Citation

Mitchell M, Palk G. Psychiatry Psychol. Law. 2016; 23(6): 863-871.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/13218719.2016.1164638

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

While the majority of violent threats - defined as an expression of intent to do harm or act out violently against someone or something - do not progress to actual violence, a small proportion of threateners do go on to enact violence. Most researchers argue that violence risk assessments are inadequate for assessing threats of violence, which raises the question: how should a threat assessment (TA) be conducted? To begin to understand available frameworks for assessing threats, a systematic review of TA research literature was conducted. Most TA literature pertains to a specific domain (schools, public figure threats, workplaces) and target audience (clinicians, school personnel, law enforcement). TA guidelines are typically based on literature reviews with some based on empirical measures and others having no strong evidential basis. The most common concepts in TA are exploration of the threatener's mental health, the motivation for the threat and the presence of any plans. Rather than advocating for the development of a protocol for conducting TA, this article outlines the common areas of inquiry in assessing threats and highlights the limitations of current TA guidelines.