Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of General Psychiatry 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Primary research

Strength-based assessment for future violence risk: a retrospective validation study of the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) Japanese version in forensic psychiatric inpatients

Authors: Hiroko Kashiwagi, Akiko Kikuchi, Mayuko Koyama, Daisuke Saito, Naotsugu Hirabayashi

Published in: Annals of General Psychiatry | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) was recently developed as a strength-based addition to the risk assessment of future violent behavior. We examined the interrater reliability and predictive accuracy of the SAPROF for violence in forensic mental health inpatient units in Japan.

Methods

This retrospective record study provides an initial validation of the SAPROF in a Japanese sample of 95 forensic psychiatric inpatients from a complete 2008–2013 cohort. Violent outcomes were assessed 6 and 12 months after hospitalization.

Results

We observed moderate-to-good interrater reliability for the SAPROF total score and the internal factors, motivational factors, external factors, and the Final Protection Judgment scores. According to a receiver operating characteristic analysis, the SAPROF total score and all subscale scores predicted violence at both 6 and 12 months after hospitalization with high accuracy. Furthermore, the predictive validity of a combination of the SAPROF with the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) outperformed that of the HCR-20 alone.

Conclusions

The results provide evidence of the value of considering protective factors in the assessment of future violence risk among Japanese forensic psychiatric inpatients. The SAPROF might allow for a more balanced assessment of future violence risk in places where the population rates of violent crime are low, such as Japan, but a validation study in a different setting should confirm this. Moreover, future studies should examine the effectiveness of treatment and promoting community re-integration on motivating patients and treatment staff.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Webster CD, Douglas KS, Eaves D, Hart SD. HCR-20. Assessing the risk of violence. Version 2. Burnaby: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 1997. Webster CD, Douglas KS, Eaves D, Hart SD. HCR-20. Assessing the risk of violence. Version 2. Burnaby: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 1997.
2.
go back to reference de Vogel V, de Ruiter C, Bouman Y, de Vries Robbé M, de Handleiding bij, SAPROF. Structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk. Versie1. Utrecht: Forum Educatief; 2007 (in Dutch). de Vogel V, de Ruiter C, Bouman Y, de Vries Robbé M, de Handleiding bij, SAPROF. Structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk. Versie1. Utrecht: Forum Educatief; 2007 (in Dutch).
3.
go back to reference de Vogel V, de Ruiter C, Bouman Y, de Vries Robbé. SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk. English version. Utrecht: Forum Educatief; 2009. de Vogel V, de Ruiter C, Bouman Y, de Vries Robbé. SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk. English version. Utrecht: Forum Educatief; 2009.
4.
go back to reference Farrington DP. Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge Study in delinquent development. In: Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, editors. Taking stock of delinquency: an overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies. New York: Kluwer/Plenum; 2003. p. 137–84.CrossRef Farrington DP. Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge Study in delinquent development. In: Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, editors. Taking stock of delinquency: an overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies. New York: Kluwer/Plenum; 2003. p. 137–84.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rogers R. The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law Hum Behav. 2000;24:595–605.CrossRefPubMed Rogers R. The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law Hum Behav. 2000;24:595–605.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Salekin RT, Lochman JE. Child and adolescent psychopathy. The search for protective factors. Crim Justice Behav. 2008;35:159–72.CrossRef Salekin RT, Lochman JE. Child and adolescent psychopathy. The search for protective factors. Crim Justice Behav. 2008;35:159–72.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference DeMatteo D, Heilbrun K, Marczyk G. Psychopathy, risk of violence, and protective factors in a noninstitutionalized and noncriminal sample. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2005;4:147–57.CrossRef DeMatteo D, Heilbrun K, Marczyk G. Psychopathy, risk of violence, and protective factors in a noninstitutionalized and noncriminal sample. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2005;4:147–57.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Blum RW, Ireland M. Reducing risk, increasing protective factors: findings from the Caribbean Youth Health Survey. J Adolesc Health. 2004;35:493–500.CrossRefPubMed Blum RW, Ireland M. Reducing risk, increasing protective factors: findings from the Caribbean Youth Health Survey. J Adolesc Health. 2004;35:493–500.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Resnick MD, Ireland M, Borowsky I. Youth violence perpetration: What protects? What predicts? Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. J Adolesc Health. 2004;35:424.CrossRefPubMed Resnick MD, Ireland M, Borowsky I. Youth violence perpetration: What protects? What predicts? Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. J Adolesc Health. 2004;35:424.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Ward T, Brown M. The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychol Crime Law. 2004;10:243–57.CrossRef Ward T, Brown M. The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychol Crime Law. 2004;10:243–57.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ward T, Mann RE, Gannon TA. The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: clinical implications. Aggress Viol Behav. 2007;12:87–107.CrossRef Ward T, Mann RE, Gannon TA. The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: clinical implications. Aggress Viol Behav. 2007;12:87–107.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference de Carvalho CCJ. Innovatie in risicotaxatie: Protectieve factoren voor het plegen van geweld in de toekomst. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 2002 (in Dutch). de Carvalho CCJ. Innovatie in risicotaxatie: Protectieve factoren voor het plegen van geweld in de toekomst. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 2002 (in Dutch).
13.
go back to reference de Vries Robbé M, de Vogel V, de Spa E. Protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatric patients: a retrospective validation study of the SAPROF. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2011;10(3):178–86.CrossRef de Vries Robbé M, de Vogel V, de Spa E. Protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatric patients: a retrospective validation study of the SAPROF. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2011;10(3):178–86.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.
16.
go back to reference Hare RD. Manual for the psychopathy checklist-revised. 2nd ed. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2003. Hare RD. Manual for the psychopathy checklist-revised. 2nd ed. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2003.
18.
go back to reference McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:46. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:46.
19.
go back to reference Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986. Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986.
20.
go back to reference Rice ME, Harris GT. Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law. Hum Behav. 2005;29:615–20.CrossRef Rice ME, Harris GT. Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law. Hum Behav. 2005;29:615–20.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference de Vries Robbé M, de Vogel V, Wever EC, Douglas KS, Nijman HLI. Risk and protective factors for inpatient aggression. Crim Justice Behav. 2016;43(10):1364–85.CrossRef de Vries Robbé M, de Vogel V, Wever EC, Douglas KS, Nijman HLI. Risk and protective factors for inpatient aggression. Crim Justice Behav. 2016;43(10):1364–85.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Abbiati M, Azzola A, Palix J, Gasser J, Moulin V. Validity and predictive accuracy of the structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk in criminal forensic evaluations. A Swiss cross-validation retrospective study. Crim Justice Behav. 2017;44(4):493–510.CrossRef Abbiati M, Azzola A, Palix J, Gasser J, Moulin V. Validity and predictive accuracy of the structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk in criminal forensic evaluations. A Swiss cross-validation retrospective study. Crim Justice Behav. 2017;44(4):493–510.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Strength-based assessment for future violence risk: a retrospective validation study of the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) Japanese version in forensic psychiatric inpatients
Authors
Hiroko Kashiwagi
Akiko Kikuchi
Mayuko Koyama
Daisuke Saito
Naotsugu Hirabayashi
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Annals of General Psychiatry / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1744-859X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-018-0175-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Annals of General Psychiatry 1/2018 Go to the issue