Predicting Women’s Recidivism Using the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry: Preliminary Evidence of Predictive Validity With Community-Sentenced Women Using a “Gender-Neutral” Risk Measure

Although men and women share risk factors for offending, some scholars claim these factors operate differentially by gender and that certain proposed women-specific risk factors are neglected in the existing gender-neutral risk assessment tools. The present research evaluated one such gender-neutral risk assessment tool used by New Zealand Department of Corrections: The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR; Serin, 2007; Serin, Mailloux, & Wilson, 2012). The research was comparative and examined the predictive validity of the DRAOR for breaches of sentence and criminal reconvictions in matched samples of New Zealand women and men who had served community supervision sentences. Cox regression and AUC analyses showed the initial DRAOR had mixed predictive validity and the proximal DRAOR comparative predictive validity across gender. Additionally, the proximal DRAOR assessment consistently outperformed the initial DRAOR in the prediction of reconvictions for both women and men. Further, offenders made significant change on the DRAOR between two assessment points and overall the change made on the DRAOR was significantly related to reconvictions for women and men. For both samples, the RoC*RoI did not predict breach reconvictions; however, the proximal DRAOR TS provided incremental predictive validity above the RoC*RoI for criminal reconvictions. To conclude, the research supports the continued use of the DRAOR as a risk prediction tool with community-sentenced women and men and thus supports gender neutrality. Further, the research supports the dynamic nature of the DRAOR and highlighted the importance of updating dynamic risk assessments. Additionally, the research recommends that change made on a dynamic risk assessment tool over time be considered useful for predictive purposes for women and men alike.

Assessing women’s risk of recidivism: An investigation into the predictive validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR) with matched samples of community-sentenced women and men

10.26686/wgtn.17065064.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Jessica Scanlan

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

New Zealand ◽

Predictive Validity ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Risk Assessment Tool ◽

Dynamic Risk ◽

Gender Neutral ◽

Dynamic Risk Assessment ◽

Matched Samples

Although men and women share risk factors for offending, some scholars claim these factors operate differentially by gender and that certain proposed women-specific risk factors are neglected in the existing gender-neutral risk assessment tools. The present research evaluated one such gender-neutral risk assessment tool used by New Zealand Department of Corrections: The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR; Serin, 2007; Serin, Mailloux, & Wilson, 2012). The research was comparative and examined the predictive validity of the DRAOR for breaches of sentence and criminal reconvictions in matched samples of New Zealand women and men who had served community supervision sentences. Cox regression and AUC analyses showed the initial DRAOR had mixed predictive validity and the proximal DRAOR comparative predictive validity across gender. Additionally, the proximal DRAOR assessment consistently outperformed the initial DRAOR in the prediction of reconvictions for both women and men. Further, offenders made significant change on the DRAOR between two assessment points and overall the change made on the DRAOR was significantly related to reconvictions for women and men. For both samples, the RoC*RoI did not predict breach reconvictions; however, the proximal DRAOR TS provided incremental predictive validity above the RoC*RoI for criminal reconvictions. To conclude, the research supports the continued use of the DRAOR as a risk prediction tool with community-sentenced women and men and thus supports gender neutrality. Further, the research supports the dynamic nature of the DRAOR and highlighted the importance of updating dynamic risk assessments. Additionally, the research recommends that change made on a dynamic risk assessment tool over time be considered useful for predictive purposes for women and men alike.

Risky Business: Evaluating the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry for Use with New Zealand Youth

10.26686/wgtn.17018765 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Jonathan Muirhead

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

New Zealand ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Community Supervision ◽

Dynamic Risk ◽

Dynamic Risk Assessment ◽

Continued Use ◽

Criminal Conduct ◽

Risky Business ◽

Risk Scale

An important assumption that decisions based on criminal risk assessments rely on is that our assessments of someone’s likelihood of reoffending are accurate. It is well known that young people share many risk factors for criminal conduct with adults, but there is also research to suggest that some factors may be more important at different ages. This research examined how well an adult dynamic risk assessment tool, The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR), was able to predict any new criminal conviction as well as any new violent conviction in a sample of New Zealand youth (17-19 years) serving community supervision sentences. It was found that DRAOR scores were moderately strong predictors of future criminal conduct for youth, with better results being found for any reconvictions compared to violent reconvictions. The more recent an assessment was, the more accurate it was too. It was also found that those who did not go on to be reconvicted showed greater improvements on the risk scale throughout the course of their sentence than those who were reconvicted. These findings support the continued use of the DRAOR for youth in New Zealand who are serving community supervision sentences.

