Violence Risk Assessment Practices in Denmark: A Multidisciplinary National Survey

Open access


With a quadrupling of forensic psychiatric patients in Denmark over the past 20 years, focus on violence risk assessment practices across the country has increased. However, information is lacking regarding Danish risk assessment practice across professional disciplines and clinical settings; little is known about how violence risk assessments are conducted, which instruments are used for what purposes, and how mental health professionals rate their utility and costs. As part of a global survey exploring the application of violence risk assessment across 44 countries, the current study investigated Danish practice across several professional disciplines and settings in which forensic and high-risk mental health patients are assessed and treated. In total, 125 mental health professionals across the country completed the survey. The five instruments that respondents reported most commonly using for risk assessment, risk management planning and risk monitoring were Broset, HCR-20, the START, the PCL-R, and the PCL:SV. Whereas the HCR-20 was rated highest in usefulness for risk assessment, the START was rated most useful for risk management and risk monitoring. No significant differences in utility were observed across professional groups. Unstructured clinical judgments were reported to be faster but more expensive to conduct than using a risk assessment instrument. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Retspsykiatri. Kvalitet og Sikkerhed (2011). Danske Regioner Website:

  • [2] Bonta J. Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use Crim Justice Behav 2002 29 355-379.

  • [3] Conroy MA & Murrie DC Forensic Evaluation of Violence Risk: A Guide to Risk Assessment and Risk Management Oxford University Press New York 2007.

  • [4] Grove WM & Meehl PE Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective impressionistic) and formal (mechanical algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy Psychol Public Pol L 1996 2 293-323.

  • [5] Bloom H & Webster CD Essential Writings in Violence Risk Assessment and Management Centre for Addictions and Mental Health Toronto 2007.

  • [6] Webster CD Haque Q & Hucker S. SPJ Guides In: Webster CD Haque Q & Hucker S Violence Risk - Assessment and Management. Advances Through Structured Professional Judgment and Sequential Redirections Wiley and Sons West Sussex 2014.

  • [7] Douglas KS Cox DN & Webster CD Violence risk assessment: Science and practice. Legal Criminol Psych 1999 4 149-184.

  • [8] Best Practice in Managing Risk London: Department of Health National Risk Management Programme UK 2007.

  • [9] Bloom H Webster C Hucker S De Freitas K. The Canadian contribution to violence risk assessment: History and implications for current psychiatric practice Can J Psychiat 2005 50 3-11.

  • [10] Agisdottir S White MJ Spengler PM Maugherman AS Anderson LA Cook RS et al. The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction Couns Psychol 2006 34 341-382.

  • [11] Singh JP & Fazel S. Forensic risk assessment: A metareview. Crim Justice Behav 2010 37 965−988.

  • [12] Yang M Wong SCP & Coid J. The efficacy of violence predicition: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools Psychol Bull 2010 136 740-767.

  • [13] Singh JP Grann M & Fazel S. A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25.980 participants Clin Psychol Rev 2011 31 499-513.

  • [14] Dolan M & Doyle M. Violence risk prediction. Clinical and actuarial measures and the role of the Psychopathy Checklist Brit J Psychiat 2000 177 303-311

  • [15] Webster C.D. Martin M.L. Brink J. Nicholls T.L. & Desmarais L. Manual for the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START). Version 1.1 ON: Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Hamilton 2009

  • [16] Webster C.D. Douglas KS Eaves D and Hart SD HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence. Version 2 BC: Simon Fraser University Mental Health Law and Policy Institute Burnaby 1997.

  • [17] Bengtson S & Pedersen L. Implementation of evidence-based practices in forensic psychiatric clinical practice in Denmark: Are we there? Scan J Forensic Science 2008 2 37-72.

  • [18] Pedersen L Rasmussen K & Elsass P. Risk Assessment: The value of structured professional judgments Int J Forensic Ment Health 2010 9 74-81.

  • [19] Pedersen L Kunz C Rasmussen K & Elsass P. Psychopathy as a risk factor for violent recidivism: Investigating the Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version (PCL:SV) and the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) in a forensic psychiatric setting Int J Forensic Ment Health 2010 9 308-315.

  • [20] Pedersen L Rasmussen K & Elsass P. HCR-20 violence risk assessments as a guide for treating and managing violence risk in a forensic psychiatric setting. Psychol Crime Law 2012 18 733-743.

  • [21] Pedersen L & Rasmussen K. Reliability of the Danish version of the HCR-20 Risk assessment scheme Scan J Forensic Science 2006 2 45-96.

  • [22] Retspsykiatrisk Rapport (2009). Psykiatri og Social. Region Midtjylland. Website: Region Midt:

  • [23] Hurducas CC Singh JP De Ruiter C & Petrila J. Violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review of surveys Int J Forensic Ment Health 2014 13 182-192

  • [24] Sing JP Desmarais SL Hurducas C Arbach-Lucioni K Condemarin C Dean K et al. International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries Int J Forensic Ment Health 2014 13 193-206.

  • [25] Dillman D Smyth J & Christian L. Internet Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys. The Tailored Design Method (3rd Ed.) NJ: Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken 2009.

  • [26] Almvik R Woods P & Rasmussen K. The Broset Violence Checklist. Sensitivity Specificity and Interrater Reliability J Interpers Violence December 2000 15 1284-1296.

  • [27] Hart SD Cox D & Hare RD. Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version ON: Multi- Health Systems Toronto 1995.

  • [28] Hare RD. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised ON: Multi-Health Systems Toronto 2003.

  • [29] Desmarais SL Nicholls TL Read JD & Brink J. Confidence and accuracy in assessments of short-term-risks presented by forensic psychiatric patients J Foren Psychi Psych 2010 21 1-22.

  • [30] Douglas KS & Reeves KA. Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) Violence Risk Assessment Scheme In: Otto RK & Douglas KS (Eds.) Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment Routledge NY 2010.

  • [31] Andrews DA & Bonta J. LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory-Revised ON: Multihealth Systems Toronto 1995.

  • [32] O’Rourke M Hammond S & Davies E. Risk assessment and risk management: The way forward Psychiatr Care 1997 4 104-106

  • [33] Thornton D. Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment Sex Abuse-J Res Tr 2002 14 139-153.

  • [34] de Vogel V de Ruiter C Bouman Y & de Vries Robbe M. Guide to the SAPROF. Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk. Version 1 Utrecht: Forum Educatief 2007.

  • [35] Hartvig P Ostberg B Alfarnes S Moger TA Skjonberg M & Bjorkly S. Violence Risk Screening-10 (V-RISK-10) Oslo: Centre for Research and Education in Forensic Psychiatry 2007.

  • [36] Quinsey VL Harris GT Rice ME & Cormier CA. Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. US: American Psychological Association Washington DC 2006.

  • [37] Wong S & Gordon A. Manual for the Violence Risk Scale Saskatoon SK: University of Saskatchewan 2009.

Journal information
Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 372 231 6
PDF Downloads 193 127 9