The current article aims to examine the performance of two brief, dynamic risk measures – the Brockville Risk Checklist (BRC4) and one of two versions of the Hamilton Anatomy of Risk Management [HARM‐FV and electronic HARM‐FV (eHARM‐FV)] – scored at regular clinical case conferences for forensic psychiatric patients in two different settings. The eHARM represents a first‐in‐class dynamic risk assessment tool using data analytics.
Two studies are presented from two forensic psychiatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada. The first study compared the HARM‐FV, scored by trained research staff, with the BRC4, scored concurrently by clinical teams, on 36 forensic inpatients. In the second study, trained research staff scored both the BRC4 and the eHARM‐FV on 55 forensic inpatients.
Both studies demonstrated that the BRC4 and both HARM‐FV tools were moderately and positively correlated with each other, with higher agreement for similar domains and items. In both samples, the risk measures performed better at identifying individuals who engaged in repeated or more serious problematic behavior. The HARM‐FV and eHARM‐FV produced higher area under the curve values for subsequent behavior compared with the BRC4. All three tools were effective at detecting future aggression and adverse incidents. We did not directly compare the HARM‐FV and eHARM‐FV.