{"product_id":"handbook-of-recidivism-risk-needs-assessment-tools-isbn-9781119184294","title":"Handbook of Recidivism Risk \/ Needs Assessment Tools","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProvides comprehensive coverage on recidivism risk\/needs assessment tools\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrectional and healthcare professionals around the world utilize structured instruments referred to as \u003ci\u003erisk\/needs assessment tools \u003c\/i\u003eto predict the likelihood that an offender will recidivate. Such tools have been found to provide accurate and reliable evaluations and are widely used to assess, manage, and monitor offenders both institutionally as well as in the community. By identifying offenders in need of different levels of intervention, examining causal risk factors, and individualizing case management plans, risk\/needs assessment tools have proven invaluable in addressing the public health issue of recidivism.  \u003ci\u003eRecidivism Risk\/Needs Assessment Tools\u003c\/i\u003e brings together the developers of the most commonly-used risk\/needs assessment tools to provide a comprehensive overview of their development, peer-reviewed research literature, and practical application. \u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWritten by the leading professionals in the field of risk\/needs assessment, the book provides chapters on: Recidivism Risk Assessment in the 21st Century; Performance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments in Correctional Settings; Correctional Offender Management Profiles for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS); the Federal Post-Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument; the Inventory of Offender Risks, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS); the Level of Service (LS) Instruments; the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS); the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ); the Service Planning Instrument (SPIn); the Static Risk Offender Needs Guide-Revised (STRONG-R); the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS); the Forensic Operationalized Therapy\/Risk Evaluation System (FOTRES); the RisCanvi; and more. \u003c\/p\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003eSystematically identifies currently-validated recidivism risk\/needs assessment tools\u003c\/li\u003e \u003cli\u003eReviews research on recidivism risk\/needs assessment tools used internationally\u003c\/li\u003e \u003cli\u003eEach chapter presents sufficient detail to decide whether a given recidivism risk\/needs assessment tool is right for your practice \u003c\/li\u003e \u003c\/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eRecidivism Risk\/Needs Assessment Tools \u003c\/i\u003e is ideal for correctional, probation and parole, and behavioral health professionals. \u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotes on Contributors xv\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreface: Recidivism Risk Assessment in the 21st Century xxiii\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eJohn Monahan\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePart I Introduction 1\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1 Performance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments in U.S. Correctional Settings 3\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eSarah L. Desmarais, Kiersten L. Johnson, and Jay P. Singh\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of Risk Assessment Instruments 4\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of Samples and Studies 5\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Current Review 5\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod 6\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReview Protocol 6\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSearch Strategy 6\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults 10\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics and Content of Instruments 10\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample and Study Characteristics 12\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerformance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments 14\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscussion 19\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimitations 21\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusions 21\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor Note 22\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 22\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupplemental Table 29\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePart II Risk\/Needs Assessment in North America 31\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2 The CAIS\/JAIS Approach to Assessment 33\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eChristopher Baird\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntroduction 33\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistory of Development 33\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment and Validation of Risk Assessment 35\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment of CAIS\/JAIS Needs Assessment Instruments 38\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment, Synopsis, and Evaluation of CMC\/SJS 39\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSynopsis of CMC Supervision Strategies 41\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCMC Evaluation Results 44\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent Issues and Future Directions 45\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 46\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3 Correctional Offender Management Profiles for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) 49\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eTim Brennan and William Dieterich\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntroduction 49\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurposes of COMPAS 49\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Risk Assessment 49\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplanatory and Needs Assessment 50\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoiding the Various Disconnects between Assessment, Treatment, and Outcomes 50\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifferent versions for Different Organizational Purposes and Target Populations 50\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodological Goals 50\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBackground and History of Development 50\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncorporate Theoretical Guidance in Selecting Relevant Scales to Achieve a Comprehensive Coverage of Explanatory Factors 50\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncorporate Empirical Guidance from Meta-analytic Research on Predictive Factors 51\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncorporate the Strength\/Resiliency Perspective 51\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncorporate Gender-Responsive Risk and Need Factors 51\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDynamic vs. Static Items in COMPAS Risk Assessments 51\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilt-In Data Validity Tests and Error-Checking 51\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlexible Access to External “In-Depth” Diagnostic Assessments 51\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvanced Analytical Methods for Risk Prediction 52\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple Dependent Criterion Variables 52\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystematic Re-validation and Calibration to Accommodate Offender Population Changes 52\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEase of Use and Efficiency 52\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScalability—Agency