Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul;171(7):749-57.
doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13101316.

Screening for violence risk in military veterans: predictive validity of a brief clinical tool

Screening for violence risk in military veterans: predictive validity of a brief clinical tool

Eric B Elbogen et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: Violence toward others is a serious problem among a subset of military veterans. The authors evaluated the predictive validity of a brief decision support tool to screen veterans for problems with violence and identify potential candidates for a comprehensive risk assessment.

Method: Data on risk factors at an initial wave and on violent behavior at 1-year follow-up were collected in two independent sampling frames: a national random-sample survey of 1,090 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and in-depth assessments of 197 dyads of veterans and collateral informants. Risk factors (lacking money for basic needs, combat experience, alcohol misuse, history of violence and arrests, and anger associated with posttraumatic stress disorder) were chosen based on empirical support in published research. Scales measuring these risk factors were examined, and items with the most robust statistical association with outcomes were selected for the screening tool. Regression analyses were used to derive receiver operating characteristic curves of sensitivities and specificities, with area under the curve providing an index of predictive validity.

Results: The resultant 5-item screening tool, called the Violence Screening and Assessment of Needs (VIO-SCAN), yielded area-under-the-curve statistics ranging from 0.74 to 0.78 for the national survey and from 0.74 to 0.80 for the in-depth assessments, depending on level of violence analyzed.

Conclusions: Although the VIO-SCAN does not constitute a comprehensive violence risk assessment and cannot replace fully informed clinical decision making, it is hoped that the screen will provide clinicians with a rapid, systematic method for identifying veterans at higher risk of violence, prioritizing those in need a full clinical workup, structuring review of empirically supported risk factors, and developing plans collaboratively with veterans to reduce risk and increase successful reintegration in the community.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Please note there are no financial conflicts of interest. The authors have no commercial interests in the results or products of this study.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Predicted Probability of Severe Violence in Next Year as a Function of Total Score on VIO-SCAN at Initial Wave in Both Sampling Frames of Veterans
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Violence Screening and Assessment of Needs (VIO-SCAN) a
aThe VIO-SCAN is not an actuarial tool or a complete risk assessment of violence. Instead, it provides a rapid procedure for 1) prompting clinicians to consider at least five empirically supported risk factors; 2) guiding clinicians to investigate individual or combinations of risk factors in greater detail to gauge level of clinical concern; 3) identifying veterans who may be at high risk of violence; 4) prioritizing referrals for a comprehensive violence risk assessment; and 5) assessing needs and dynamic factors to develop a plan to reduce risk. The VIO-SCAN should neither be used alone nor replace fully informed clinical decision making that investigates risk and protective factors beyond the five items in the screen. The screen does not designate whether a veteran is at low, medium, or high risk. Rather, the VIO-SCAN can structure a part of the evaluation of longer-term violence risk, not imminent danger. The screen does not have perfect accuracy, so false negatives and false positives will occur. A veteran with a score of 5 may never be violent, and one with a score of 0 may be violent. Please note that the VIO-SCAN needs to be replicated in other samples by other researchers and may be modified in the future as new research emerges.

Comment in

  • Violence in war and violence back home.
    Raskind MA, McCaslin C, Jakupcak M. Raskind MA, et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2014 Jul;171(7):701-4. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14040528. Am J Psychiatry. 2014. PMID: 24980162 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. MacManus D, Dean K, Jones M, Rona RJ, Greenberg N, Hull L, et al. Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: A data linkage cohort study. The Lancet. 2013;381(9870):907–17. - PubMed
    1. Jakupcak M, Conybeare D, Phelps L, Hunt S, Holmes HA, Felker B, et al. Anger, hostility, and aggression among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans reporting PTSD and subthreshold PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2007;20(6):945–54. - PubMed
    1. Thomas JL, Wilk JE, Riviere LA, McGurk D, Castro CA, Hoge CW. Prevalence of mental health problems and functional impairment among Active Component and National Guard soldiers 3 and 12 months following combat in Iraq. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2010;67(6):614–23. - PubMed
    1. Sayer NA, Noorbaloochi S, Frazier P, Carlson K, Gravely A, Murdoch M. Reintegration problems and treatment interests among Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans receiving VA medical care. Psychiatric Services. 2010;61(6):589–97. - PubMed
    1. Millikan AM, Bell MR, Gallaway MS, Lagana MT, Cox AL, Sweda MG. An Epidemiologic Investigation of Homicides at Fort Carson, Colorado: Summary of Findings. Military Medicine. 2012;177(4):404–11. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources