Cross-Cultural Violence Risk Assessment: Adapting the HCR-20 <sup>V3</sup> for Incarcerated Offenders in Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective study investigated the predictive validity of a culturally adapted version of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20 V3 ) with a sample of 114 incarcerated males in a medium-security prison in Mexico City. The goal was to integrate a culturally responsive approach to violence risk assessment by incorporating culturally relevant risk factors identified by forensic mental health professionals in Latin America who conduct violence risk assessments. These risk factors related to problematic family and peer relationships, machismo, normalization of violence, and economic disadvantage. Data collection for HCR-20 V3 ratings involved clinical interviews and a review of institutional documents; data on aggressive incidents were collected through document review, self-report follow-up interviews, and guard reports. Participants who engaged in institutional violence during the 3-month follow-up period were given significantly higher scores on several culturally relevant risk factors than those who did not engage in institutional violence. Although the culturally adapted HCR-20 V3 items did not provide incremental validity to the original HCR-20 V3 items, the culturally adapted HCR-20 V3 total score produced an area under the ROC curve of .73-.74. The findings provide evidence that the culturally adapted HCR-20 V3 has strong predictive validity and the utility of adapting culturally relevant risk factors for the assessment of violence risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".