Empirical Support for the HCR‐20: A Critical Analysis of the Violence Literature

Laura S. Guy, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Catherine M. Wilson, Simon Fraser University

Article comments

At the time of publication, Laura Guy was not yet affiliated with the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Abstract

Citation: Guy, L. S., & Wilson, C. M. (2007). Empirical support for the HCR-20: A critical analysis of the violence literature. Burnaby: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University. Available online: http://kdouglas.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/hcr-20-report-2007.pdf

Summary: The purpose of this project was to conduct a comprehensive search of the empirical literature published in peer-reviewed journals between 1997 and 2005 to identify studies that presented support for variables included on the HCR-20. This report includes a separate section for each of the measure’s 20 items, with one exception. Empirical support for Items C5 (Unresponsive to Treatment) and R4 (Noncompliance with Remediation Attempts) are presented together under a single heading because studies that were relevant to one item also tended to apply to the other item. Moreover, these studies could not be differentiated on the basis of having a present (clinical) or future (risk management) focus.

Under each section, the most significant and methodologically sound studies identified in the search are summarized; abstracts of additional studies of relevance to the item are reproduced (with separate headings for studies that presented data on violent or non-vonviolent outcomes). Each section also lists narrative/qualitative literature reviews relevant to the item, as well as studies that offer “contradictory” empirical evidence. A table is presented at the beginning of the report that indicates whether, for each reference, a summary is provided, the abstract only is reprinted, or if it is a narrative review. Bookmark links are provided for each section of this report.