Risk Assessment

Taxman, Faye S.

doi:10.1002/9781119184256.ch14

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of generations (Andrews et al, 2006; Taxman, 2017), unstructured clinical judgment (UCJ) is considered as the first generation of risk assessment, followed by the second (consisting of static risk factors) and third generations (containing dynamic risk factors) of ARAIs and the SPJ approaches (fourth generation). The clinical–idiographic method combines actuarial knowledge and SPJs with theoretically sound explanations of the individual behaviors including clinical (e.g., neuropsychological or psychopathological) aspects of the examinee by strictly following scientific standards (Craig & Rettenberger, 2018; Craig et al, 2020).…”

Section: Generations Of Risk Assessment Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the predictive accuracy of structured and unstructured risk assessment methods for the prediction of recidivism in individuals convicted of sexual and violent offense.

Wertz¹,

Schöbel²,

Schiltz³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most commonly replicated results in the research area of recidivism risk assessment is the superiority of structured and standardized prediction methods in comparison to unstructured, subjective, intuitive, or impressionistic clinical judgments. However, the quality of evidence supporting this conclusion is partly still controversially discussed because studies including direct comparisons of the predictive accuracy of unstructured and structured risk assessment methods have been relatively rarely conducted. Therefore, we examined in the present study retrospectively N = 416 expert witness reports written about individuals convicted of violent and/or sexual offenses in Germany between 1999 and 2015. The predictive accuracy of different methodological approaches of risk assessment (subjective clinical [i.e., unstructured clinical judgment; UCJ], structured professional judgment [SPJ], actuarial risk assessment instruments [ARAIs], and combinations of ARAIs-/SPJ-based risk assessments) was compared by analyzing the actual reoffenses according to the Federal Central Register (average follow-up period M = 7.08 years). In accordance with previously published results, the results indicated a higher predictive accuracy for structured compared to unstructured risk assessment approaches for the prediction of general, violent, and sexual recidivism. Taken together, the findings underline the limited accuracy of UCJs and provided further support for the use of structured and standardized risk assessment procedures in the area of crime and delinquency. Public Significance StatementIn order to prevent sexual and violent offenses, it is crucial to use instruments, which could assess the risk of reoffending in individuals already convicted of violent and/or sexual offenses. The present results confirmed previously published evidence for the superiority of structured risk assessment approaches compared to unstructured and intuitively made judgments. Furthermore, the combination of different (structured) risk assessment approaches seemed to be particularly promising.

show abstract

Section: Generations Of Risk Assessment Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the predictive accuracy of structured and unstructured risk assessment methods for the prediction of recidivism in individuals convicted of sexual and violent offense.

Wertz¹,

Schöbel²,

Schiltz³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Risk assessment tools that are commonplace in the field of criminology and criminal justice "offer a science-based approach to regulate decision-making to avoid or minimize biases, decrease unnecessary discretion, improve proper use of resources, and/or increase fairness" [24] and serve multiple purposes. First, the individual assessment phase creates a definitive period during which the program staff member (i.e., violence intervention specialist or case manager) can focus on building rapport with the client-victim, establish trust, and determine a prioritization of client needs.…”

Section: The Need For Improving Risk Assessment In Hvipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The principles of the RNR model bolster traditional risk screening in medical settings, which tends to focus on the presence or absence of risk factors, by considering responsivity. Systemic responsivity, meaning the ability of systems to adequately respond, is especially critical to HVIPs that rely on medical and community systems to address the needs of participants and should consider the capacity and ability of these systems to adequately meet the needs of program participants [24,37].…”

Section: Fundamentals Of Risk Needs and Responsivity In Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Risk Factors for Victims of Violence in a Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Program

