Does Reassessment Enhance the Prediction of Imminent Criminal Recidivism? Replicating Lloyd et al. (2020) With High-Risk Parolees

Abstract

Lloyd et al. (2020) proposed and tested a novel three-step framework for examining the extent to which reassessment of dynamic risk and protective factors enhances the prediction of imminent criminal recidivism. We conducted a conceptual replication of Lloyd et al.’s study. We used the same dynamic risk assessment measure in the same jurisdiction but, unlike Lloyd et al., our sample comprised solely high-risk men on parole in New Zealand ( N = 966), the individuals who are most frequently reassessed in the community and most likely to imminently reoffend. The results of the previous study were largely reproduced: reassessment consistently enhanced prediction, with the most pronounced effects observed for a scale derived from theoretically acute dynamic risk factors. These findings indicate reassessment effects are robust to sample selection based on a narrower range of risk levels and remain robust across years of practice in applied contexts, despite potential organizational drift from initial training and reassessment fatigue. The findings also provide further support for the practice of ongoing risk reassessment in community supervision and suggest that the method proposed by Lloyd et al. is a replicable approach for testing the essential criteria for defining dynamic risk and protective factors.

Investigating the dynamic nature of multiple risk assessment instruments in a forensic mental health hospital.

“…This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. recent assessment or the rolling mean generally captured fluctuations in risk over time best, which is consistent with research using community corrections (Babchishin & Hanson, 2020;Davies et al, 2021;Lloyd et al, 2020) and forensic mental health samples. As expected, the first assessment was typically not significant when entered into the models with the most recent assessment or the rolling mean.…”

“…However, recently, researchers have begun exploring various ways to capture fluctuations in dynamic risk over time. Instead of relying on the most recent assessment, other methods (e.g., using a rolling mean, the highest score to date, the lowest score to date, or the moving rolling mean; Babchishin & Hanson, 2020; Chu, Thomas, Daffern, et al, 2013; Davies et al, 2021; Hanson et al, 2021; Howard & Dixon, 2013; Lloyd et al, 2020) have been investigated to account for measurement error associated with a single assessment (Epstein, 1983) and consider whether periods of crisis or improvement, as reflected by changes in the presence of stable and acute dynamic risk factors, are more important than an enduring presentation. Additionally, researchers have begun investigating the dynamic nature of acute risk assessments and their incremental validity compared to an initial assessment (Babchishin & Hanson, 2020; Davies et al, 2021; Hanson et al, 2021; Howard & Dixon, 2013; Lloyd et al, 2020).…”

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

“…Few studies have examined change in DRAOR scores. However, in addition to the research conducted by Davies et al (2021) and Lloyd, Hanson, et al (2020) described above, Polaschek and Yesberg (2018; Yesberg & Polaschek, 2019) reported that high-risk individuals incarcerated for violence demonstrated (a) average decreases in DRAOR Acute scores and increases in Protect scores (but no change in Stable scores) across 12 months following release, (b) greater variability in Acute than Protect scores in the first 2 months after release, and (c) statistically significant changes in Acute and Protect scores as early as 3 months after release. Yesberg and Polaschek (2019) also reported that greater change in violence risk scores during in-prison rehabilitation was related to larger changes in DRAOR Stable scores in the 3 months after release, and changes in Stable scores were related to reduced risk of reimprisonment in the subsequent 9 months.…”

Clients’ current presentation yields best prediction of criminal recidivism: Jointly modeling repeated assessments of risk and recidivism outcomes in a community sample of paroled New Zealanders.

“…We tested whether different features of assessment histories (i.e., clients’ current functioning, recent improvements or deteriorations, the combination of these, or a whole-record history of functioning) best predicted recidivism outcomes. Our choice of statistical model allowed direct comparison of these features, improving upon prior approaches that compared models corrected for measurement error to models that did not correct for error (e.g., Babchishin & Hanson, 2020; Davies et al, 2022; Lloyd, Hanson, et al, 2020).…”

“…Even researchers who are skeptical of dynamic risk factors acknowledge the need to assess risk factors across more than two time points on an ongoing basis (Heffernan et al, 2019). Emerging examples of prospective, frequent reassessment studies include Hanson et al (2007; see also Babchishin & Hanson, 2020) Hanson et al (2021), Howard and Dixon (2013), Davies et al (2022), and Lloyd, Hanson et al (2020; see also Stone et al, 2021). In these studies, the community setting ensured all participants were equally at risk of recidivism outcomes with frequent assessments occurring close to recidivism events.…”