Expert approaches to communicating violence risk

There has been virtually no empirical study of the way in which evaluating clinicians communicate their conclusions about the risk of violence toward others. Risk communication has become particularly important in recent years, serving as the link between empirical data from recent studies and the understanding and use of such data by evaluators and decision makers. The present study considered how psychologists and psychiatrists, identified as experts in violence risk assessment, responded to eight vignettes that systematically measured preferences for risk communication. The vignettes involved the presentation of the following factors in a 2 x 2 x 2 within-subjects design, counterbalanced for order: (1) risk model (prediction vs. management), (2) risk level (high vs. low risk of the individual being assessed), and (3) risk factors (the predominance of static vs. dynamic risk factors). A total of 71 individuals (41 psychologists, 2 sociologists, and 28 psychiatrists) responded to a survey mailed to 100 individuals, for a response rate of 71%. Participants were asked to rate the value of six forms of risk communication for each of the eight vignettes. There were few significant differences between the ratings assigned by psychologists and those assigned by psychiatrists. The most highly valued form of risk communication involved identifying risk factors applicable to the individual and specifying interventions to reduce risk. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance yielded a main effect for risk level and an interaction between risk level and risk factors. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.