Comparison of the HCR-20 V3 , the WAVR-21 V3 , and the CAG Performance Across Workplace Homicide Scenarios: A Pilot Study Mario J. Scalora 1 , Rosa Vi ˜ nas-Racionero 1 , and James S. Cawood 2 1 Department of Psychology and Public Policy Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2 Public Policy Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Although rare, instances of lethal workplace violence generate a climate of insecurity among the workforce and spur a myriad of initiatives designed to combat this problem. While many of these initiatives have already proved fruitful, there are several practical concerns that must be further resolved. One of these concerns is the lack of empirically validated instrumentation to guide the assessment of individuals with the potential to become violent at the workplace. Accordingly, this pilot study sought to provide preliminary data on the comparability of three violence risk assessment instruments, the Historical, Clinical, Risk-Management-20 Version 3 (HCR-20 V3 ), the Workplace Assessment of Violence Risk-Version 3 (WAVR-21 V3 ), and the Cawood Assessment Grid (CAG)—the latter two were designed specifically for assessing the risk of violence in workplace settings. Collectively, our results suggest that these three instruments demonstrated a potential to guide risk assessment processes effectively. Specifically, the three instruments showed statistically comparable levels of rater reliability, a fair degree of convergence, and similarly adequate predictive power. Despite its pilot character and particular outcome population, this study provided a starting point from which to continue examining the instruments’ capability to provide accurate forecasts of risk for physically violent behavior in workplace settings. Public Significance Statement This pilot study sought to provide preliminary data on the comparability of three violence risk assessment instruments, the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3, the Workplace Assessment of Violence Risk-Version 3, and the Cawood Assessment and Response Grids. The results suggest that these three instruments showed comparable levels of rater reliability, a fair degree of convergence, and similarly predictive power. Keywords: workplace violence, risk assessment tools, risk factors, predictive validity, interrater reliability Workplace violence comprises threats and acts of physical or sexual violence that endanger the wellbeing and life of employees, customers, clients, and business associates in occupational environments (ASIS International & the Society of Human Resource Management, 2011). While most violence occurs when the perpetrator is a stranger to the organization (e.g., robbers or assailants; Harrell, 2011), concerns about work- place homicide often appear after the occurrence This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Rosa Vi ˜ nas-Racionero https://orcid.org/0000-0003- 2439-5505 James S. Cawood is the author of the Cawood Assess- ment Grid. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mario J. Scalora, Department of Psychology and Public Policy Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 410, Lincoln, NE 68588, United States. Email: mscalora1@unl.edu 186 Journal of Threat Assessment and Management © 2021 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 7, Nos. 3–4, 186–199 ISSN: 2169-4842 https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000154