Date of Award
2026
Keywords
Violence risk assessment, forensic mental health assessment, presentence report, parole report, post-sentence report, standard of practice, best practice, acceptable practice, poor practice, rubric, forensic psychology, and forensic psychiatry
Document Type
Thesis - ECU Access Only
Publisher
Edith Cowan University
Degree Name
Doctor of Psychology
School
School of Psychology
Faculty
Faculty of Arts and Humanities
First Supervisor
Greg Dear
Abstract
In this series of studies, I examined mental health professionals’ (MHP) standard of practice in forensic violence risk assessment (VRA). Participants were Australian psychologists and psychiatrists with relevant experience, sampled from the membership of professional bodies.
In Study 1 (n = 83), I used a quantitative survey to obtain information about the methods participants used in their most recent VRA for a post-conviction disposition matter. A 14-item rubric was used to code participants’ self-reported methods as either: (i) meeting the internationally regarded Scottish Risk Management Authority’s (RMA) Standards and Guidelines for Risk Assessment (2013) (‘best practice’); (ii) conforming with acceptable methods established in the professional literature (‘appropriate practice’); or, (iii) failing to meet minimally acceptable methods (‘poor practice’). Nonparametric tests were performed to examine practitioner and case variables associated with standard of practice. Analyses revealed that no participants met overall best practice standards in VRA; only 3% conformed to appropriate practice standards; and 97% fell in the poor practice category. Post-hoc analyses revealed that 28% of participants almost met appropriate practice standards (i.e., missed by only one item). The finding that few Australian MHPs perform forensic VRA to an acceptable standard, based on their own self-report, is alarming. Standard of practice was found to be associated with profession, career stage, professional training in VRA, and time spent on the assessment.
In Study 2 (n = 49), participants rated the importance of using the RMA’s best practice methods in a pre-sentence VRA scenario. Data obtained from this study were compared to data obtained from Study 1 to test the hypothesis that higher importance ratings of best practice methods are associated with a higher standard of practice. The majority ( >50%) of participants rated 7 of the 13 RMA best practice methods as very important; three items as moderately important; and three items as not at all important. There was a strong, positive correlation between higher importance ratings of best practice methods and higher standards of practice, which supported the hypothesis and indicated that importance ratings explained 33% of the variance in standard of practice in Study 1. In short, the low importance MHPs ascribe to some best practice methods partly explains the low use of best practice methods found in study 1.
In Study 3 (n = 21), I used a qualitative survey to elicit participants’ views on barriers to undertaking the core VRA methods evaluated in the previous two studies. Content analysis revealed five main barriers: Logistical Difficulties (e.g., time constraints), Lack of Stakeholder Collaboration (e.g., limited access to collateral documents), Lack of Resources (e.g., inadequate payment), Ethical Considerations (e.g., capacity of the offender), and Practitioner Notions (e.g., perceiving certain methods as unnecessary).
The findings from this research can guide training and other quality improvement strategies to raise MHPs’ standard of practice in VRA for post-conviction disposition decisions, for the betterment of justice. The rubric developed for Study 1 can also be used in future research and training, further contributing to the field of forensic VRA.
Recommended Citation
Barber, D. (2026). Assessing risk of violence in offenders: An examination of Australian mental health professionals’ standard of practice. Edith Cowan University. https://doi.org/10.25958/m82p-ps57