Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Measure Progress in Forensic Care

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Long-Term Forensic Psychiatric Care

Abstract

Routine outcome measurement in forensic mental health has a history as long as the subject itself, though as yet this has seldom been reviewed. In forensic mental health, the outcome measurements of greatest relevance are those relating to risk of violence, need for therapeutic security and responses to interventions and treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

ADHD:

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

AMPS:

Assessment of Motor and Process Skills

BPRS:

Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale

CAN:

Camberwell Assessment of Need

CANFOR:

Camberwell Assessment of Need—Forensic Version

CGI:

Clinical Global Impression

DUNDRUM:

Dangerousness, Understanding, Recovery and Urgency Manual

GAF:

Global Assessment of Functioning

HCR-20:

Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20

HoNOS:

Health of the Nation Outcome Scales

HoNOS-secure:

Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for users of secure and forensic services

MATRICS:

Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia

MCCB:

MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery

MRC:

Medical Research Council

PANSS:

Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale

ROC-AUC:

Receiver operating characteristic—area under the curve

SANS:

Scale to Assess Negative Symptoms

SAPROF:

Structured Assessment of Protective Factors

SAPS:

Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms

SAVRY:

Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth

SNAP:

Security Needs Assessment Profile

SOFAS:

Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale

START:

Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability

References

  1. Keulen-de Vos M, Schepers K. Needs assessment in forensic patients: a review of instrument suites. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2016;15:283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shinkfield G, Ogloff J. A review and analysis of routine outcome measures for forensic mental health services. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2014;13(3):252–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Webster CD, Martin ML, Brink J, Nicholls TL, Middleton C. Manual for the short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START) (version 1.0 Consultation ed.). Port Coquitlam, BC: Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission and St. Joseph’s Healthcare; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kennedy HG, O’Neill C, Flynn G, Gill P, Davoren M. The DUNDRUM toolkit V1.0.30. 2010-2016. Dublin: TARA; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eastman N, Bellamy S. Admission Criteria for Secure Services Schedule (ACSeSS). St Georges Hospital Medical School; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kennedy HG. Therapeutic uses of security: mapping forensic mental health services by stratifying risk. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2002;8(6):433–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davoren M, O’Dwyer S, Abidin Z, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Doyle E, McDonnell K, Monks S, Kennedy HG. Prospective in-patient cohort study of moves between levels of therapeutic security: the DUNDRUM-1 triage security, DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales and the HCR-20. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12(1):80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Davoren M, Abidin Z, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Nulty A, Wright B, Kennedy HG. Prospective study of factors influencing conditional discharge from a forensic hospital: the DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery structured professional judgement instruments and risk. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13(1):185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Davoren M, Byrne O, O’Connell P, O’Neill H, O’Reilly K, Kennedy HG. Factors affecting length of stay in forensic hospital setting: need for therapeutic security and course of admission. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15(1):301.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Reilly K, Donohoe G, O’Sullivan D, Coyle C, Corvin A, O’Flynn P, O’Donnell M, Galligan T, O’Connell P, Kennedy HG. A randomized controlled trial of cognitive remediation for a national cohort of forensic patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(1):27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cullen AE, Clarke AY, Kuipers E, Hodgins S, Dean K, Fahy T. A multi-site randomized controlled trial of a cognitive skills programme for male mentally disordered offenders: social–cognitive outcomes. Psychol Med. 2012;42(3):557–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Davoren M, Hennessy S, Conway C, Marrinan S, Gill P, Kennedy HG. Recovery and concordance in a secure forensic psychiatry hospital–the self-rated DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15(1):61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas S, Harty M, Parrott J, McCrone P, Slade M, Thornicroft G. The forensic CAN: Camberwell assessment of need forensic version (CANFOR). London: Gaskell; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Killaspy H, White S, Taylor TL, King M. Psychometric properties of the mental health recovery star. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;201(1):65–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eckert M, Schel SHH, Kennedy HG, Bulten BHE. Patient characteristics related to length of stay in Dutch forensic psychiatric care. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2017;28:863. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1332771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Linhorst DM, Hamilton G, Young E, Eckert A. Opportunities and barriers to empowering people with severe mental illness through participation in treatment planning. Soc Work. 2002;47(4):425–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wing L. The MRC handicaps, behaviour & skills (HBS) schedule. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1980;62(S285):241–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Slade M. CAN: Camberwell assessment of need: a comprehensive needs assessment tool for people with severe mental illness. London: Gaskell; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wing JK, Beevor AS, Curtis RH, Park SB, Hadden S, Burns A. Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Research and development. Br J Psychiatry. 1998;172(1):11–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sugarman PA, Walker L. HoNOS-SECURE version 2. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists College Research and Teaching Unit.; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  21. de Vogel V, de Ruiter C, Bouman Y, de Vries Robbé M. SAPROF: Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk. English Version. 2009. Utrecht: Forum Educatief.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Webster CD, Douglas KS, Eaves D, Hart SD. HCR–20: assessing risk for violence. Burnaby: Mental Health Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Davies S, Collins M, Ashwell C. Validation of the Security Needs Assessment Profile (SNAP) by a national survey of secure units in England. Psychiatrist. 2012;36:366–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dornan J, Kennedy M, Garland J, Rutledge E, Kennedy HG. Functional mental capacity, treatment as usual and time: magnitude of change in secure hospital patients with major mental illness. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8:566. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1547-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Fernandez C, Kennedy HG, Kennedy M. The recovery of factors associated with decision-making capacity in individuals with psychosis. Br J Psychiatry Open. 2017;3:113–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Naughton M, Nulty A, Abidin Z, Davoren M, O’Dwyer S, Kennedy HG. Effects of group meta-cognitive training (MCT) on mental capacity and functioning in patients with psychosis in a secure forensic psychiatric hospital: a prospective-cohort waiting list controlled study. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:302.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ebbevi D, Forsberg HH, Essén A, Ernestam S. Value-based health care for chronic care: aligning outcomes measurement with the patient perspective. Qual Manag Health Care. 2016;25(4):203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Coid JW. Quality of life for patients detained in hospital. Br J Psychiatry. 1993;162(5):611–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schel SH, Bouman YH, Vorstenbosch EC, Bulten BH. Development of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: short version (FQL-SV). Qual Life Res. 2016;26(5):1153–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1461-9. Epub 2016 Nov 22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schröder A, Agrim J, Lundqvist LO. The quality in psychiatric care-forensic in-patient instrument: psychometric properties and patient views of the quality of forensic psychiatric services in Sweden. J Forensic Nurs. 2013;9(4):225–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0b013e31827f5d2f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. van Nieuwenhuizen C, Nijman H. Quality of life of forensic psychiatric inpatients. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2009;8(1):9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vorstenbosch EC, Bouman YH, Braun PC, Bulten EB. Psychometric properties of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: quality of life assessment for long-term forensic psychiatric care. Health Psychol Behav Med. 2014;2(1):335–48. Epub 2014 Mar 19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Donnelly V, Lynch A, Mohan D, Kennedy HG. Working alliance, interpersonal trust and perceived coercion in mental health review hearings. Int J Ment Heal Syst. 2011;5:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-5-29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Donnelly V, Lynch A, Devlin C, Naughten L, Gibbons O, Mohan D, Kennedy HG. Therapeutic alliance in forensic mental health: coercion, consent and recovery. Ir J Psychol Med. 2011;28(01):21–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schalast N, Redies M, Collins M, Stacey J, Howells K. EssenCES, a short questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatry wards. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2008;18:49–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Andresen R, Oades L, Caputi P. The experience of recovery from schizophrenia: towards an empirically-validated stage model. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2003;37:586–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pierzchniak P, Farnham F, Taranto ND, Bull D, Gill H, Bester P, McCallum A, Kennedy H. Assessing the needs of patients in secure settings: a multi-disciplinary approach. J Forensic Psychiatry. 1999;10(2):343–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pillay SM, Oliver B, Butler L, Kennedy HG. Risk stratification and the care pathway. Ir J Psychol Med. 2008;25(4):123–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bouch J, Marshall JJ. S-RAMM: suicide risk assessment and management manual. Research ed. Dinas Powys, Vale of Glamorgan: Cognitive Centre Foundation; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dawes RM. The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. Am Psychol. 1979;34:571–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hunsley J, Mash EJ. Developing criteria for evidence-based assessment: an introduction to assessments that work. In: Hunsley J, Mash EJ, editors. A guide to assessments that work. London: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 3–14.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. 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(3):499–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rennie CE, Dolan MC. The significance of protective factors in the assessment of risk. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2010;20(1):8–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Abidin Z, Davoren M, Naughton L, Gibbons O, Nulty A, Kennedy HG. Susceptibility (risk and protective) factors for in-patient violence and self-harm: prospective study of structured professional judgement instruments START and SAPROF, DUNDRUM-3 and DUNDRUM-4 in forensic mental health services. BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13(1):197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang M, Wong SCP, Coid J. The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychol Bull. 2010;136(5):740–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. O’Shea LE, Dickens GL. The HCR-20 as a measure of reliable and clinically significant change in violence risk among secure psychiatric inpatients. Compr Psychiatry. 2015;62:132–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ullrich S, Keers R, Coid JW. Delusions, anger, and serious violence: new findings from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. Schizophr Bull. 2013;40:1174.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Ogloff J, Daffern M. The dynamic appraisal of situational aggression: an instrument to assess risk for imminent aggression in psychiatric inpatients. Behav Sci Law. 2006;24(6):799–813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chu CM, Daffern M, Ogloff JRP. Predicting aggression in acute inpatient psychiatric setting using BVC, DASA, and HCR-20 clinical scale. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2013;24(2):269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kennedy HG, Timmons D, Gill P, McKenna P, Braham P, Mullaney R. DUNDRUM restriction and intrusion liberty ladders (DRILL). Dublin: TARA; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Palmstierna T, Wistedt B. Staff observation aggression scale, SOAS: presentation and evaluation. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1987;76:657–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Palmstierna T, Wistedt B. Risk factors for aggressive behaviour are of limited value in predicting the violent behaviour of acute involuntary admitted patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1989;81:152–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Almvik R, Woods P, Rasmussen K. The Brøset violence checklist sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability. J Interpers Violence. 2000;15(12):1284–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. O’Neill C, Smith D, Caddow M, Duffy F, Hickey P, Fitzpatrick M, Caddow F, Cronin T, Joynt M, Azvee Z, Gallagher B, Kehoe C, Maddock C, O’Keeffe B, Brennan L, Davoren M, Owens E, Mullaney R, Keevans L, Maher R, Kennedy HG. STRESS-testing clinical activity and outcomes for a combined prison in-reach and court liaison service: a 3-year observational study of 6177 consecutive male remands. Int J Ment Heal Syst. 2016;10:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-016-0097-z.

  55. Crocker AG, Nicholls TL, Charette Y, Seto MC. Dynamic and static factors associated with discharge dispositions: the national trajectory project of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in Canada. Behav Sci Law. 2014;32:577–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dernevik M, Grann M, Johansson S. Violent behaviour in forensic psychiatry patients: risk assessment and different risk-management levels using the HCR-20. Psychol Crime Law. 2002;8(1):93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Muller-Isberner M, Webster CD, Gretenkord L. Measuring progress in hospital order treatment: relationship between levels of security and C and R scores of the HCR-20. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2007;6:113–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sharma A, Dunn W, O’Toole C, Kennedy HG. The virtual institution: cross-sectional length of stay in general adult and forensic psychiatry beds. Int J Ment Heal Syst. 2015;9(1):25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Millard PH, McClean S. Modelling hospital resource use. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Millard PH, McClean S. Go with the flow. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Dolan M, Blattner R. The utility of the Historical Clinical Risk-20 Scale as a predictor of outcomes in decisions to transfer patients from high to lower levels of security: a UK perspective. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10(1):76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Doyle M, Power LA, Coid J, Kallis C, Ullrich S, Shaw J. Predicting post-discharge community violence in England and Wales using the HCR-20V3. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2014;13(2):140–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Richter MS, O’Reilly K, O’Sullivan D, O’Flynn P, Corvin A, Donohoe G, Coyle C, Davoren M, Higgins C, Byrne O, Nutley T, Nulty A, Sharma K, O’Connell P, Kennedy HG. Prospective observational cohort study of ‘treatment as usual’ over four years for patients with schizophrenia in a national forensic hospital. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):289.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Fazel S, Singh JP, Doll H, Grann M. Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J. 2012;345:e4692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wampold BE. How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World Psychiatry. 2015;14(3):270–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. O’Reilly K, Donohoe G, O’Sullivan D, Coyle C, Mullaney R, O’Connell P, Maddock C, Nulty A, O’Flynn P, O’Connell C, Kennedy HG. Study protocol: a randomised controlled trial of cognitive remediation for a national cohort of forensic mental health patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(1):5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Tyrer P, Duggan C, Cooper S, Crawford M, Seivewright H, Rutter D, Maden T, Byford S, Barrett B. The successes and failures of the DSPD experiment: the assessment and management of severe personality disorder. Med Sci Law. 2010;50(2):95–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Walton MK, Powers JH, Hobart J, Patrick D, Marquis P, Vamvakas S, Issac M, Molsen E, Cano S, Burke LB. Clinical outcome assessments: conceptual foundation - report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment–emerging good practices for outcomes research task force. Value Health. 2015;18(6):741–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Morris SB, DeShon RP. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(1):105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Evans C, Margison F, Barkham M. The contribution of reliable and clinically significant change methods to evidence-based mental health. Evid Based Ment Health. 1998;1(3):70–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Jacobson NS, Follette WC, Revenstorf D. Psychotherapy outcome research: methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behav Ther. 1984;15(4):336–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Shaw J, Davies J, Morey H. An assessment of the security, dependency and treatment needs of all patients in secure services in a UK health region. J Forensic Psychiatry. 2001;12(3):610–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Collins M, Davies S. The security needs assessment profile: a multidimensional approach to measuring security needs. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2005;4(1):39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kay SR, Fiszbain A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13:261–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Overall JE, Gorham DR. The brief psychiatric rating scale. Psychol Rep. 1962;10:799–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Andreasen NC. Scale for the assessment of positive symptoms (SAPS). Iowa City: University of Iowa; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Andreasen NC. Scale for the assessment of negative symptoms (SANS). Iowa City: University of Iowa; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kring AM, Gur RE, Blanchard JJ, Horan WP, Reise SP. The clinical assessment interview for negative symptoms (CAINS): final development and validation. Am J Psychiatr. 2013;170(2):165–72. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12010109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Blanchard JJ, Gur RE, Horan WP, Kring AM. Manual for the clinical assessment interview for negative symptoms (CAINS). CANSAS Collaborative Group (Collaboration to Advance Negative Symptom Assessment in Schizophrenia Research). http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~akring/CAINS%20manual.pdf. 03/05/12, version 1.0.

