CD, Belfrage H. HCR-20V3: Assessing risk for violence – User guide. Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University 2013; 2; 20–40.
- O'Shea L, Dickens G. Predictive Validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) for Aggression and Self-Harm in a Secure Mental Health Service: Gender Differences. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2015; 14(2): 132–146.
- Kettles AM. A concept analysis of forensic risk. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2004; 11(4): 484–493.
- Belfrage H, Douglas K. Treatment Effects on Forensic Psychiatric Patients Measured With the HCR-20 Violence Risk Assessment Scheme. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2002; 1(1): 25–36.
- Boer DP, Hart SD, Kropp PR, Webster CD. Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk – 20: Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law, & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University 1977.
- Hart SD, Kropp PR, Laws DR, Klaver J, LOgan C, Watt KA The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP): Structured professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby, Canada ; Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University 2003.
- Kropp PR, Hart SD, Lyon D. Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management (SAM): User manual. Vancouver, Canada: ProActive ReSolutions Inc. 2008.
- Webster CD, Harris GT, Rice ME, Cormier C, Quinsey VL. The violence prediction scheme: Assessing dangerousness in high risk men”. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. 1994; 1–99.
- Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL. Violent Recidivism of Mentally Disordered Offenders: The Development of a Statistical Prediction Instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1993; 20(4): 315–335.
- Krug E, Mercy J, Dahlberg L, et al. The world report on violence and health. The Lancet. 2002; 360(9339): 1083–1088.
- Winer R, Bernstein P. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. Journal of Marketing. 1997; 61(3): 112.
- Dix G. Clinical Evaluation of the "Dangerousness" of "Normal" Criminal Defendants. Virginia Law Review. 1980; 66(3): 523–581.
- Hart S. The role of psychopathy in assessing risk for violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2011; 3(1): 121–137.
- Hart, S. D. Assessing and managing violence risk. HCR-20 violence risk management companion guide. Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications. ; 2001: 13–25.
- Janus E, Meehl P. Assessing the legal standard for predictions of dangerousness in sex offender commitment proceedings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 1997; 3(1): 33–64.
- Kapur N. Evaluating risks. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. 2000; 6(6): 399–406.
- Otto RK. Assessing and managing violence risk in outpatient settings. J Clin Psychol. 2000; 56(10): 1239–1262.
- Scott PD. Assessing dangerousness in criminals. Br J Psychiatry. 1977; 131: 127–142.
- American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association 1999.
- Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, et al. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997; 54(4): 337–343.
- Kropp PR, Hart SD, Lyon D, LePard D. Managing stalkers: Coordinating treatment and supervision. Wiley, New Yersey 2008; 138–160.
- Mears D. Towards rational and evidence-based crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2007; 35(6): 667–682.
- Pfeffer J, Sutton RI. Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, January 2006; 63–74.
- Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM. On the need for evidence-based medicine. J Public Health Med. 1995; 17(3): 330–334.
- Hart SD. Evidence-based assessment of risk for sexual violence. Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice. 2009; 1; 143–165.
- Hart S, Sturmey P, Logan C, et al. Forensic Case Formulation. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2011; 10(2): 118–126.
- Singh JP, Grann M, Fazel S. A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011; 31(3): 499–513.
