OBJECTIVE In community-based corrections, reassessment of dynamic risk factors improves the prediction of recidivism relative to initial risk assessment at the time of release. However, there is less evidence for predictions of violent recidivism. We examined whether reassessment proximity or aggregation of reassessments improved the prediction of imminent violence in a sample of paroled individuals on community supervision. HYPOTHESES We hypothesized that reassessment of dynamic risk would better predict violent recidivism than initial risk assessment at the time of release. Examination of aggregation and individual risk-factor domains was exploratory. METHOD In a prospective study of violent recidivism in a sample of individuals on community supervision in New Zealand (75,917 assessments from 3,421 participants; 92.8% men), we used supervision officers' ratings of dynamic risk (assessed using Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry [DRAOR]) and static risk scores (using the Risk of ReConviction × Risk of Imprisonment) to predict imminent violence (within 2 weeks). RESULTS Individuals who recidivated violently had higher initial risk ratings (DRAOR Stable d = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17, 0.55]; DRAOR Acute d = 0.45, 95% CI [0.26, 0.64]) and showed more week-to-week fluctuations in risk ratings (DRAOR Stable d = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.41]; DRAOR Acute d = 0.26, 95% CI [0.06,0.46]). Total averages of faster-changing acute risk factors best predicted violence (c-index = 0.68), with changes in these factors incrementally predicting violence over well-established predictors (criminal history) and initial scores (Δχ2 = 15.54, df = 3). The constructs that best discriminated violence were consistent with social cognition explanations of violence. CONCLUSIONS Because client consistency as determined through score aggregation was more important than current presentation, supervision officers should consider overall patterns of interpersonal hostility and reactivity rather than assuming the emerging presence of these factors will signal imminent violence among previously violent individuals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

从监禁释放后定期重新评估的动态风险因素预测即将发生的暴力累犯。

目标 在以社区为基础的矫正中，动态风险因素的重新评估相对于释放时的初始风险评估改进了对累犯的预测。然而，预测暴力累犯的证据较少。我们检查了重新评估的接近度或重新评估的汇总是否改善了社区监督下假释个人样本中即将发生的暴力事件的预测。假设 我们假设重新评估动态风险比释放时的初始风险评估更能预测暴力累犯。对聚合和个体风险因素域的检查是探索性的。方法 在一项针对新西兰社区监督个人样本中暴力累犯的前瞻性研究中（来自 3,421 名参与者的 75,917 次评估；92.8% 的男性），我们使用监管人员对动态风险的评级（使用罪犯重新进入的动态风险评估 [DRAOR] 进行评估）和静态风险评分（使用重新定罪的风险 × 监禁的风险）来预测即将发生的暴力事件（2 周内）。结果 暴力复发的个体具有较高的初始风险等级（DRAOR 稳定 d = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17, 0.55]；DRAOR 急性 d = 0.45, 95% CI [0.26, 0.64]）并且表现出更多的每周波动风险评级（DRAOR 稳定 d = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.41]；DRAOR 急性 d = 0.26, 95% CI [0.06,0.46]）。快速变化的急性风险因素的总平均值最能预测暴力（c-index = 0.68），这些因素的变化逐渐预测暴力超过公认的预测因素（犯罪史）和初始分数（Δχ2 = 15.54，df = 3）。最能区分暴力的结构与社会认知对暴力的解释是一致的。结论 由于通过评分汇总确定的客户一致性比当前表现更重要，监管人员应考虑人际敌对和反应的整体模式，而不是假设这些因素的出现将预示着先前暴力个体之间即将发生暴力。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。监督官员应考虑人际敌意和反应的总体模式，而不是假设这些因素的出现将预示着先前暴力个人之间即将发生暴力。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。监督官员应考虑人际敌对和反应的总体模式，而不是假设这些因素的出现将预示着先前暴力个人之间即将发生暴力。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。