10:00 Trial lecture: Title will be announced later
The ordinary opponents are:
- First opponent: Associate Professor Märta Wallinius, Lund University, Sweden
- Second opponent: Professor Frederik Alkier Gildberg, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
- Leader of the evaluation committee/Chair of the committee: Associate Professor Anne-Marthe Rustad Indregard, Norway
The leader of the public defense is Professor Rune Jonassen, OsloMet.
The main supervisor is Associate Professor Øyvind Lockertsen, OsloMet
The co-supervisors are Senior consultant John Olav Roaldset, Oslo Universitetssykehus and Professor Tonje Lossius Husum, OsloMet.
Thesis abstract
Adolescents admitted to acute psychiatric units or placed in residential youth care often experience highly vulnerable and unstable life situations. Some may also present with increased risk of violent behavior during institutional stay.
For staff, being able to identify which patients require closer monitoring is essential not only for maintaining safety within the unit, but also for ensuring that care and interventions are appropriately tailored. At the same time, risk assessments must be evidence-based and feasible to use in the acute institutional environment.
This project examines a structured professional judgment instrument called the Violence Risk Assessment Checklist for Youth (V-RISK-Y). The instrument was developed to help staff systematically screen for violence risk among youth aged 12-18 during stays in acute institutions.
How was the study conducted?
The primary aim of the research was to determine how reliable and accurate the tool is when used in practice to identify violence risk among youth with acute institutional stays in psychiatric units and residential care.
Two studies were conducted. One study investigated how consistently institutional staff rated the same cases (interrater reliability), to see whether there was agreement between staff in their V-RISK-Y scorings.
The other study assessed whether the instrument meaningfully contributed to predicting violence (predictive validity). In this study, youth in institutions were screened with V-RISK-Y, and it was examined whether the risk assessments predicted subsequent violent incidents during the institutional stay.
What were the findings?
The findings indicate that V-RISK-Y demonstrates generally good interrater reliability. The predictive accuracy in the acute psychiatric units was good, but lower in the residential youth care institutions. The results also suggest that uncertainty in ratings, when information to score items is unavailable may itself signify risk.
What are the implications for the future?
The project strengthens the evidence base for structured violence risk screening in acute institutions for youth. More systematic and accurate assessments may help reduce both over- and underestimation of risk.
This, in turn, can contribute to targeted interventions, safer treatment environments, and more individualized care. Overall, the project addresses the balance between safety and care, ensuring that youth with increased violence risk receive adequate care, while unnecessary restrictive measures for those with lower risk are avoided.
The research thus makes an important contribution to the development of more knowledge- and evidence-based practice in the assessment of violence risk among youth.
