Dth

, 23:22 | Cite as

Verschillen tussen onderzoekers en behandelaars in het inschatten van het risico van gewelddadig gedrag

  • Vivienne de Vogel
  • Corine de Ruiter
Article

Samenvatting

In this article we present the results of a study into the interrater reliability of a structured instrument for violence risk assessment. Two independent researchers and two clinicians (treatment supervisors and group leaders) coded the Dutch version of the hcr-20 for sixty patients in a forensic psychiatric hospital. We examined differences between researchers and clinicians in coding the hcr-20, and possible interference of clinicians' feelings towards their patients. The interrater reliability of the hcr-20 was high. Group leaders scored significantly lower on the hcr-20 than researchers did. There were no significant differences between the mean hcr-20 scores of treatment supervisors and researchers. There was, however, a significant difference in the interpretation of the scores: treatment supervisors gave more ‘low risk’ judgments than researchers. Furthermore, feelings of clinicians towards their patients influenced their risk assessments. Feelings of being controlled and manipulated by the patient resulted in higher hcr-20 scores, whereas positive feelings (helpful, happy, relaxed) predicted lower risk ratings.

Samenvatting

Verschillen onderzoekers en behandelaars in hun inschatting van het risico van gewelddadige recidive bij forensisch psychiatrische patiënten? In dit artikel proberen we deze vraag te beantwoorden. De hcr-20, een risicotaxatie-instrument voor gewelddadig gedrag, werd door behandelaars (groepsleiders en hoofden behandeling) en onderzoekers gecodeerd voor zestig patiënten uit de Dr. Henri van der Hoeven Kliniek, forensisch psychiatrisch instituut te Utrecht. Dit prospectieve onderzoek had drie doelen: het in kaart brengen van verschillen tussen behandelaars en onderzoekers in het coderen van de hcr-20; het onderzoeken of gevoelens van behandelaars ten opzichte van hun patiënten invloed hebben op de risicotaxatie; en het vaststellen van de interbeoordelaarsbetrouwbaarheid van de hcr-20. De groepsleiders gaven gemiddeld significant lagere hcr-20-scores dan de onderzoekers. Tussen de hoofden behandeling en de onderzoekers werden geen significante verschillen gevonden in gemiddelde hcr-20-scores, maar wel in de interpretatie hiervan: de hoofden behandeling kwamen vaker tot de conclusie ‘laag risico’ dan de onderzoekers. Als behandelaars het gevoel hadden te worden overheerst of gemanipuleerd door de patiënt, resulteerde dit in hogere hcr-20-scores. Positieve gevoelens (willen helpen, blijdschap, ontspanning) hingen daarentegen samen met lage hcr-20-scores. De interbeoordelaarsbetrouwbaarheid van de hcr-20 was hoog.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Referenties

