TY - JOUR
T1 - The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study revisited
T2 - Two views ten years after its initial publication
AU - Torrey, E. Fuller
AU - Stanley, Jonathan
AU - Monahan, John
AU - Shannon, John S.
AU - Steadman, Henry J.
AU - Appelbaum, Paul S.
AU - Grisso, Thomas
AU - Mulvey, Edward P.
AU - Robbins, Pamela Clark
AU - Roth, Loren H.
AU - Silver, Eric
PY - 2008/2
Y1 - 2008/2
N2 - This article presents two views of the results of the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study, which was conducted between 1992 and 1995 in order to ascertain the prevalence of community violence in a sample of people discharged from acute psychiatric facilities. The initial findings, which were published in 1998 in the Archives of General Psychiatry, have been cited by some advocates as proof that discharged psychiatric patients are not more dangerous than other persons in the general population. For the article presented here, Dr. Torrey and Mr. Stanley examined additional articles, book chapters, and a book about the MacArthur Study that have appeared since 1998 in order to ascertain whether the study's original conclusion should be modified and whether additional conclusions can be drawn from the subsequently published data. They present six points on which they disagree with the findings or fault the design of the MacArthur Study. After each point, Dr. Monahan, Dr. Steadman, and other authors of the MacArthur Study Group respond.
AB - This article presents two views of the results of the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study, which was conducted between 1992 and 1995 in order to ascertain the prevalence of community violence in a sample of people discharged from acute psychiatric facilities. The initial findings, which were published in 1998 in the Archives of General Psychiatry, have been cited by some advocates as proof that discharged psychiatric patients are not more dangerous than other persons in the general population. For the article presented here, Dr. Torrey and Mr. Stanley examined additional articles, book chapters, and a book about the MacArthur Study that have appeared since 1998 in order to ascertain whether the study's original conclusion should be modified and whether additional conclusions can be drawn from the subsequently published data. They present six points on which they disagree with the findings or fault the design of the MacArthur Study. After each point, Dr. Monahan, Dr. Steadman, and other authors of the MacArthur Study Group respond.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047685587&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047685587&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1176/ps.2008.59.2.147
DO - 10.1176/ps.2008.59.2.147
M3 - Review article
C2 - 18245156
AN - SCOPUS:85047685587
SN - 1075-2730
VL - 59
SP - 147
EP - 152
JO - Psychiatric Services
JF - Psychiatric Services
IS - 2
ER -