English Polski
Vol 14, No 1 (2017)
Review paper
Published online: 2017-03-01

open access

Page views 1033
Article views/downloads 4030
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Structured professional judgement of the violence risk and its potential applications in clinical practice

Agnieszka Welento-Nowacka
Psychiatria 2017;14(1):21-27.


This article describes the problems of assessing the risks of behaviors related to violence, focused mainly on the approach known as structured professional judgment (hereinafter referred to as SPJ — structured professional judgement). The paper presents the development of the approach. Describes in detail the main assumptions of the model, which consists of violence, risk assessment, management, decision-making based on evidence and integration. Currently, two (HCR-20 v.3 and SAPROF) of the many tools based approach, SPJ has been translated into Polish with the consent of the authors, which allowed for their release. The article describes these to ols and its utility in clinical practice.


  1. 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.
  2. Monahan, J. A jurisprudence of risk assessment: Forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Virginia Law Review. 2006; 92: 391–435.
  3. 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.
  4. Otto RK, Douglas KS. Handbook of violence risk assessment. Routledge, Oxford 2010: 5–6.
  5. Brunt BV. Structured Professional JUDGMENT. Harm to Others. 2015: 121–137.
  6. Gierowski JK., Paprzycki L. Niepoczytalność i psychiatryczne środki zabezpieczające. Zagadnienia prawno-materialne, procesowe, psychiatryczne i psychologiczne. C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2013; 308–327.
  7. Rogers R. The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law Hum Behav. 2000; 24(5): 595–605.
  8. Robbé M, Vogel Vde, Stam J. Protective Factors for Violence Risk: The Value for Clinical Practice. Psychology. 2012; 03(12): 1259–1263.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Kettles AM. A concept analysis of forensic risk. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2004; 11(4): 484–493.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Kropp PR, Hart SD, Lyon D. Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management (SAM): User manual. Vancouver, Canada: ProActive ReSolutions Inc. 2008.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Krug E, Mercy J, Dahlberg L, et al. The world report on violence and health. The Lancet. 2002; 360(9339): 1083–1088.
  20. Winer R, Bernstein P. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. Journal of Marketing. 1997; 61(3): 112.
  21. Dix G. Clinical Evaluation of the "Dangerousness" of "Normal" Criminal Defendants. Virginia Law Review. 1980; 66(3): 523–581.
  22. Hart S. The role of psychopathy in assessing risk for violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2011; 3(1): 121–137.
  23. Hart, S. D. Assessing and managing violence risk. HCR-20 violence risk management companion guide. Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications. ; 2001: 13–25.
  24. 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.
  25. Kapur N. Evaluating risks. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. 2000; 6(6): 399–406.
  26. Otto RK. Assessing and managing violence risk in outpatient settings. J Clin Psychol. 2000; 56(10): 1239–1262.
  27. Scott PD. Assessing dangerousness in criminals. Br J Psychiatry. 1977; 131: 127–142.
  28. American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association 1999.
  29. Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, et al. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997; 54(4): 337–343.
  30. Kropp PR, Hart SD, Lyon D, LePard D. Managing stalkers: Coordinating treatment and supervision. Wiley, New Yersey 2008; 138–160.
  31. Mears D. Towards rational and evidence-based crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2007; 35(6): 667–682.
  32. Pfeffer J, Sutton RI. Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, January 2006; 63–74.
  33. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM. On the need for evidence-based medicine. J Public Health Med. 1995; 17(3): 330–334.
  34. Hart SD. Evidence-based assessment of risk for sexual violence. Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice. 2009; 1; 143–165.
  35. Hart S, Sturmey P, Logan C, et al. Forensic Case Formulation. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 2011; 10(2): 118–126.
  36. 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.