  80. Bowie CR, Reichenberg A, Patterson TL, Heaton RK, Harvey PD. Determinants of real-world functional performance in schizophrenia subjects: correlations with cognition, functional capacity, and symptoms. Am J Psychiatr. 2006;63:418–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Insel T, Cuthbert B, Garvey M, Heinssen R, Pine DS, Quinn K, Sanislow C, Wang P. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167:748–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Hall RC. Global assessment of functioning (GAF) a modified scale. Psychosomatics. 1995;36:267–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed., text revision. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Dunlop BW, Gray J, Rapaport MH. Transdiagnostic clinical global impression scoring for routine clinical settings. Behav Sci. 2017;7(3):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7030040.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Guy W. In: Guy W, editor. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. Revised ed. Rockville, MD: NIMH Publication; 1976. p. 217–22.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Fisher A, Bray Jones K. Assessment of motor and process skills. Vol. 1. Development, standardization, and administration manual. 7th ed. Forts Collins, CO: Three Star Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  87. O’Reilly K, Donohoe G, Coyle C, O’Sullivan D, Rowe A, Losty M, McDonagh T, McGuinness L, Ennis Y, Watts E, Brennan L. Prospective cohort study of the relationship between neuro-cognition, social cognition and violence in forensic patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15(1):155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Cornell DG, Warren J, Hawk G, Stafford E, Oram G, Pine D. Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64:783–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Meloy JR. Empirical basis and forensic application of affective and predatory violence. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006;40:539–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. Assessing competence to consent to treatment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Grisso T, Applebeum PS, Hill-Fotouchi C. The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients’ capacities to make treatment decisions. Psychiatr Serv. 1997;48:1415–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Akinkunmi AA. The MacArthur competence assessment tool-fitness to plead: a preliminary evaluation of a research instrument for assessing fitness to plead in England and Wales. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2002;30:476–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: towards an integrative, model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983;51:350–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. 1943;50(4):370–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Forensic Mental Health Service, Central Mental Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    Harry G. Kennedy, Ken O’Reilly, Padraic O’Flynn & Owen P. O’Sullivan

  2. Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

    Harry G. Kennedy & Ken O’Reilly

  3. Broadmoor Special Hospital, Crowthorne, UK

    Mary Davoren

Authors
  1. Harry G. Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Davoren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Padraic O’Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Owen P. O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harry G. Kennedy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, University Rostock, Rostock, Germany

    Birgit Völlm

  2. Pompe Foundation Department LFPC, Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, Zeeland, The Netherlands

    Peter Braun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kennedy, H.G., O’Reilly, K., Davoren, M., O’Flynn, P., O’Sullivan, O.P. (2019). How to Measure Progress in Forensic Care. In: Völlm, B., Braun, P. (eds) Long-Term Forensic Psychiatric Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12594-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12594-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12593-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12594-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation