Challenges for the theory and application of dynamic risk factors

Cording, Jacinta R.; Christofferson, Sarah M. Beggs; Grace, Randolph C.

doi:10.1080/1068316x.2015.1111367

Cited by 40 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 81 publications

(109 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another example from the area of risk prediction is illustrative. While dynamic risk factors may predict reoffending, this does not mean that they cause it and, more specifically, that they are valid treatment "targets" (Beggs 2010;Cording et al 2016). To assume they are is arguably to conflate the tasks of prediction and explanation, without demonstrating theoretically that this is justified.…”

Section: Failure To Distinguish Distinct Research Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Uncritical and dogmatic acceptance of existing theories DRF are viewed as possible causes of reoffending despite little evidence that they play a causal role in initial offending or recidivism rates (Ward and Fortune 2016). In addition, treatment outcome studies investigating the degree to which changes in DRF during treatment predict reduced reoffending rates have yielded disappointing-and inconsistent-results (Cording et al 2016;. The continued insistence that DRF are potential causes despite this lack of evidence reveals a degree of dogmatism and a strong commitment to risk management models of crime.…”

Section: Dynamic Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Theories identify the causes of crime-related phenomena such as addiction or poor emotional control, and thereby provide assessment and therapeutic targets. An example of lack of attention to theory construction in forensic psychology is the failure to demonstrate that within treatment changes in dynamic risk factors (hypothesized causal factors; DRF) are responsible for reduced recidivism rates (e.g., Cording et al 2016;, ongoing questions about their theoretical coherence (e.g., Beech et al 2016;Ward and Fortune 2016) and the relatively modest effect sizes for correctional interventions (e.g., Klepfisz et al 2016;Schmucker and Losel 2015). A legacy of this lack of attention to a deeper theoretical analysis of dynamic risk factors is that we are not sure exactly how therapy is contributing to reduction in recidivism and even when treatment is effective, it does not appear to operate in the way we think (e.g., DRFs are not always reduced).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why theory matters in correctional psychology

Ward

2020

Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary forensic psychology is characterized by a relative lack of attention to theory building and conceptual analysis. In my view, this neglect of theory amounts to theoretical illiteracy and represents a significant obstacle to the explanation of crime and its management. In this paper I explore the problem of theoretical illiteracy for forensic psychological research and practice. First, I discuss why theory is important in science and the dangers of ignoring it. Second, I review the role of theory in addressing the myriad of practical problems facing human beings. Third, I outline three strategies to increase researchers and practitioners' appreciation of theory construction and development: adopting a more comprehensive model of scientific method, epistemic iteration, and promoting model pluralism. Fourth, I examine two examples of core concepts from correctional psychology, that of dynamic risk factors and classification, and demonstrate how the above strategies can be used to address problems with these constructs. Keywords Classification • Theoretical illiteracy • Dynamic risk factors • Protective factors • Treatment Zur Bedeutung von Theorie in der Vollzugspsychologie Theorie-Illetrismus und therapeutische Ineffektivität Zusammenfassung Die forensische Psychologie ist derzeit durch ein relatives Defizit an Aufmerksamkeit für Theoriebildung und konzeptuelle Analyse gekennzeichnet. Aus Sicht des Autors läuft diese Vernachlässigung auf einen Theorie-Illetrismus hinaus und stellt ein erhebliches Hindernis für die Erklärung von Straftaten und deren Bewältigung dar. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird das Problem des Theorie-Illetrismus für die forensisch-psychologische Forschung und Praxis untersucht. Zunächst wird diskutiert, warum Theorie in der Wissenschaft wichtig ist und welche Gefahren entstehen, wenn sie ignoriert wird. Zweitens wird die Rolle der Theorie beim Umgang mit den zahllosen praktischen Problemen, mit denen Menschen konfrontiert sind, untersucht. Dann werden 3 Möglichkeiten skizziert, wie Forschende und konkret Praktizierende die Theoriebildung und-entwicklung besser einschätzen können: die Annahme eines umfassenderen Modells wissenschaftlicher Methodik, die epistemische Iteration und die Förderung des Modellpluralismus. Viertens werden exemplarisch 2 Schlüsselkonzepte aus der Justizvollzugspsychologie überprüft: dynamische Risikofaktoren und Klassifikation. Dabei wird aufgezeigt, wie die beschriebenen Strategien eingesetzt werden können, um Probleme mit diesen Konstrukten anzugehen.

show abstract

Section: Failure To Distinguish Distinct Research Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dynamic Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why theory matters in correctional psychology

Ward

2020

Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Focusing on predictive power, instead of construct validity, risks result in multidimensional composite constructs rather than construct valid and causal constructs (Cording, Beggs Christofferson, & Grace, 2016; Ward, 2016). However, to examine predictive power has many uses, among them is the aim to quantify how well an outcome can be predicted by the information at hand (Shmueli, 2010).…”

Section: The Value Of Quantifying Predictive Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An important reason for considering dynamic risk factors is that as they can change, they can be used to update assessments of risk (Clarke, Peterson-Badali, & Skilling, 2017; De Vries Robbé, de Vogel, Douglas, & Nijman, 2015; Howard & Dixon, 2013; Lewis, Olver, & Wong, 2013; Olver, Beggs Christofferson, Grace, & Wong, 2014). If there is change due to an intervention, and if this change can be linked to changes in recidivism rates, then assessing dynamic risk factors can even help us establish causal explanations for recidivism (Cording et al, 2016; Ward & Beech, 2015). Repeated measurements of the same variables are needed for this potential to come into play, and for now, this is not a feature of the Finnish risk assessment system.…”

Section: Value Of Dynamic Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Power of Dynamic (vs. Static) Risk Factors in the Finnish Risk and Needs Assessment Form

Salo¹,

Laaksonen

Santtila

2019

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimated the predictive power of the dynamic items in the Finnish Risk and Needs Assessment Form ( Riski- ja tarvearvio [RITA]), assessed by caseworkers, for predicting recidivism. These 52 items were compared to static predictors including crime(s) committed, prison history, and age. We used two machine learning methods (elastic net and random forest) for this purpose and compared them with logistic regression. Participants were 746 men who had and 746 who had not reoffended during matched follow-up periods from 0.5 to 5.8 years. Both RITA items and static predictors predicted general and violent recidivism well (area under the curve [AUC] = .74-.78), but to combine them increased discrimination only slightly over static predictors alone (ΔAUC = .01-.03). Calibration was good for all models. We argue that the results show strong potential for the RITA items, but that development is best focused on improving usability for identifying treatment targets and for updating risk assessments.

show abstract

Strengths and weaknesses of the psychology of criminal conduct: Implications for the conceptualisation, assessment and treatment of antisocial personality pattern

Fortune

Heffernan

2021

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and its associated components (e.g. the Risk Need Responsivity model, the Central Eight risk factors) has been hugely influential in the criminal justice sector. However, like any theory it has relative strengths and weakness, one weakness being that assumptions have been made about the causal nature and conceptual coherence of its foundational constructs, dynamic risk factors. The numerous issues with the conceptualisation of dynamic risk factors have implications for the widespread practice of using them as explanations of offending and to inform intervention planning. Recently some attention has been given to exploring the conceptualisation and definitions, scope and use of dynamic risk factors. Some key advancements in this area are considered and we illustrate how the weaknesses encountered by dynamic risk factors may impact our understanding and application of these concepts, using the example of Antisocial Personality Pattern.

show abstract

Challenges for the theory and application of dynamic risk factors

Cited by 40 publications

References 81 publications

Why theory matters in correctional psychology

Why theory matters in correctional psychology

Predictive Power of Dynamic (vs. Static) Risk Factors in the Finnish Risk and Needs Assessment Form

Strengths and weaknesses of the psychology of criminal conduct: Implications for the conceptualisation, assessment and treatment of antisocial personality pattern

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About