Using the HCR-20 to Differentiate Insanity Acquittees Based on Opinions of Readiness for Transfer.

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law

Ms. Cabeldue is a PhD candidate in clinical psychology at Fairleigh Dickinson University, New Jersey. Dr. Green is a psychologist in private practice in New York. Dr. Griswold is a psychology post doctoral fellow at Eastern State Hospital, Virginia. Ms. Schneider and Ms. Smith are PhD candidates in clinical psychology at Fairleigh Dickinson University, New Jersey. Dr. Belfi is a Clinical Instructor, Department of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, and Deputy Director of Operations at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, New York. Dr. Kunz is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, New York and Clinical Director at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, New York. This paper was presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Conference, Seattle, Washington, March 16-18, 2017. Data collection for the research was supported in part by a grant from the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Institute for Education and Research awarded in December 2016.

Published: September 2018

After adjudication by the courts that an individual is not criminally responsible for the offense committed, forensic psychiatrists/psychologists are tasked with evaluating an acquittees' ongoing risk of violence. These findings determine whether an acquittee is retained in a forensic hospital or transferred to a civil psychiatric setting or into the community. Better understanding of risk factors that affect decisions to retain or release acquittees from secure forensic facilities would increase clarity in decision-making, assist evaluators in identifying who may be successful outside of secure settings, and potentially assist in the development and implementation of targeted treatments to address risk factors before and after transfer. The current study evaluated which risk factors of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20, Version 3 differentiated acquittees whom clinicians opined to have a dangerous mental disorder and required retention from those whom clinicians opined to be ready for transfer to a less secure setting. Results indicated that the Clinical and Risk Management scales predicted opinions regarding readiness for transfer, even after accounting for acts of violence in the hospital. These findings suggest clinicians are attuned to relevant and current risk factors in evaluations, rather than disproportionately focused on historical factors. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.003769-18DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

risk factors
16
opinions readiness
8
readiness transfer
8
clinicians opined
8
risk
6
factors
5
hcr-20 differentiate
4
differentiate insanity
4
insanity acquittees
4
acquittees based
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!