Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37829765›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023

Interrater and intra-rater reliability of the VERA-2R tool.

Nils Duits, Maaike Kempes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nils DuitsNetherlands Institute of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (NIFP), Utrecht, Netherlands.
Maaike KempesNetherlands Institute of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (NIFP), Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The Violent Extremism Risk Assessment - Version 2 Revised (VERA-2R) is an evidence-based structured professional judgement (SPJ) tool for ideologically motivated violence. Use of the tool can help professionals in risk assessment and risk management of suspected and convicted terrorists and violent extremists at different stages within the criminal process. It is important that the tool leads to reliable and valid risk assessments. Methods: The present study aimed to establish the reliability of the VERA-2R, focusing on the interrater- and intrarater reliability. Trained researchers assessed the interrater- and intrarater reliability, respectively in 30 and 33 cases of Dutch convicted terrorist offenders, on the basis of extensive judicial files. Results: In general, the average amount of agreement on the indicators and structured risk judgements can be classified as good to excellent, for both the interrater- and intra-rater reliability. However, six indicators were found to have low reliability. Above clarifying the reliability of the VERA-2R, this study also showed how the interrater- and intrarater reliability of a SPJ tool can be investigated with trained assessors based on judicial files. This can be of added value, because existing reliability studies often use case vignettes, have a small sample size and/or do not include a stringent training program. Discussion: With this research, we can make more substantiated recommendations on how the VERA-2R can be improved. This could lead to more accurate risk assessments and risk management strategies. However, in order to develop a more reliable and valid VERA-2R instrument, the remaining psychometric properties must also be investigated and published. That will be discussed in a future article.

Indexed as

interrater reliabilityintra-rater reliabilityrisk assessmentterrorismVERA-2Rviolent extremism

Identifiers

PMID37829765
PMCPMC10566368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.