Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the work developed by the Forensic Psychology Office (GPF) at Forensic Sciences and Psychology Laboratory located at the Egas Moniz Higher Education School. GPF's main goals are performing forensic psychological assessments, especially violence risk assessments, as well as scientific research. The main purpose of violence risk assessment is the prevention and development of management strategies to minimise risk and try to identify factors that may contribute to the violent behaviour [1 Almeida I, Soeiro C. Guia de avaliação de risco de violência conjugal: SARA. Simões MR, Almeida LS, Gonçalves MM, editors. Lisboa: Pactor; 2017. [Google Scholar]] supporting the criminal justice system in allocating more appropriate measures (e.g. sentence, intervention) [2 Kropp PR. Spousal assaulters. Webster CD, Hucker SJ, editors. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 2007. [Google Scholar]]. GPF presents itself as the main response to cases with higher complexity and it provides guidance about the necessary measures to protect victims [3 Gonçalves RA. Psicologia forense em Portugal: Uma história de responsabilidades e desafios. Análise Psicológica. 2012;28(1):107–115. [Google Scholar],4 Roesch R, Zapf P, Hart S. Forensic psychology and law. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2010. [Google Scholar]].This is a quantitative study and the sample (n = 90) is derived from violence risk assessments of GPF (2016–2019). We evaluate 52 victims: 39 women/girls and 13 man/boys, aged between 5 and 95 years old (M = 33.04, SD = 21.82); and 38 defendants: 30 men and 8 women, aged between 23 and 82 years old (M = 44.64, SD = 14.75). Data was collected from lawsuits, semi-structured interviews of the victims and defendants, collateral information and clinical and forensic assessment tools. All participants signed an informed consent term, which contained the purpose of the assessment, the limits of the confidentiality, and also information about the ethics and technicians impartiality. All ethical principles have been taken due to the sensitive nature of the data involved and the respective informed consent.In 90 criminal processes assessed, 66 cases was about reported situations of domestic violence. In these cases the relationship between victims and defendants was: 33 ex-partners; 12 ex-spouses; 10 ex-boyfriend/girlfriend; 6 married; 3 parents and 2 son/daughter. We assessed 11 child abuse cases (5 parents; 3 relatives; 2 son/daughter; 1 stepdaughter). We also evaluate 9 child sex abuse cases (2 son/daughter; 2 classmates; 2 stepdaughters; 2 relatives and 1 stranger). Finally, we evaluate 4 elderly abuse cases (2 relatives; 1 son/daughter and 1 parent). In the violence risk assessments, most of the cases presented high risk level (n = 33, 36.7%), followed by moderate risk (n = 23, 25.6%) -Abstract Truncated-

Gender-Sensitive Violence Risk Assessment: Predictive Validity of Six Tools in Female Forensic Psychiatric Patients

Evaluation of whether commonly used risk assessment tools are applicable to women in forensic psychiatric institutions

Predicting violence in female forensic inpatients with substance use disorders – the utility of a gender-responsive assessment

Violence risk assessment instruments in forensic psychiatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Predictive Validity of the HCR-20v3 Compared to the HCR-20v3 with the FAM in Women

The predictive validity and temporal characteristics of the HCR-20v3 for inpatient violence in forensic inpatient settings. An international study

Violence Risk Assessment of Civil Psychiatric Patients with the HCR-20: Does Gender Matter?

Discriminative and predictive validity of risk assessment measures for women incarcerated for serious violent offences in Australia

Gender Comparisons in a Forensic Sample: Patient Profiles and HCR-20:V2 Reliability and Item Utility

Predicting Recidivism in a High-Risk Sample of Intimate Partner Violent Men Referred for Police Threat Assessment

Assessing change in dynamic risk factors in forensic psychiatric inpatients: relationship with psychopathy and recidivism

Dynamic violence risk, protective factors, and therapeutic change in a gender and ethnoculturally diverse sample of court-adjudicated youth.

The Predictive Validity of the Risk Screener Violence (RS-V) for Adults in Prison Regarding Postrelease Violent Recidivism: A File-Based Study

Validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version in a community sexual offense outpatient setting

Risk and protective factors in risk assessment: Predicting inpatient aggression in adult males detained in a forensic mental health setting

Cognitive predictors of violent incidents in forensic psychiatric inpatients

Risk for Violent and IPV Recidivism Among Incarcerated Men With a History of IPV Perpetration: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of the ODARA, DVRAG, and PCL-R

Violence risk assessment in forensic psychology office: from childhood to elderly

Too risky to use, or too risky not to? Lessons learned from over 30 years of research on forensic risk assessment with Indigenous persons.

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF): A Meta-Analysis of its Reliability and Predictive Validity

Cross-Cultural Validity of Sexual Recidivism Risk Assessments Using Static-99R, STABLE-2007, and the VRS-SO