Evaluating the legal assumptions of Victoria's Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 from a psychological perspective.

The Sex Offender Registration Act 2004 was introduced in Victoria to decrease recidivism and aid in future investigations and prosecutions. This article reviews literature to evaluate four assumptions inherent to the Act: (a) sexual offenders are more dangerous than non-sexual offenders; (b) sexual offenders who target children are more dangerous than those who target adults; (c) recidivism risk can be accurately assessed for sexual offenders who target adults; and (d) the Act is a useful tool for investigations and prosecutions. The findings suggest that there is little evidence that supports the assumptions. Further, given the relatively narrow scope of the Act, it is unlikely to have a positive impact on the safety of the community.

Investigating the dynamic nature of multiple risk assessment instruments in a forensic mental health hospital.

Readministration of multiple risk assessment instruments to determine the risk of aggression over the short, medium, and long term is common practice in many forensic mental health settings. Justification for the repeated administration and use of multiple instruments is based on purported differences in discriminative validity of risk factors according to whether they are characterized as static, stable, or acute, and the composition of these tools, in terms of the relative balance of different types of risk factors, which can impact the discriminative validity of these instruments over different follow-up periods. However, research has yet to determine whether the use of multiple and repeated administration of risk assessment instruments improves identification of risk, and it may be the case that the heavy burden on service providers to administer multiple instruments is unwarranted. In this study, time-dependent cox regression with repeated assessments and recurrent events was used to investigate the dynamic nature and incremental validity of the dynamic appraisal of situational aggression (DASA), short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START), and HCR-20v3, which were repeatedly rated on a sample of forensic mental health inpatients (N = 240) over a 2-year period. Results suggest that using the rolling mean or the most recent risk assessment yielded the most accurate characterization of change in aggression risk. Repeated administration of dynamic risk instrument instruments improved the identification of aggression beyond the initial risk assessment. Although static, stable, and acute factors were significantly related to aggression, the combination of data from multiple risk assessment instruments may not result in clinically meaningful improvements in risk identification. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Using the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) to assess the impact of unit atmosphere on violence risk assessment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT: Research suggests that the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) is a useful risk assessment instrument to identify individuals who might be at risk of aggression in mental health inpatient units. Although, risk assessment research has typically focused on an individual's risk of aggression, recent research has begun exploring whether the DASA could be used to assess the likelihood that a group of patients would be aggressive. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: While the DASA was useful for assessing whether an individual was likely to be aggressive, the group average score was not a useful indicator for the likelihood of aggression once the individual DASA score was taken into consideration. Unexpectedly, patients who were assessed as high risk on the DASA were more likely to be aggressive on settled units compared to unsettled units, which included other individuals whose risk was elevated. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is not enough evidence to suggest that the group DASA average improves the identification of aggression above the individual DASA score. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) is an inpatient aggression risk assessment instrument. Recently, research explored whether the unit atmosphere, as indicated by a unit's average DASA score, was related to inpatient aggression risk, but failed to control for individual risk. AIM: Investigate whether the DASA unit average score or an interaction between the unit average and an individual patient's DASA score was related to the likelihood that an individual would act aggressively. METHOD: Cox regression with repeated assessments and recurrent events was used to analyse 11,243 DASA risk assessments of 113 inpatients collected via retrospective file review. RESULTS: The unit DASA average score was not related to aggression towards staff. There was a negative interaction between the individual and the unit DASA average scores when identifying patient-to-patient aggression; high-risk patients engaged in less aggression when the unit average was heightened relative to units with lower DASA average scores. DISCUSSION: It is possible that there were more nursing interventions and/or patients engaged in greater self-regulation on unsettled units, thus reducing aggression. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Currently, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the unit average score should be used to supplement individual DASA scores to identify aggression risk.