Risky Business: Evaluating the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry for Use with New Zealand Youth

10.26686/wgtn.17018765.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Jonathan Muirhead

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

New Zealand ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Community Supervision ◽

Dynamic Risk ◽

Dynamic Risk Assessment ◽

Continued Use ◽

Criminal Conduct ◽

Risky Business ◽

Risk Scale

An important assumption that decisions based on criminal risk assessments rely on is that our assessments of someone’s likelihood of reoffending are accurate. It is well known that young people share many risk factors for criminal conduct with adults, but there is also research to suggest that some factors may be more important at different ages. This research examined how well an adult dynamic risk assessment tool, The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR), was able to predict any new criminal conviction as well as any new violent conviction in a sample of New Zealand youth (17-19 years) serving community supervision sentences. It was found that DRAOR scores were moderately strong predictors of future criminal conduct for youth, with better results being found for any reconvictions compared to violent reconvictions. The more recent an assessment was, the more accurate it was too. It was also found that those who did not go on to be reconvicted showed greater improvements on the risk scale throughout the course of their sentence than those who were reconvicted. These findings support the continued use of the DRAOR for youth in New Zealand who are serving community supervision sentences.

Integrating Dynamic Risk Assessment Into Community Supervision Practice

The Wiley International Handbook of Correctional Psychology ◽

10.1002/9781119139980.ch45 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 725-743 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ralph C. Serin ◽

Nick Chadwick ◽

Caleb D. Lloyd

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Community Supervision ◽

Dynamic Risk ◽

Supervision Practice ◽

Dynamic Risk Assessment

Validation of HIV Risk Screening Tool to Identify Infected Adults and Adolescents >14 years at Community Level

10.21203/rs.3.rs-209246/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Kesetebirhan Delele Yirdaw ◽

Justin Mandala

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Hiv Risk ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Hiv Test ◽

Risk Assessment Tools ◽

Hiv Risk Assessment ◽

Sensitivity Specificity ◽

Conventional Risk Factors

Abstract Background There are a number of risk factors being used to identify undiagnosed HIV infected adults. As the number of undiagnosed people gets lesser and lesser, it is important to know if existing risk factors and risk assessment tools are valid for use. In this study, we validate existing HIV risk assessment tools and see if they are worth using for HIV case finding among adults who remain undiagnosed. Methods The Tanzania and Zambia Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) household surveys were conducted during 2016. We used adult interview and HIV datasets to assess validity of different HIV risk assessment tools. We first included 12 risk factors (being divorced, separated or widowed (DSW); having an HIV+ spouse; having one of the following within 12 months of the survey: paid work, slept away from home for at least a month, had multiple sexual partners, paid for sex, had sexually transmitted infection (STI), being a tuberculosis (TB) suspect, being very sick for at least 3 months; had ever sold sex; diagnosed with cervical cancer; and had TB disease into a risk assessment tool and assessed its validity by comparing it against HIV test result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the tool were assessed against the HIV test result. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score in order to have a tool with better sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. ROC comparison statistics was used to statistically test equality between AUC (area under the curve) of the different scores. ROC comparison statistics was also used to determine which risk assessment tool was better compared to the tool that contained all risk factors. Results Of 14,820 study participants, 57.8% were men, and had a median age of 30 (IQR: 21-24). HIV prevalence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.6). For the tool containing all risk factors, HIV prevalence was 1.0% when none of the risk factors were positive (Score 0) compared to 3.2% when at least one factor (Score ≥1) was present and 8.0% when ≥4 risk factors were present. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 82.3% (78.6%-85.9%), 41.9% (41.1%-42.7%), 3.2% (2.8%-3.6%), and 99.0% (98.8%-99.3%), respectively. The use of a tool containing conventional risk factors (all except those related with working and sleeping away) was found to have higher AUC compared to the use of all risk factors (p value <0.001), with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 63.5% (58.9%-68.1%), 66.2% (65.5%-67.0%), 4.2% (3.6%-4.8%), and 98.7% (98.5%-98.9%), respectively. Conclusion Use of a screening tool containing conventional risk factors improved HIV testing yield compared to doing universal testing. Prioritizing people who fulfil multiple risk factors should be explored further to improve HIV testing yield.

Predictive validity of the START with intellectually disabled offenders

Journal of Forensic Practice ◽

10.1108/jfp-12-2012-0029 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 78-88 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Andy Inett ◽

Grace Wright ◽

Louise Roberts ◽

Anne Sheeran

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Predictive Validity ◽

Physical Aggression ◽

Small Sample ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Characteristic Analysis ◽

Property Damage ◽

Content Type ◽

Dynamic Risk Factors ◽

Dynamic Risk

Purpose – Offenders with intellectual disability (ID) have been largely neglected in past forensic literature on assessment of dynamic risk factors. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the predictive validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), in a sample of males with IDs in a low-secure hospital (n=28). Design/methodology/approach – A prospective analysis was conducted, with START scores as the predictor variables, and the number of recorded aversive incidents as the outcome measure. Findings – Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that total START risk scores had a significant high predictive accuracy for incidents of physical aggression to others (area under the curve (AUC)=0.710, p<0.001) and property damage/theft (AUC=0.730, p<0.001), over a 30-day period, reducing to medium predictive validity over a 90-day period. Medium predictive validity was also identified for incidents of verbal aggression, suicide, self-harm, and stalking and intimidation. START strength scores were also predictive of overt aggression (AUC=0.716), possible reasons for this are explored. Research limitations/implications – The small sample size limits the generalisability of the findings, and further research is required. Practical implications – The paper offers preliminary support for the use of the START with ID offenders in low-secure settings. Given the lack of validation of any previous dynamic risk assessment tools, multi-disciplinary teams in such settings now have the option to use a tool which has potentially good validity with an ID population. Originality/value – This study represents the first attempt to examine the predictive validity of the START with ID offenders, and a step forward in the understanding of dynamic risk factors for violence in this population. The significant predictive relationship with incidents of physical aggression and property damage offers clinicians a preliminary evidence base supporting its use in low-secure settings.

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

10.22215/etd/2018-13422 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Bronwen Perley-Robertson

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Intimate Partner Violence ◽

Predictive Validity ◽

Partner Violence ◽

Intimate Partner ◽

Dynamic Risk ◽

Dynamic Risk Assessment

Comparison of the predictive validity of three fall risk assessment tools and analysis of fall‐risk factors at a tertiary teaching hospital

Journal of Clinical Nursing ◽

10.1111/jocn.15387 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (17-18) ◽

pp. 3482-3493

Author(s):

Eun Hee Cho ◽

Yun Jung Woo ◽

Arum Han ◽

Yoon Chung Chung ◽

Yeon Hee Kim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Predictive Validity ◽

Teaching Hospital ◽

Fall Risk ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Fall Risk Factors ◽

Tertiary Teaching ◽

Risk Assessment Tools ◽

Tertiary Teaching Hospital

Validation of HIV Risk Screening Tool To Identify Infected Adults And Adolescents >14 Years At Community Level

10.21203/rs.3.rs-668957/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Kesetebirhan Delele Yirdaw ◽

Justin Mandala

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Hiv Risk ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Hiv Test ◽

Risk Assessment Tools ◽

Hiv Risk Assessment ◽

Sensitivity Specificity ◽

Conventional Risk Factors

Abstract BackgroundThere are a number of risk factors being used to identify undiagnosed HIV infected adults. As the number of undiagnosed people gets lesser and lesser, it is important to know if existing risk factors and risk assessment tools are valid for use. In this study, we validate existing HIV risk assessment tools and see if they are worth using for HIV case finding among adults who remain undiagnosed. Methods The Tanzania and Zambia Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) household surveys were conducted during 2016. We used adult interview and HIV datasets to assess validity of different HIV risk assessment tools. We first included 12 risk factors (being divorced, separated or widowed (DSW); having an HIV+ spouse; having one of the following within 12 months of the survey: paid work, slept away from home for at least a month, had multiple sexual partners, paid for sex, had sexually transmitted infection (STI), being a tuberculosis (TB) suspect, being very sick for at least 3 months; had ever sold sex; diagnosed with cervical cancer; and had TB disease into a risk assessment tool and assessed its validity by comparing it against HIV test result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the tool were assessed against the HIV test result. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score in order to have a tool with better sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. ROC comparison statistics was used to statistically test equality between AUC (area under the curve) of the different scores. ROC comparison statistics was also used to determine which risk assessment tool was better compared to the tool that contained all risk factors. Results Of 14,820 study participants, 57.8% were men, and had a median age of 30 (IQR: 21-24). HIV prevalence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.6). For the tool containing all risk factors, HIV prevalence was 1.0% when none of the risk factors were positive (Score 0) compared to 3.2% when at least one factor (Score ≥1) was present and 8.0% when ≥4 risk factors were present. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 82.3% (78.6%-85.9%), 41.9% (41.1%-42.7%), 3.2% (2.8%-3.6%), and 99.0% (98.8%-99.3%), respectively. The use of a tool containing conventional risk factors (all except those related with working and sleeping away) was found to have higher AUC compared to the use of all risk factors (p value <0.001), with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 63.5% (58.9%-68.1%), 66.2% (65.5%-67.0%), 4.2% (3.6%-4.8%), and 98.7% (98.5%-98.9%), respectively. Conclusion Use of a screening tool containing conventional risk factors improved HIV testing yield compared to doing universal testing. Prioritizing people who fulfil multiple risk factors should be explored further to improve HIV testing yield.