Performance of protective factors assessment in risk prediction for adults

systematic review and meta-analysis

Laura E. O'Shea, Geoffrey L. Dickens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)
61 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Protective factors are neglected in risk assessment in adult psychiatric and criminal justice populations. This review investigated the predictive efficacy of selected tools that assess protective factors. Five databases were searched using comprehensive terms for records up to June 2014, resulting in 17 studies (n = 2,198). Results were combined in a multilevel meta-analysis using the R (R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015) metafor package (Viechtbauer, Journal of Statistical Software, 2010, 36, 1). Prediction of outcomes was poor relative to a reference category of violent offending, with the exception of prediction of discharge from secure units. There were no significant differences between the predictive efficacy of risk scales, protective scales, and summary judgments. Protective factor assessment may be clinically useful, but more development is required. Claims that use of these tools is therapeutically beneficial require testing.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)126–138
Number of pages13
JournalClinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Volume23
Issue number2
Early online date17 Jun 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Jun 2016

Fingerprint

Mathematical Computing
Meta-Analysis
Multilevel Analysis
Criminal Law
Austria
Psychiatry
Language
Software
Databases
Population
Protective Factors

Cite this

@article{906d484806fb4115825ff753b681e056,
title = "Performance of protective factors assessment in risk prediction for adults: systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Protective factors are neglected in risk assessment in adult psychiatric and criminal justice populations. This review investigated the predictive efficacy of selected tools that assess protective factors. Five databases were searched using comprehensive terms for records up to June 2014, resulting in 17 studies (n = 2,198). Results were combined in a multilevel meta-analysis using the R (R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015) metafor package (Viechtbauer, Journal of Statistical Software, 2010, 36, 1). Prediction of outcomes was poor relative to a reference category of violent offending, with the exception of prediction of discharge from secure units. There were no significant differences between the predictive efficacy of risk scales, protective scales, and summary judgments. Protective factor assessment may be clinically useful, but more development is required. Claims that use of these tools is therapeutically beneficial require testing.",
author = "O'Shea, {Laura E.} and Dickens, {Geoffrey L.}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1111/cpsp.12146",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "126–138",
journal = "Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice",
issn = "0969-5893",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Performance of protective factors assessment in risk prediction for adults : systematic review and meta-analysis. / O'Shea, Laura E.; Dickens, Geoffrey L.

In: Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 2, 17.06.2016, p. 126–138.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance of protective factors assessment in risk prediction for adults

T2 - systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - O'Shea, Laura E.

AU - Dickens, Geoffrey L.

PY - 2016/6/17

Y1 - 2016/6/17

N2 - Protective factors are neglected in risk assessment in adult psychiatric and criminal justice populations. This review investigated the predictive efficacy of selected tools that assess protective factors. Five databases were searched using comprehensive terms for records up to June 2014, resulting in 17 studies (n = 2,198). Results were combined in a multilevel meta-analysis using the R (R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015) metafor package (Viechtbauer, Journal of Statistical Software, 2010, 36, 1). Prediction of outcomes was poor relative to a reference category of violent offending, with the exception of prediction of discharge from secure units. There were no significant differences between the predictive efficacy of risk scales, protective scales, and summary judgments. Protective factor assessment may be clinically useful, but more development is required. Claims that use of these tools is therapeutically beneficial require testing.

AB - Protective factors are neglected in risk assessment in adult psychiatric and criminal justice populations. This review investigated the predictive efficacy of selected tools that assess protective factors. Five databases were searched using comprehensive terms for records up to June 2014, resulting in 17 studies (n = 2,198). Results were combined in a multilevel meta-analysis using the R (R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2015) metafor package (Viechtbauer, Journal of Statistical Software, 2010, 36, 1). Prediction of outcomes was poor relative to a reference category of violent offending, with the exception of prediction of discharge from secure units. There were no significant differences between the predictive efficacy of risk scales, protective scales, and summary judgments. Protective factor assessment may be clinically useful, but more development is required. Claims that use of these tools is therapeutically beneficial require testing.

U2 - 10.1111/cpsp.12146

DO - 10.1111/cpsp.12146

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 126

EP - 138

JO - Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

JF - Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

SN - 0969-5893

IS - 2

ER -