  1. Ackerman, M.J. (1999). Essentials of forensic psychological assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. apa, American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4 th ed.). Washington, dc: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  3. Belfrage, H. (1998). Implementing the hcr-20 scheme for risk assessment in a forensic psychiatric hospital: Integrating research and clinical practice. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 328-338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belfrage, H., & Douglas, K.S. (2002). Treatment effects on forensic psychiatric patients measured with the hcr-20 violence risk assessment scheme. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1, 25-36.Google Scholar
  5. Belfrage, H., Fransson, G., & Strand, S. (2000). Prediction of violence using the hcr-20: A prospective study in two maximum-security correctional institutions. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 11, 167-175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borum, R. (1996). Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment: Technology, guidelines and training. American Psychologist, 51, 945-956.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dankers, J., & Linden, J. van der (1995). Van regenten en patiënten: De geschiedenis van de Willem Arntsz Stichting: Huis en Hoeve, Van der Hoeven Kliniek en Dennendal. Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
  8. Dernevik, M., & Douglas, K.S. (2002). Structured clinical risk assessment: What are we assessing and who should do it in clinical setting? Paper presented at the 12th European Conference on Psychology and Law, Leuven, Belgium, September 14-17.Google Scholar
  9. Dernevik, M., Falkheim, M., Holmqvist, R., & Sandell, R. (2001). Implementing risk assessment procedures in a forensic psychiatric setting: Clinical judgement revisited. In D.P. Farrington, C.R. Hollin & M. McMurran (Eds.), Sex and violence: The psychology of crime and risk assessment (pp. 83-101). Londen: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Dr. Henri van der Hoeven Stichting (2002). Jaarverslag 2001. Utrecht: Dr. Henri van der Hoeven Stichting.Google Scholar
  11. Douglas, K.S., & Webster, C.D. (1999a). Predicting violence in mentally and personality disordered individuals. In R. Roesch, S.D. Hart, J.R.P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of discipline (pp. 175-239). New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, K.S., & Webster, C.D. (1999b). The hcr-20 violence risk assessment scheme. Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 3-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Douglas, K.S., Cox, D.N., & Webster, C.D. (1999). Violence risk assessment: Science and practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 149-184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas, K.S., Ogloff, J.R.P., Nicholls, T.L., & Grant, I. (1999). Assessing risk for violence among psychiatric patients: The hcr-20 violence risk assessment scheme and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 917-930.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleiss, J.L. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Grann, M., Belfrage, H., & Tengström, A. (2000). Actuarial assessment of risk for violence. Predictive validity of the vrag and the Historical part of the hcr-20. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 97-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg, S., & Shuman, D. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 50-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare, R. (1991). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  19. Hart, S.D., Ruiter, C. de, Hildebrand, M., & Vogel, V. de (2001). hcr -20 codeerblad. Uitgebreide versie. Utrecht: Dr. Henri van der Hoeven Stichting.Google Scholar
  20. Holmqvist, R., & Armelius, B.A. (1994). Emotional reactions to psychiatric patients. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 90, 204-209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Holmqvist, R., & Fogelstam, H. (1996). Psychological climate and countertransference in psychiatric treatment homes. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 93, 288-295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Laws, D.R., Hudson, S.M., & Ward, T. (2000). Remaking relapse prevention: A sourcebook. Londen: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Litwack, T.R., & Schlesinger, L.B. (1999). Dangerousness risk assessments: Research, legal, and clinical considerations. In A.K. Hess & I.B. Weiner (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 171-217). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. McGraw, K.O., & Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Philipse, M., Ruiter, C. de, Hildebrand, M., & Bouman, Y. (2000). hcr -20. Beoordelen van het risico van gewelddadig gedrag. Versie 2. Nijmegen/Utrecht: Prof. Mr. W.P.J. Pompestichting/Dr. Henri van der Hoeven Stichting.Google Scholar
  26. Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Cormier, C.A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington dc: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruiter, C. de (1999). Risicotaxatie bij forensisch psychiatrische patiënten. In C. de Ruiter & M. Hildebrand (red.), Behandelingsstrategieën bij forensisch psychiatrische patiënten (pp. 9-16). Houten/Diegem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.Google Scholar
  28. Strand, S., Belfrage, H., Fransson, G., & Levander, S. (1999). Clinical and risk management factors in risk prediction of mentally disordered offenders: More important than actuarial data? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 67-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vertommen, H., Verheul, R., Ruiter, C. de, & Hildebrand, M. (2002). De herziene versie van Hare's Psychopathie Checklist. Lisse: Swets Test Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Vogel, V. de, & Hildebrand, M. (2001). Beoordelen van het risico van gewelddadig gedrag: De Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 ( hcr-20). Gedragstherapie, 34, 93-102.Google Scholar
  31. Webster, C.D., Douglas, K.S., Eaves, D., & Hart, S.D. (1997). hcr -20. Assessing the risk of violence. Version 2. Burnaby, bc, Canada: Simon Fraser University and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  32. Whyte, C.R., Constantopoulos, C., & Bevans, H.G. (1982). Types of countertransference identified by Q-analysis. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 55, 187-201.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivienne de Vogel
    • 1
  • Corine de Ruiter
    • 1
  1. 1.afdeling onderzoekVivienne de Vogel, Dr. Henri van der Hoeven KliniekUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations