Concurrent and Predictive Validity of the Instrument for Forensic Treatment Evaluation: From Risk Assessment to Routine, Multidisciplinary Treatment Evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 1281-1299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erwin Schuringa ◽  
V.E. Heininga ◽  
Marinus Spreen ◽  
Stefan Bogaerts
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Multidisciplinary Treatment ◽  
Treatment Evaluation ◽  
Individual Treatment ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Forensic Practice ◽  
Forensic Treatment ◽  
Therapy Attendance

Besides assessment of forensic patients’ risk of future violence and criminogenic needs, knowledge on their responsivity to treatment is equally important. However, instruments currently used for risk assessment are not sensitive enough for treatment evaluation. Therefore, the Instrument for Forensic Treatment Evaluation (IFTE) was developed. The IFTE is a treatment evaluation tool, which uses the dynamic risk items of the Dutch risk assessment tool, the HKT-R (Historical, Clinical, Future–Revised). The IFTE has an extended answering scale, which makes it more sensitive for measuring change and enables clinicians to monitor patients’ responsivity to treatment closely. This study examines the concurrent and predictive validity of the IFTE. We found moderate to strong correlations between IFTE items and HKT-30 items (the HKT-30 is the predecessor of the HKT-R), with work and therapy attendance, and positive drug tests. In addition, we found moderate to modest correlations between some IFTE items and work and therapy attendance in a 6-month follow-up period and modest to high discriminative power for some IFTE items for violence and drug use 6 months after the measurement. Given its good reliability and validity properties, and comprehensive but short-term nature, implementation of the IFTE in forensic practice likely improves individual treatment of forensic psychiatric patients and has high potential for risk management purposes.

Reliability and Predictive Validity of a Consensus-Based Risk Assessment Tool

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
James G. Barber ◽  
Aron Shlonsky ◽  
Tara Black ◽  
Deborah Goodman ◽  
Nico Trocmé
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool

The Impact of Using Documented but Uncharged Offense Data on JSORRAT-II Predictive Validity

Sexual Abuse ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Ralston ◽  
Amar Sarkar ◽  
Grace T. Philipp ◽  
Douglas L. Epperson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Sexual Offender ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Sexual Recidivism ◽  
Sexual Offenses ◽  
Sexual Offender Recidivism ◽  
Juvenile Sexual Offender ◽  
The Impact

Following the implementation of sexual offender notification laws, researchers have found a drop in the rate of prosecutions and an increase in plea bargains for sexual offenses committed by male juveniles. This type of prosecutorial hesitation has implications for the predictive validity of sexual recidivism risk assessments, such as the Juvenile Sexual Offender Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool–II (JSORRAT-II), that require data from officially adjudicated offenses in the scoring of several items. The present study sought to test the impact of including data from documented but uncharged (DBU) sexual offenses in the scoring of the JSORRAT-II on its predictive validity using an exhaustive sample of 1,095 juveniles who offended sexually from the states of Iowa and Utah. Although sexual recidivists had significantly more DBU data, the inclusion of those data did not improve the predictive validity of the tool. The authors discuss additional reasons why changes in prosecutorial practice might remain confound in risk assessment studies and suggest future research to investigate those hypotheses.

Professional Discretion and the Predictive Validity of a Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T. McCafferty
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Adjusted Risk ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Risk Assessment Instrument ◽  
Actuarial Risk ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Impact

The ability for professionals to override the results of an actuarial risk assessment tool is an essential part of effective correctional risk classification; however, little is known about how this important function affects the predictive validity of these tools. Using data from a statewide sample of juveniles from Ohio, this study examined the impact of professional adjustments on the predictive validity of a juvenile risk assessment instrument. This study found that the original and adjusted risk levels were significant predictors of recidivism, but the original risk levels were stronger predictors of recidivism than the adjusted risk levels that accounted for overrides.

Treatment Evaluation in Forensic Psychiatry. Which One Should Be Used: The Clinical Judgment or the Instrument-based Assessment of Change?

2021 ◽  
pp. 0306624X2110239
Author(s):  
Erwin Schuringa ◽  
Marinus Spreen ◽  
Stefan Bogaerts
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Psychiatric Patient ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Forensic Psychiatry ◽  
Treatment Evaluation ◽  
Behavioral Changes ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Forensic Treatment ◽  
Forensic Psychiatric ◽  
Structured Professional Judgment

In forensic psychiatry, it is common practice to use an unstructured clinical judgment for treatment evaluation. From risk assessment studies, it is known that the unstructured clinical judgment is unreliable and the use of instruments is recommended. This paper aims to explore the clinical judgment of change compared to the calculated change using the Instrument for Forensic Treatment Evaluation (IFTE) in relation to changes in inpatient violence This study shows that the clinical judgment is much more positive about patient’s behavioral changes than the calculated change. And that the calculated change is more in accordance with the change in the occurrence of inpatient violence, suggesting that the calculated change reflects reality closer than the unstructured clinical judgment. Therefore, it is advisable to use the IFTE as a base to make a structured professional judgment of the treatment evaluation of a forensic psychiatric patient.

scholarly journals 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

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

<p>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.</p>

scholarly journals Predicting Recidivism of Aboriginal Youth Offenders: A Look at an Established Risk Assessment Tool and Culturally-Specific Predictors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly A. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Youth Offenders ◽  
Culturally Specific ◽  
Aboriginal Youth ◽  
Family Breakdown ◽  
Aboriginal Offenders

The application of standard risk assessment tools with Aboriginal youth offenders has been a highly controversial practice. Criticisms are premised on the fact that risk/need tools are largely founded on the social and historical experiences of non-Aboriginal offenders. In turn, scholars and practitioners have recommended the use of culturally- specific risk/need factors considering Aboriginal culture and the unique context of Aboriginal people in Canada. The current project consists of two studies designed to contribute to our understanding of these concerns. Study 1 examined the predictive validity (both discrimination and calibration) of the YLS/CMI with both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth offenders. Results found that although the YLS/CMI provides adequate discrimination for Aboriginal offenders (AUCs from .555 to .606), it underestimates the absolute recidivism rates of low and moderate risk Aboriginal youth compared to non-Aboriginal youth. Study 2 explored the utility of PSRs as sources of culturally-specific information and examined the predictive validity of those factors included. Results indicate that although a number of culturally-specific factors predicted re-offending, particularly family breakdown and community variables, PSRs are an inconsistent source of this information. Overall, the findings suggest that the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI with Aboriginal offenders may be improved with increased focus on family breakdown and home community. Implications and next steps for both practice and research are discussed.

scholarly journals 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

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

<p>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.</p>

scholarly journals Predictive Validity of the HKT-R Risk Assessment Tool: Two and 5-Year Violent Recidivism in a Nationwide Sample of Dutch Forensic Psychiatric Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (8) ◽  
pp. 2259-2270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Bogaerts ◽  
Marinus Spreen ◽  
Paul ter Horst ◽  
Coby Gerlsma
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Risk Judgment ◽  
Risk Assessment Instrument ◽  
Forensic Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Forensic Psychiatric

This study has examined the predictive validity of the Historical Clinical Future [ Historisch Klinisch Toekomst] Revised risk assessment scheme in a cohort of 347 forensic psychiatric patients, which were discharged between 2004 and 2008 from any of 12 highly secure forensic centers in the Netherlands. Predictive validity was measured 2 and 5 years after release. Official reconviction data obtained from the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice were used as outcome measures. Violent reoffending within 2 and 5 years after discharge was assessed. With regard to violent reoffending, results indicated that the predictive validity of the Historical domain was modest for 2 (area under the curve [AUC] = .75) and 5 (AUC = .74) years. The predictive validity of the Clinical domain was marginal for 2 (admission: AUC = .62; discharge: AUC = .63) and 5 (admission: AUC = .69; discharge: AUC = .62) years after release. The predictive validity of the Future domain was modest (AUC = .71) for 2 years and low for 5 (AUC = .58) years. The total score of the instrument was modest for 2 years (AUC = .78) and marginal for 5 (AUC = .68) years. Finally, the Final Risk Judgment was modest for 2 years (AUC = .78) and marginal for 5 (AUC = .63) years time at risk. It is concluded that this risk assessment instrument appears to be a satisfactory instrument for risk assessment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document