Methoden vergelijken
Bekijk de geselecteerde methoden naast elkaar; rijen die verschillen zijn gemarkeerd.
| SAPROF: Gestructureerde Beoordeling van Beschermende Factoren voor Geweldsrisico× | HCR-20v3: Historisch Klinisch Risicomanagement-20× | |
|---|---|---|
| Vakgebied | Forensische psychologie | Forensische psychologie |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Jaar van ontstaan≠ | 2012 | 2013 |
| Grondlegger≠ | Vivienne de Vogel, Corine de Ruiter, Yvonne Bouman, Merike de Vries Robbé | Kevin S. Douglas, Stephen D. Hart, Christopher D. Webster, et al. |
| Type | Clinician-rated | Clinician-rated |
| Oorspronkelijke bron≠ | de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., Bouman, Y., & de Vries Robbé, M. (2012). SAPROF: Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (Version 3). Forum Educatief. link ↗ | Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., Belfrage, H., Guy, L. S., & Wilson, C. M. (2013). HCR-20v3: Assessing risk for violence. Simon Fraser University Mental Health Law Program. link ↗ |
| Aliassen | SAPROF, de Vogel SAPROF | HCR-20v3, Historical Clinical Risk Management |
| Verwant≠ | 4 | 5 |
| Samenvatting≠ | The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) is a 17-item structured professional judgment tool developed by de Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, and colleagues (2012) to identify protective factors and strengths in individuals undergoing violence risk assessment. It complements risk assessment instruments (e.g., HCR-20v3) by systematically evaluating resilience, social support, motivation, and positive functioning—domains that mitigate violence risk and inform rehabilitation potential. | The HCR-20v3 is a structured professional judgment framework developed by Douglas, Hart, and colleagues for the assessment of risk for violence among adolescents and adults in mental health, criminal justice, and forensic settings. Published in 2013, it represents the third version of one of the most widely validated risk assessment instruments in forensic psychology, synthesizing clinical judgment with empirical evidence of violence risk factors. |
| ScholarGateGegevensset ↗ |
|
|