Skip to main content

Table 5 Study Outcomes

From: Intervening factors between risk of violence and aggressive behaviours among forensic inpatients: a scoping review

Study

(N = 9)

Violence risk

factor

Method of assessing risk factor

Intervening factor

Outcome measure

Result

Limitation

Moderating factor (n = 4)

Garritsen et al., (2022)

[61]

Dynamic factors

HKT-R

Intellectual ability

Recidivism

Intellectual ability had no significant moderating effect on the associations between dynamic risk of violence and violent recidivism.

Gender disproportion

Retrospective design

Robbé et al., (2013)

[63]

Violence risk

HCR-20

SAPROF

Types of offence

Violent recidivism

None of the offense type are significant moderator in predicting violent

recidivism.

Gender disproportion Retrospective design

Green et al., (2016)

[65]

Violence risk

HCR-20

Gender

Aggression incidents

Gender was not a significant moderator in predicting likelihood of violence.

Gender disproportion Retrospective design

Meddeb et al., (2022)

[67]

Aggressive antisocial behaviour

LHA

Adverse childhood experience

Externalizing behaviour

Adverse childhood experience does not have moderating effect on the association between aggressive antisocial behaviour and disinhibition.

Measurement used was lack of precision

Type I error

Mediating factor (n = 5)

O’Reilly et al., (2015)

[5]

Neurocognitive

MCCB

Social cognition

Aggressive incidents

Social cognition has a direct effect on violence independent of neurocognition, violence proneness and symptom severity.

Gender disproportion

Small sample size

Soe-Agnie et al., (2021)

[62]

Psychopathic traits and

Impulsivity

PPI-R

BSI-11

Self-deception

Externalizing behaviour

Self-deception does not show mediation effect between impulsivity and externalizing behaviour.

Mediator measure was with low reliability

O’Reilly et al., (2019)

[64]

Schizophrenia symptoms

SAPS

Moral cognition

CIRA

HCR-20

Moral cognitions mediated the relationship between the presence of specific psychotic symptoms

and form of violence.

Cross sectional design can’t conclude causal relation and direction in the mediation model

(Welsh & Gordon, (1991)

[66]

Personality

Past behaviour

Arousal

BDHI

STAS

SES

Type of offence

Self-report arousal feelings

Cognitive model TRA

Aggression Role Play Assessment

Cognitive variable partially mediate aggressive behaviour

Small sample size

Moeller et al., (2017)

[68]

Psychological distress

Novaco Anger Scale/

HADS/

PSD

Check List/ Psychotic symptoms

Violent images

Physical aggression

No mediation effect

Small sample

  1. Note: HKT-R = Historical Clinical Future-Revised; LHA = Life History of Aggression questionnaire; HCR-20 = Historical Clinical Risk-20; SAPROF = Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Riolence Risk; PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised; BIS-11 = Barrat Impulsiveness Scale-11; SAPS = Schedule for the Assessment of Psychotic Symptoms; CIRA = Cornell’s Instrumental-Reactive Aggression; HADS = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; PSD = Posttraumatic Stress Disorder checklist; MCCB = MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery; BDHI = Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory; STAS = Spielberger Trait Anger Scale; SES = Social Expression Scale; TRA = Theory of Reasoned Action