Info
Meny
English
Logg inn
Søk etter prosjekter, resultater og personer
Søk etter prosjekter, resultater og personer
Historikk
Cristin-resultat-ID:
1196552
Sist endret:
11. april 2016, 12:31
Resultat
Vitenskapelig artikkel
2014
Concurrent Validity and Clinical Utility of the HCR-20V3 Compared With the HCR-20 in Forensic Mental Health Nursing: Similar Tools but Improved Method
Stål Bjørkly
Gunnar Eidhammer
og
Lars Erik Selmer
Tidsskrift
Tidsskrift
Journal of Forensic Nursing
ISSN 1939-3938
e-ISSN 1556-3693
NVI-nivå 1
Finn i kanalregisteret
Om resultatet
Om resultatet
Vitenskapelig artikkel
Publiseringsår: 2014
Volum: 10
Hefte: 4
Sider: 234 - 242
Lenker
Lenker
original online (doi)
https://doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0000000000000047
Importkilder
Importkilder
Scopus-ID: 2-s2.0-84925803920
Beskrivelse
Beskrivelse
Engelsk
Tittel
Concurrent Validity and Clinical Utility of the HCR-20V3 Compared With the HCR-20 in Forensic Mental Health Nursing: Similar Tools but Improved Method
Sammendrag
The main scope of this small-scale investigation was to compare clinical application of the HCR-20V3 with its predecessor, the HCR-20. To explore concurrent validity, two experienced nurses assessed 20 forensic mental health service patients with the tools. Estimates of internal consistency for the HCR-20 and the HCR-20V3 were calculated by Cronbach’s alpha for two levels of measurement: the H-, C-, and R-scales and the total sum scores. We found moderate (C-scale) to good (H- and R- scales and aggregate scores) estimates of internal consistency and significant differences for the two versions of the HCR. This finding indicates that the two versions reflect common underlying dimensions and that there still appears to be differences between V2 and V3 ratings for the same patients. A case from forensic mental health was used to illustrate similarities and differences in assessment results between the two HCR-20 versions. The case illustration depicts clinical use of the HCR-20V3 and application of two structured nursing interventions pertaining to the risk management part of the tool. According to our experience, Version 3 is superior to Version 2 concerning: (a) item clarity; (b) the distinction between presence and relevance of risk factors; (c) the integration of risk formulation and risk scenario; and (d) the explicit demand to construct a risk management plan as part of the standard assessment procedure.
Vis
fullstendig beskrivelse
Bidragsytere
Bidragsytere
Stål Kapstø Bjørkly
Bidragsyterens navn vises på dette resultatet som Stål Bjørkly
Forfatter
ved Sikkerhets-, fengsels-, rettspsyk., HSØ kompetansesenter ved Oslo universitetssykehus HF
Forfatter
ved Avdeling for helse- og sosialfag ved Høgskolen i Molde - Vitenskapelig høgskole i logistikk
Gunnar Eidhammer
Forfatter
ved Klinikk for psykisk helse og rus ved Vestre Viken HF
Forfatter
ved Sikkerhets-, fengsels-, rettspsyk., HSØ kompetansesenter ved Oslo universitetssykehus HF
Lars Erik Selmer
Forfatter
ved Sikkerhets-, fengsels-, rettspsyk., HSØ kompetansesenter ved Oslo universitetssykehus HF
Forfatter
ved Vestre Viken HF
1
-
3
av
3