Prediction of juvenile probation violators.

Smith, James; Lanyon, Richard I.

doi:10.1037/h0025451

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It can be stipulated that assessments of dangerousness that are based on past behavior will be superior to assessments of dangerousness that are based on MMPI results alone. However, despite the claim of Smith and Lanyon (1968) that their study was another example of "actuarial prediction . .…”

Section: Although Clinicians Shouldmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In other words, they compared the predictive power of history with clinical judgments that were made without the benefit of history or interview data. Not surprisingly, the predictions made through the base expectancy table were better than chance predictions, and the judgments that were based on the MMPI were not; or, in the authors' words, “the future behavior of legal offenders is better predicted from their previous behavior than from personality test data” (Smith & Lanyon, 1968, p. 57).…”

Section: Although Clinicians Should Take Actuarial Estimates Of Dange...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness.

Litwack

2001

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

209

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cormier (1999) proposed the "complete replacement" of clinical assessments of dangerousness with actuarial methods, such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG). In this article, the author argues that (a) research to date has not demonstrated that actuarial methods of risk assessment are superior to clinical methods; (b) because most clinical determinations of dangerousness are not "predictions" of violence, as well as for other reasons, it is very difficult to meaningfully compare clinical and actuarial assessments of dangerousness; and (c) even the best researched and validated actuarial tool for assessing dangerousness to date, the VRAG, has not yet been validated in a manner that would make it appropriate for use in determining when individuals should be confined on the grounds of their dangerousness. Therefore, although clinicians who engage in risk assessments certainly should be knowledgeable about arguably relevant actuarial assessment schemes and other assessment guides (e.g., the HCR-20), it is premature, at best, to replace clinical risk assessments with actuarial assessments.A longstanding controversy exists within the field of psychology over the relative merits of actuarial (or statistical) versus clinical predictions. Within the field of dangerousness risk assessment, this controversy was heightened in 1999 by the American Psychological Association's publication of the book Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk by Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier. In this book, the authors argued explicitly and strongly for the "complete replacement" of clinical assessments of dangerousness with actuarial methods. To be precise, they stated: "What we are advising is not the addition of actuarial methods to existing practice, but rather the complete replacement of existing practice with actuarial methods" (p. 171).This article addresses the position taken by those authors regarding the relative merits of actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness and, more generally, the increasingly widespread academic view that actuarial assessments of dangerousness are superior to clinical assessments. Today, one routinely finds statements in the literature suggesting that actuarial assessments of dangerousness have proven to be superior to clinical assessments, or at least, to unstructured clinical assessments (

show abstract

Section: Although Clinicians Shouldmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Although Clinicians Should Take Actuarial Estimates Of Dange...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness.

Litwack

2001

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

209

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, evidence has been produced demonstrating that whether trait measures such as the MMPI are gathered at intake, discharge, or during incarceration, their power to predict recidivism is little affected (Gendreau, Grant & Leipciger, in press). Nevertheless, the MMPI fared poorly, confirming the claims of Mack (1969) and Smith and Lanyon (1968) that it is a poor predictor of recidivism. The regression equation for the MMPI was significant, but the R was only .24.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Norms and recidivism rates for the MMPI and selected experimental scales on a Canadian delinquent sample.

Gendreau

Grant²,

Leipciger³

et al. 1979

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study provided norms and recidivism rates on the MMPI and selected experimental scales for a sample of young English-speaking offenders in the province of Ontario. Data gathered in the study confirmed a need for an updating of MMPI and selected experimental scale norms on correctional samples. Specific changes in delinquents' MMPI norms were noted and compared to norms gathered on psychiatric samples in Ontario. The adequacy of psychological tests, in particular the MMPI and the selected experimental scales, in predicting recidivism was discussed. At best, the scales in the present study were mediocre predictors of recidivism and the MMPI fared relatively poorly in comparison to some of the selected experimental scales.

show abstract

“…Concomitantly, numerous studies have been clonducted in which there has been an attempt to identify associaltions between personality patterns and criminological variables. Especially frequent have been efforts to differentiate among offenders who have been classified according to the type or seriousness of their most recent antisocial behavior (Blackburn, 1968 ;Ruck & Graham, 1978;Carroll & Fuller, 1971;Davis C Sines, 1971;Deiker, 1974;Holland & Holt, 1975 ;McCreary, 1976 ;Megargee & Meindelsohn, 1962;Panton, 1958;Persons & Narks, 1971;Rader, 1977), although studies of first offenders versus recidivists (Bauer & Clark, 1976;Christensen & LeUnes, 1974;Clark, 1948;Dunhxm, 1954;Flanagan & Lewis, 1974;Panton, 1959Panton, , 1962a and probationparole violators versus nonviolators (Gough, Wenk, & Rozynko, 1965;Jacobson & Wirt, 1969;Mack, 1969;Mandel & Barron, 1966;Panton, 1962b ;Smith & Lanyon, 1968) have also often been reported.…”

Section: Multivariate Behavioralmentioning

confidence: 98%

Personality Correlates of Extent versus Type of Antisocial Behavior among Adult Offenders: A Mulitvariate Analysis

Holland¹,

Levi²

1983

Multivariate Behavioral Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of 250 adult male offenders on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was analyzed in relation to extent of known lifetime criminal involvement versus type of most recent offense. Although the set of personality measures was sensitive to both indices of illegal behavior, offense-type groups were discriminable only by virtue of their differing levels of recidivism. Nevertheless, MMPI scores were meaningfully related to number of convictions within offense categories, especially due to a positive association, albeit rather modest, between scale Pd and offenses against property. The results were seen to support the hypothesis that an improved perspective on the interface between personality and criminality can be achieved by a multivariate analysis of criminological data that have been quantified to reflect lifelong patterns of antisocial conduct rather than single behavioral episodes.

show abstract

Prediction of juvenile probation violators.

Cited by 11 publications

References 19 publications

Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness.

Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness.

Norms and recidivism rates for the MMPI and selected experimental scales on a Canadian delinquent sample.

Personality Correlates of Extent versus Type of Antisocial Behavior among Adult Offenders: A Mulitvariate Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About