Why Must I, As a Forensic Psychologist, Stay Proficient in Violence Risk Assessment Tools like HCR-20v3, SARA, and START Beyond My Initial Certification?

Violence risk assessment requires staying up to date with research, using professional judgment, and carefully considering the details of each case. Tools like the HCR-20 V3 or START don’t give us automatic answers about risk level. These tools guide professionals to think critically, interpret information thoughtfully, and present their conclusions clearly and defensibly.
 
Research across forensic domains consistently demonstrates that interrater reliability and decision quality decline when structured tools are applied inconsistently or without ongoing calibration. Even experienced forensic psychologists are susceptible to subtle shifts in interpretation, weighting, and formulation when reliance on habit replaces disciplined structure.
 
As forensic psychologists, we should understand that competency drift rarely involves obvious errors. More often, it manifests as:
Over-reliance on historical factors at the expense of dynamic variables
Inconsistent application of scoring anchors
Inflation or minimization of protective factors
Risk conclusions that are weakly linked to management recommendations
 
Over time, these incremental deviations can meaningfully affect the usefulness and defensibility of violence risk assessments.

Most violence risk assessment tools require training to establish baseline competence. However, these requirements were never intended to represent permanent mastery. As forensic psychologists, we must recognize that tools evolve as manuals are revised and the empirical literature continues to refine how risk factors function across cultures and settings.
 
For example:

• The HCR-20 has undergone multiple revisions reflecting advances in violence risk theory and research.
• The START emphasizes dynamic risk and strength factors that require frequent reassessment and clinical integration.
• The SARA requires careful contextualization of intimate partner violence risk, which can shift rapidly with situational changes.

Meta-analyses examining violence risk assessment instruments consistently demonstrate that predictive validity is contingent on proper application. Tools do not perform well in isolation; they perform well when forensic psychologists adhere to their conceptual foundations, scoring rules, and interpretive guidance. Without ongoing training, we risk applying outdated assumptions or drifting from a tool’s intended use, thereby undermining both scientific integrity and legal credibility.

Structured professional judgment (SPJ) tools such as the HCR-20, SARA, and START prevent purely mechanical decision-making. Instead, as evaluators, we are required to exercise judgment within a structured framework.
 
As forensic psychologists, we must appreciate that judgment requires calibration. Without regular feedback, consultation, or advanced training, even seasoned evaluators can drift toward:

• Over-generalization of risk categories: occurs when broad labels such as “antisocial traits,” “substance use,” or “prior violence” are treated as uniformly elevating risk, without examining their timing, context, or functional relevance to the current referral question. For example, identifying a history of substance use as a risk factor without specifying patterns, recency, or its relationship to past violent behavior can inflate perceived risk without improving decision-making.
• Under-specification of risk scenarios presents a different problem. Courts and institutions increasingly expect evaluators to articulate how violence might occur, under what conditions, and toward whom. Risk formulations that conclude “high risk for future violence” without differentiating between intimate partner violence, institutional aggression, or community-based incidents provide little guidance and are vulnerable to challenge. Without scenario specificity, risk opinions appear abstract rather than operational.
• Finally, weak links between identified risk factors and management strategies undermine the utility of even well-reasoned formulations. Listing dynamic factors such as emotional dysregulation or negative peer influence, for example, without explaining how they will be monitored or mitigated suggests that the assessment ends at description rather than application.

Ongoing training supports evaluators in recalibrating how they determine relevance versus mere presence of risk factors, distinguish between transient and more stable contributors to violence, and translate case formulation into concrete, defensible risk management recommendations. In this way, continued professional development is not additive; it is corrective, helping clinicians refine judgment as science, standards, and expectations evolve.

Research suggests that the effective use of violence risk assessment tools requires forensic psychologists to receive ongoing training, engage in regular case discussions with colleagues, stay current with the research, and periodically review their own work. Together, these practices help clinicians use SPJ tools as intended and apply them consistently and thoughtfully over time.

Professional ethics codes require forensic psychologists to practice within the boundaries of their competence and take reasonable steps to maintain that competence over time. In the context of violence risk assessment, this obligation is heightened by the potential consequences of error.
 
From a legal standpoint, challenges to expert testimony increasingly focus on:

• Whether the evaluator’s methods reflect current scientific standards: Courts expect violence risk opinions to be grounded in up-to-date research and accepted professional practices. Reliance on outdated training or unsupported methods can undermine credibility and admissibility.
• Whether tools were applied consistently with their manuals: Opposing counsel often scrutinizes whether structured tools were used as intended. Deviations from manualized procedures, without clear justification, can suggest poor methodology or a lack of competence.
• Whether the evaluator can articulate the limitations of the assessment: Effective expert testimony requires acknowledging uncertainty and explaining what the evaluation cannot conclude. Overstated certainty or failure to discuss limits is increasingly viewed as a credibility risk.

