Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
LetterLetters

Letters

Adam Bayes and Matthew Large
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online March 2013, 41 (1) 154-155;
Adam Bayes
Sydney, NSW, Australia
MB, BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew Large
MB, BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Editor:

Newton and associates1 published a retrospective case-control study of patients who committed either an act of serious violence or three acts of less serious violence during admission to the acute care unit of John Umstead Hospital, Butner, North Carolina. They emphasize in the paper's abstract that, by using easily collected clinical data, clinicians can correctly categorize 80 percent of patients as either having or not having tendencies toward difficult-to-manage violence. Although it is clear that the combination of risk factors they describe can be used to define a group of patients at a significantly increased probability of violence, we would like to make two points of clarification.

First, the proportion of patients correctly classified by a risk assessment tool is not necessarily a helpful measure. For example, a risk assessment that categorizes every patient as at a low risk of violence would be correct 95 percent of the time in a population with a base rate of violence of 5 percent.

The most widely accepted measure of the ability of a risk assessment to discriminate between high- and low-risk individuals is the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), which is the probability that a randomly selected violent patient will have a higher risk score than will a randomly selected nonviolent patient.2 In the footnote to Table 2, Newton and associates report an impressive AUC of 0.881, indicating that the variables they examined could strongly statistically differentiate populations of violent and nonviolent patients. One feature of the AUC is that it is not affected by base rate considerations, which are central to our second point about the recent study. In contrast to the proportion of correctly classified patients and the AUC, it is the proportion of high-risk patients who go on to be violent that is the central test of the clinical usefulness of a high-risk categorization.3,4 This proportion, the positive predictive value (PPV), can be calculated by using sensitivity, specificity, and base rate.

A sensitivity of 0.74 and a specificity of 0.85 can be derived from the data reported by Newton and associates. John Umstead Hospital is a very large, state-run mental health facility, and we understand from the authors of the recent paper that the acute unit had more than 10,000 admissions during the study period. Assuming that this figure included more than 2,000 individual patients, the base rate of difficult-to-manage violent patients was below five percent. With a base rate of 5 percent and the reported sensitivity and specificity, a PPV of 20 percent can be estimated. This means that approximately 80 percent of patients who are regarded as high-risk will not become violent, whereas 20 percent of high-risk patients will become violent. If the base rate of violence were lower than five percent, the degree of certainty in the high-risk categorizations, expressed as the PPV, would be lower still.

During the mid-17th century, the English clergyman Thomas Bayes considered the degree of certainty that an observer can have in the probability of future events after observing nothing more than their previous occurrences and non-occurrences.5 Part of Bayes' answer, now immortalized as Bayes' Theorem, was that belief in contingent probability (in this case the contingent probability of a high-risk categorization) depends on belief in prior probability (in the present case, the incidence of difficult-to-manage violence in the population of patients). In contemporary terms, the positive predictive value of a risk assessment depends not only on its psychometric properties (measured by the AUC or another indicator of effect size) but on the base rate.3,4 It follows that the usefulness of a risk assessment can never be separated from base rate considerations. Newton et al. have illustrated that even a powerful statistical test of future violence has a limited utility when rare and more severe acts of violence are considered.

Violence against fellow patients and staff is a major problem that faces psychiatric hospitals all over the world. However, there is an inverse relationship between the severity of violence and its incidence. Very severe violence resulting in permanent injury or even death is fortunately rare,6 while more minor violence can be regarded as common. Furthermore, base rates of violence vary over time and between settings and can be known with certainty only in retrospect. It follows that the predictive value of risk categories for severe violence is always going to be both low and, to some degree, uncertain. After an episode of severe violence, it is sometimes assumed that the event could have been anticipated and avoided. However, risk assessment cannot provide certain or accurate predictions of rare and severe harm. Instead, as Bayes suggested, the purpose of a risk assessment is to modify our prior beliefs about future harm with systematically collected data.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: Dr. Large has received speaker's fees from AstraZeneca. Dr. Bayes has no disclosures.

  • © 2013 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Newton VM,
    2. Elbogen EB,
    3. Brown CL,
    4. et al
    : Clinical decision-making about inpatient violence risk at admission to a public-sector acute psychiatric hospital. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 40:206–14, 2012
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Mossman D,
    2. Somoza E
    : ROC curves, test accuracy, and the description of diagnostic tests. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 3:330–3, 1991
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Large MM,
    2. Ryan CJ,
    3. Singh SP,
    4. et al
    : The predictive value of risk categorization in schizophrenia. Harv Rev Psychiatry 19:25–33, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Szmukler G,
    2. Everitt B,
    3. Leese M
    : Risk assessment and receiver operating characteristic curves. Psychol Med 45:895–8, 2012
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bayes T,
    2. Price R
    : An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Phil Trans 53:370–418, 1763
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Nielssen O,
    2. Large MM
    : Homicide in psychiatric hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Psychiatr Serv 63:500–3, 2012
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 41 (1)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 41, Issue 1
1 Mar 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Letters
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Letters
Adam Bayes, Matthew Large
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Mar 2013, 41 (1) 154-155;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Letters
Adam Bayes, Matthew Large
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Mar 2013, 41 (1) 154-155;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Editor:
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Letters
  • Letters
  • Letters
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law