Dynamika ryzyka przemocy: rola czynników ochronnych i wyzwania diagnostyczne w kontekście instytucjonalnym w warunkach polskich
Wybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEData publikacji: 17.06.2026
Problems of Forensic Sciences (Z Zagadnień Nauk Sądowych), 2025, 144, s. 259-276
https://doi.org/10.4467/12307483PFS.25.013.23648Autorzy
Dynamics of the risk of violence: diagnostic challenges and the role of protective factors in the institutional context of Poland
The article examines the role of protective factors in explaining temporal changes in violence risk among forensic psychiatric patients and prison inmates in Poland. A longitudinal study was conducted with 403 men (201 forensic patients and 202 inmates). Participants were assessed twice at a six-month-long interval using the HCR-20v3 and SAPROF. Forensic psychiatric patients showed a significant reduction in integrated risk for vioence, while prison inmates exhibited a slight increase in this field during the same period. In the patient group, the level of motivational protective factors from SAPROF was the sole notable predictor (albeit with low predictive power) explaining the variance in risk reduction. No protective factors significantly predicted risk changes in the inmate group. The findings indicate that risk dynamics may be context-dependent. The conducted analyses require further deepening and expansion. To facilitate this within the Polish psychiatric and penitentiary systems, systemic improvements are necessary, including the further implementation of Structured Professional Judgement (SPJ) risk assessment tools.
Badanie zostało zatwierdzone dnia 5.04.2019 r. przez Komisję Bioetyczną przy Wydziale Psychologii USWPS w Katowicach (nr uchwały: WKEB57/04/2019.
1. de Vogel V, De Beuf T, Shepherd S, Schneider RD. Violence risk assessment with the HCR-20V3 in legal contexts: A critical reflection. J Pers Assess. 2022;104(2):252-264. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2021.2021925.
2. Heilbrun K, Yasuhara K, Shah S, Locklair B. Approaches to violence risk assessment: Overview, critical analysis, and future directions. In: Douglas KS, Otto RK, editors. Handbook of violence risk assessment. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2021. p. 3-27.
3. Cox J, Fairfax-Columbo J, DeMatteo D, Vitacco MJ, Kopkin MR, Parrott CT, et al. An update and expansion on the role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 in United States case law. Behav Sci Law. 2018;36(5):517-531. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2376.
4. Vincent GM, Viljoen JL. Racist algorithms or systemic problems? Risk assessments and racial disparities. Crim Justice Behav. 2020;47(12):1576-1584.
5. Douglas KS, Shaffer CS. The science of and practice with the HCR-20 V3 (Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3): A comprehensive overview. In: Otto R, Douglas K, editors. Handbook of violence risk assessment. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis; 2020.
6. Banasik M, Nowopolski M, Gierowski JK. Formulation in forensic psychiatry: Problems, challenges and the usefulness of psycho-criminological concepts. Probl Forensic Sci. 2018;111:79-96.
7. Singh JP, Desmarais SL, Hurducas C, Arbach-Lucioni K, Condemarin C, Dean K, et al. International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2014;13(3):193-206. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2014.922141.
8. Banasik M, Welento-Nowacka A, Wojtowicz A, Gierowski JK. The Interrater Reliability of violence risk assessment using HCR 20 Version 3 and SAPROF in a sample of polish forensic psychiatric patients and prison inmates. Psychiatr Pol. In press.
9. Heffernan R, Ward T. Dynamic Risk Factors, Protective Factors and Value-Laden Practices. Psychiatry Psychol Law. 2019;26(2):312-328. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1506721.
10. Burghart M, de Ruiter C, Hynes SE, Krishnan N, Levtova Y, Uyar A. The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF): A Meta-Analysis of Its Predictive and Incremental Validity. Psychol Assess. 2023;35(1):56-67. doi: 10.1037/pas0001184.
11. De Vries Robbé M, de Vogel V, Douglas KS, Nijman HLI. Changes in Dynamic Risk and Protective Factors for Violence During Inpatient Forensic Psychiatric Treatment: Predicting Reductions in Postdischarge Community Recidivism. Law Hum Behav. 2014 Jun 16.
12. Olver ME, Riemer EK. High-psychopathy men with a history of sexual offending have protective factors too: But are these risk relevant and can they change in treatment? J Consult Clin Psychol. 2021;89(5):406-420.
13. Coupland R, Olver ME. Assessing protective factors in treated violent offenders: Associations with recidivism reduction and positive community outcomes. Psychol Assess. 2020;32(5):493.
14. Hanby LJ. A longitudinal study of dynamic risk, protective factors, and criminal recidivism: Change over time and the impact of assessment timing [dissertation]. Ottawa: Carleton University; 2013.
15. Banasik M, Welento-Nowacka A, Gierowski K. In search of a model procedure for assessing the risk of violence in Polish conditions-Summary of Authors’ research results. Arch Psychiatry Psychother. 2025;27(3):56-70.
16. Beisert M, Bartoszak D, Szumski F, Izdebska A, Zielona-Jenek M. Kompetencje kadr profesjonalistów podejmujących i mogących podejmować interwencje psychologiczne wobec skazanych za przestępstwa przeciwko wolności seksualnej i obyczajności. Prawo w Działaniu. 2024;57:7-39. doi: 10.32041/pwd.5701.
17. Góralski P. Terapia sprawców czynów zabronionych jako forma środka zabezpieczającego (art. 93a § 1 pkt 2 kk). Prok i Pr. 2019;(2).
18. Douglas KS, Guy LS, Hart SD. Psychosis as a risk factor for violence to others: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:679-706.
19. Mullen PE. Schizophrenia and violence: from correlations to preventive strategies. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2006;12(4):239-248.
20. Witt K, Van Dorn R, Fazel S. Risk factors for violence in psychosis: systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 110 studies. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55942.
21. Banasik M, Pogrzeba D, Gierowski JK, Welento-Nowacka A, Nowopolski M. In search of the most important predictors of violence risk in a group of polish patients in secure forensic psychiatry units. Probl Forensic Sci. 2020;122-123:111-128.
22. Banasik M, Pogrzeba D, Gierowski JK, Welento-Nowacka A, Nowopolski M. Intelligence as a protective and a risk factor for violence in a group of patients in forensic psychiatry units. Probl Forensic Sci. 2022;129. doi: 10.4467/12307483PFS.20.001.14781.
23. Banasik M, Pogrzeba D, Gierowski JK. Intelligence as a protective factor against violence in a group of incarcerated men. Psychiatr Psychol Klin. 2024;24(3):202-216.
Informacje: Problems of Forensic Sciences (Z Zagadnień Nauk Sądowych), 2025, 144, s. 259-276
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
Publikacja: 17.06.2026
Otrzymano: 10.02.2026
Zaakceptowano: 18.02.2026
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Finansowanie artykułu:
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
Angielski, PolskiLiczba wyświetleń: 100
Liczba pobrań: 74
