Redesigning the Central Eight: Introducing the M-PACT Six

Abstract

Since their seminal work, Andrews and Bonta outlined the Central Eight assessment domains. As the landscape and utility of criminal justice assessments extended, tool developers expanded upon their initial development principles searching to further risk prediction gains. However, often overlooked in recent advancements is the foundation and usage of associated needs assessments. As a critical component of contemporary tools, particularly for youth, results of needs assessments identify and prioritize program placement. These additional tools comprise domain subscales that represent common predictors of need. Due to their latent nature, need assessment requires careful development and assessments of construct validity. While important, examinations of construct validity are seldom completed for contemporary tools, and their results rarely used for meaningful tool improvements. The current study describes the needs assessment development of the Modified Positive Achievement Change Tool (MPACT). Substantial psychometric evidence of construct validity is provided, describing the tool’s updated, six needs constructs.

Examining the Factor Structure of a Risk Assessment Inventory in Young Offenders: FER-R, Risk and Resource Assessment Form

“…A general factor was determined that combines a static risk facet with five dynamic risk facets was determined in the risks domain. As Mei et al [ 10 ] indicate, examining the construct validity in risk tools is imperative, if in practice they are treated as if they existed without demonstrating it; therefore, this study advances with evidence of internal validity for this construct. Furthermore, the FER-R, being an instrument built in a Latin American context, allows progress in the cultural relevance of these evaluations, especially due to the greater relevance of the family-risk dimension, being able to monitor its factorial structure in different groups and countries of the region if this study is replicated with diverse samples.…”

“…In a recent study, Mei et al [ 10 ] reviewed the factorial structures of risk-assessment tools in specific populations presenting geographic and cultural differences. Since assessment factors—when examined in other populations—require empirical support to confirm their existence, the study focused on the behavior of dynamic criminogenic factors [ 11 ].…”