Two-tiered violence risk estimates: A validation study of an integrated-actuarial risk assessment instrument.

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy F. Mills ◽  
Andrew L. Gray
2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 1213-1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine E. McCallum ◽  
Marcus T. Boccaccini ◽  
Claire N. Bryson

In Colorado, evaluators conducting sex offender risk assessments are required to assess 17 risk factors specified by the state’s Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB), in addition to scoring actuarial risk assessment instruments. This study examined the association between instrument scores, the 17 SOMB risk factors, and evaluator opinions concerning risk and need for containment in 302 Colorado cases. Evaluators’ ratings of risk indicated by noninstrument factors were often higher than their ratings of risk indicated by instrument results, but only their ratings of noninstrument factors were independently predictive of containment recommendations. Several of the most influential noninstrument factors (e.g., denial, treatment motivation) have been described by researchers as potentially misleading because they are not predictive of future offending. Findings highlight the need for more studies examining the validity of what risk assessment evaluators actually do, as opposed to what researchers think they should do.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T. McCafferty

The ability for professionals to override the results of an actuarial risk assessment tool is an essential part of effective correctional risk classification; however, little is known about how this important function affects the predictive validity of these tools. Using data from a statewide sample of juveniles from Ohio, this study examined the impact of professional adjustments on the predictive validity of a juvenile risk assessment instrument. This study found that the original and adjusted risk levels were significant predictors of recidivism, but the original risk levels were stronger predictors of recidivism than the adjusted risk levels that accounted for overrides.


2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 717-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy F. Mills ◽  
Daryl G. Kroner ◽  
Toni Hemmati

Recent research has demonstrated that antisocial attitudes and antisocial associates are among the better predictors of antisocial behavior. This study tests the predictive validity of the Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA) in a sample of adult male offenders. The MCAA comprises two parts: Part A is a quantified self-report measure of criminal friends, and Part B contains four attitude scales: Violence, Entitlement, Antisocial Intent, and Associates. The MCAA scales showed predictive validity for the outcomes of general and violent recidivism. In addition, the MCAA significantly improved the prediction of violent recidivism over an actuarial risk assessment instrument alone. Discussion centers on the contribution that antisocial attitudes and associates make to risk assessment.


Author(s):  
Friederike Sadowski ◽  
Hamta Meier ◽  
Celina Sonka ◽  
Rainer Witt ◽  
Juliane Malzacher

RADAR-iTE is an actuarial risk assessment instrument developed specifically for the German Police in the field of state protection. The purpose of the instrument is the prioritization of individuals of the Islamist spectrum known by the police in terms of their risk to commit politically motivated serious violence in Germany. The specific requirements of an instrument developed for the police and the adapted research process are outlined. This is followed by the description of the evaluation and revision of the instrument after one year of application by the German police. The result of this process, the current version 2.0 of RADAR-iTE is introduced and an insight into the implementation process of the instrument is also provided. Finally, the limitations of RADAR-iTE are discussed


2007 ◽  
Vol 190 (S49) ◽  
pp. s60-s65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen D. Hart ◽  
Christine Michie ◽  
David J. Cooke

BackgroundActuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs) estimate the probability that individuals will engage in future violence.AimsTo evaluate the ‘margins of error’ at the group and individual level for risk estimates made using ARAIs.MethodAn established statistical method was used to construct 95% CI for group and individual risk estimates made using two popular ARAIs.ResultsThe 95% CI were large for risk estimates at the group level; at the individual level, they were so high as to render risk estimates virtually meaningless.ConclusionsThe ARAIs cannot be used to estimate an individual's risk for future violence with any reasonable degree of certainty and should be used with great caution or not at all. In theory, reasonably precise group estimates could be made using ARAIs if developers used very large construction samples and if the tests included few score categories with extreme risk estimates.


2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 541-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda D. Schlager ◽  
Daniel Pacheco

The Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R) is an actuarially derived risk assessment instrument with a demonstrated reputation and record of supportive research. It has shown predictive validity on several offender populations. Although a significant literature has emerged on the validity and use of the LSI-R, no research has specifically examined change scores or the dynamics of reassessment and its importance with respect to case management. Flores, Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa and Lowenkamp and Bechtel, among others, specifically identify the importance and need to examine LSI-R reassessment scores. The present study uses a sample of parolees ( N = 179) from various community corrections programs that were administered the LSI-R at two different times. Results indicate that both mean composite and subcomponent LSI-R scores statistically significantly decreased between Time 1 and Time 2. The practical, theoretical, and policy implications of these results are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document