Gender-sensitive violence risk assessment: a preliminary investigation into the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of the Female Additional Manual

Most violence risk assessment measures were developed using male samples. Few measures consider gender in the assessment of risk. Nevertheless, research indicates that tools like the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) perform as well for women as men. However, some studies reveal poorer predictive accuracy for women. The Female Additional Manual (FAM) was developed to improve upon the accuracy of the HCR-20 for women; however, very little research with the tool has been conducted. This present prospective, longitudinal study compared the predictive accuracies of the HCR-20 and FAM in 62 male and 41 female chronically ill civil psychiatric patients. Data collection involved file review, and patient and treatment staff interviews across three time points. Results showed no gender differences in violent behaviours. Unexpectedly, few HCR-20 variables showed satisfactory predictive accuracy. Certain FAM variables showed better accuracy. This study is among the first to examine the validity of the FAM.