Armstrong,

Gonzales,

Visenio

et al. 2023

Trauma Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Personal, behavioral, and environmental risk factors are correlated to varying degrees with each other and with the overall likelihood of violent reinjury. When used with fidelity, risk assessment instruments, including the violence reinjury risk assessment instrument (VRRAI), identify domains in which individuals present elevated risk levels to aid in matching services with needs. Less is known about the collinearity among risk factors for violently injured individuals admitted to hospitals. Collinearity between risk factors has ramifications for predictive modeling of violent reinjury risk. The objective of this study was to identify significantly correlated risk factors when the VRRAI was used by hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIP) for clients. Materials and Methods: Victims of violent injury by modality of firearm, stabbing, and physical assault who were admitted to a level 1 trauma center at a single institution were voluntarily enrolled in a hospital-based violence intervention program (HVIP) between September 2020 and June 2022. Violence intervention specialists (VIS) completed the VRRAI within the first month of participant enrollment. The VRRAI is comprised of 29 binary indicators that may signal elevated risk of violent reinjury. Data from completed assessments were used to apply risk-need-responsivity (RNR) principles along with phi coefficients of key indicators to examine overlap and prevalence in the population. Results: A total of 98 participants were enrolled in the HVIP. The median age was 27 years old and 79 (80.6%) were male, while 66 (67.3%) were non-Hispanic Black or African American, 9 (9.2%) were non-Hispanic White, and 17 (17.3%) identified as Hispanic or Latino. Several statistically significant relationships existed between key risk indicators in the VRRAI. Importantly, a robust relationship was found between the two dynamic risk factors of having heavy connection with gangs and a perception of imminent threat of violence (φc = 0.57, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Data suggest that some variables could be consolidated or removed from the VRRAI to create an even shorter instrument that can be performed more rapidly in the clinical setting. The application of the RNR model illustrates a limited number of dynamic risk factors that could be immediately addressed as part of case management should be prioritized among the questions selected from the VRRAI for inquiry at the intake assessment.

show abstract

“…Despite its importance, the pretrial process has not been subjected to the type of scrutiny directed at judges' sentencing decisions (for a review of this research, see Spohn, 2000Spohn, , 2015Tonry, 1996); There is a fairly robust literature on bail practices (Goldkamp, 1979;Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988), pretrial risk assessment (Stevenson & Mayson, 2017;Taxman, 2016), and disparities in bail decision making (Bridges, 1997;Clarke & Koch, 1976;Demuth, 2003;Demuth & Stefensmeier, 2004;Pinchevsky & Steiner, 2016). Social scientists and legal scholars also have documented the effects of pretrial detention on subsequent stages of the criminal justice process (Grifftin & Wooldredge, 2006;Pinchevsky & Steiner, 2016;Spohn, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Predicts Failure to Appear for Court Hearings?

Spohn

2023

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its importance, the pretrial process has not been subjected to the type of scrutiny directed at judges’ sentencing decisions. The goal of this project, which uses data on defendants released pretrial in four Arizona counties, was to identify the factors that predict failure to appear (FTA) for court hearings and to determine whether these predictors vary across defendants. We found that the likelihood of FTA was affected by a combination of defendant characteristics, case characteristics, and the jurisdiction where the case was adjudicated; the FTA prediction score, which is obtained from the risk assessment instrument used in all Arizona counties, also had a significant effect on the likelihood of FTA. Discussion focuses on inter-jurisdictional differences in FTA rates, the fact that the type of pretrial release did not predict FTA, and the fact that the defendant’s race/ethnicity affected the FTA prediction score and most of the Public Safety Assessment factors.

show abstract

Risk Assessment

Cited by 12 publications

References 18 publications

A comparison of the predictive accuracy of structured and unstructured risk assessment methods for the prediction of recidivism in individuals convicted of sexual and violent offense.

A comparison of the predictive accuracy of structured and unstructured risk assessment methods for the prediction of recidivism in individuals convicted of sexual and violent offense.

Assessing Risk Factors for Victims of Violence in a Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Program

What Predicts Failure to Appear for Court Hearings?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About