As forensic psychologists, we should recognize that Daubert-style challenges do not require an evaluator to be wrong. Rather, they focus on whether the methods employed are reliably grounded, transparently justified, and consistently applied. Demonstrating sustained professional competence through ongoing continuing education supports sound forensic opinions grounded in reliable principles and methods, as required by evidentiary standards.

Expert practice is reflected not in the number of instruments administered, but in the strategic selection of tools based on the demands of the specific case. Proficient evaluators use multiple measures when they serve distinct and complementary purposes, and avoid redundancy when an instrument would add little incremental value. For example, the SARA is appropriately prioritized when the referral question centers on intimate partner violence, whereas the HCR-20 Version 3 or START may be better suited for broader or dynamic risk questions. Knowing when, and how, to integrate these frameworks reflects ongoing proficiency, not excess, and allows the evaluator to articulate how empirically supported risk factors interact and evolve over time.
 
For example, in an intimate partner violence (IPV) assessment, proficiency with the SARA shows when the forensic evaluator can explain why the instrument is suitable for the referral question, how its risk factors were interpreted based on current IPV research, and what its findings can and cannot support. Instead of listing multiple risk factors, a proficient forensic psychologist explains how specific dynamic factors (e.g., recent separation, escalation patterns, substance use) are weighted in the formulation and how they are connected to risk management recommendations. When asked, the evaluator can describe how the SARA was used in accordance with its manual and IPV empirical research, why additional tools were not needed, and the assessment's limitations given the available collateral and context. This level of tool-specific understanding directly addresses ethical standards and minimizes vulnerability to legal challenges.

A misconception in violence risk assessment is that proficiency comes from using more instruments. In practice, expert-level assessment is more often characterized by a disciplined use of a limited set of well-validated tools, applied with precision, consistency, and sound professional clinical judgment.
 
Proficiency enables clinicians to avoid overextending tools beyond their intended purpose and to avoid relying on structured instruments as substitutes for clinical reasoning. As forensic psychologists, staying proficient means:

• Knowing when a tool is appropriate (and when it is not)
• Applying coding rules and scoring anchors correctly
• Integrating findings into coherent risk formulations
• Communicating conclusions with precision and restraint

For example, proficiency with the HCR-20 V3 involves more than scoring items or supplementing the evaluation with additional instruments. A skilled forensic psychologist understands how HCR-20 V3 items function across cases, recognizes when certain factors are relevant to the referral question, and integrates findings into a coherent risk formulation. Rather than adding multiple tools to appear comprehensive, the proficient clinician applies the HCR-20 V3 as intended and clearly articulates how the presence and relevance of empirically identified risk factors interact to shape risk over time. Used this way, the HCR-20 V3 supports disciplined, structured reasoning rather than checklist-style accumulation of measures.

In addition, sustained proficiency protects not only the public and the evaluee, but also the forensic psychologist. Assessments grounded in current science and applied using well-established methods are more likely to be clearly understood by courts, attorneys, and decision-makers. When conclusions are well-reasoned and clearly linked to the underlying data, they are less vulnerable to misinterpretation, misuse, or successful legal challenge and more likely to withstand scrutiny over time.

As forensic psychologists, we must recognize that proficiency in violence risk assessment is not a static achievement secured at the point of certification. It is an ongoing professional responsibility that directly affects the accuracy, defensibility, and ethical integrity of our work. SPJ tools such as the HCR-20 V3, SARA, and START are only as sound as the judgment applied in their use.
 
Staying proficient requires deliberate effort – remaining current with evolving research and calibrating reasoning and judgment through advanced training and peer consultation. When we allow skills to drift or rely on outdated practices, we undermine not only the quality of our assessments but also the trust courts, institutions, and the public place in forensic psychology.
 
As forensic psychologists, we should view ongoing proficiency not as an administrative burden or optional enhancement, but as a defining feature of our practice. In an era of increasing scrutiny of expert evidence, sustained competence is what allows violence risk assessments to remain scientifically grounded, ethically responsible, and legally defensible—across settings, over time, and under review.

Training

• Violence Risk Assessment Certificate
• Foundations of Violence Risk Assessment and Management
• Advanced Issues in the Assessment of Risk for Violence: Formulation
• Evaluation of Risk for Intimate Partner Violence with the SARA-V3
• Evaluation of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20 Version 3
• Short Term Assessment of Risk & Treatability (START)
• LIVE: Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV)
• Structured Professional Judgement
• Structured Professional Judgment and Racial Disparities in Risk Assessment
  
  

Blog Posts

• Do Risk Formulations Differ Depending on which Version of the HCR-20 is used?
• What not to use in assessing risk for institutional violence: The case against the PCL-R in capital cases
• Use of the HCR-V3 in Criminal, Civil, and Pretrial Settings
• Ensuring Consistency in Forensic Competency Evaluations
• Is cross-examination an effective means to educate jurors on valid and reliable evidence?