Context and Objectives

Assessment of the risk of engaging in or desisting from a violent extremism trajectory has evolved quickly in the last 10 years. Guided by what has been achieved in psychology and criminology, scholars from the field of PVE have tried to import key lessons from violence risk assessment and management while taking into account the idiosyncrasies of their particular field.

However, risk tools that have been developed in the PVE space are relatively recent, and questions remain as to their level of psychometric validation. Namely, do these tools predict the outcomes they are purposed to predict? Are they reliable and valid?

The costs associated with misevaluating risk are numerous. Risk overestimation can lead to more surveillance, stigmatization, unjustified repressive practices, longer than necessary sentences, and waste of funds on interventions that are not only unnecessary but also potentially harmful. Risk underestimation, in turn, can result in violence and victims.

Because the use of tools not fit for purpose can lead to risk misevaluation, the current systematic review aimed to gather, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence about the appropriateness and utility of tools used to assess the risk of violent radicalization.