Control Over Data Needs and Staff Workloads for Specific Processing Decisions 53\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegrated Database and Seamless Links from Risk\/Needs Assessment to Case Management, Treatment Goals, Treatments Provided, and Outcomes 53\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneralizability of Predictive Accuracy Across Regions, Agencies, and Racial\/Gender Categories 53\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVersions of COMPAS 53\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYouth COMPAS 53\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReentry COMPAS 54\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen’s COMPAS 54\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorming or Standardization Samples 54\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSettings for COMPAS Assessments (Pretrial, Community Corrections, Prison\/Jail) 55\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeb-based Implementation of Assessments and Subsequent Treatment and Outcome Data 55\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive and Needs\/Explanatory Scales 55\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditional Risk Models for Other Criminal Justice Criterion Outcomes 56\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasures of Predictive Accuracy 56\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndependent Validation Studies by External Researchers, from Diverse Geographical Areas 56\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollow-up Data and Time Frames 56\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternal Classification for Jails\/Prisons for Offender Management and Responsivity 56\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical Foundations of COMPAS 57\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Learning Theory 57\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe General Theory of Crime 57\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrain Theory\/Social Marginalization 57\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoutine Activities Theory 57\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Disorganization\/Sub-cultural Theories 58\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl\/Restraint Theories 58\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData Collection and Interviewing 58\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOfficial Records\/File Review 58\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Section 58\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Report Paper and Pencil Section 59\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScoring Guidelines 59\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrator Qualifications and Training Modules 59\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasic 2-day Training 59\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoftware Training 59\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrain-the-Trainer Workshops 60\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnomaly or Error Detection 60\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding Integrity Checks 60\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability Research 60\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternal Consistency Reliability 60\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest-Retest Reliability 61\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-rater Reliability 61\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn-Screen Hyperlinks to Give Staff Immediate Access to Question Definitions 62\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystematic Identification, Removal, or Revision of Problematic Questions 62\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing Machine Learning (ML) Classifiers to Achieve High Reliability of Prison Classification Assignments 62\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLatent Factor Structure of the Overall COMPAS Assessment Domain 62\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Early Starter, High Violence Risks with Very Low Social Capital 63\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Extent of Criminal Involvement 63\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Social Marginalization 63\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Violence 63\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Antisocial Personality and Attitudes 63\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Socialization and Social Learning in Antisocial Environments 63\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Transience, Unstable Residence, Drugs, and Poor Social Adjustment 63\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Antisocial High-Risk Lifestyle 63\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriterion Validity: Predictive and Concurrent Validity 64\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Validity of COMPAS Has Been Replicated in Multiple Jurisdictions, Multiple Agencies, and by Different Research Teams 64\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Validity Across Gender and Racial Groups (Criterion Related Validity) 64\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent Validity—Coverage of Relevant Factors 66\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeta-analytic Selection 67\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory-based Selection 67\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Validity of Specific COMPAS Subscales 67\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCalibration 68\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscrimination and Dispersion 68\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct Validity—Factorial, Concurrent, and Criterion Validity 69\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFactorial Validity of COMPAS Subscales 69\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct and Convergent Validity 69\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubstance Abuse 70\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCOMPAS Subscale Correlates with Official Criminal Behaviors and Age of Onset 70\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriminal Attitudes and Criminal Personality Scales 70\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation Research 70\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUser Satisfaction 70\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact Evaluation and Cost\/Benefit Analyses of COMPAS 71\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent Issues and Future Directions 71\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Data Analytic Advances 71\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Advances in Automated Data Collection Procedures 72\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Diverse Pathways to Crime and New Internal Classifications for Prisons 72\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Advances in Decision Analytic Methods for Setting Cut Points in Risk Assessment Scales 72\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 72\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4 The Federal Post-Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument: A Tool for Predicting Recidivism for Offenders on Federal Supervision 77\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eThomas H. Cohen, Christopher T. Lowenkamp, and Charles Robinson\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntroduction 77\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview of Risk Assessment Tools 79\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistory of Actuarial Instruments in the Federal Probation System 79\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment and Implementation of the Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument 81\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministration and Scoring of the PCRA 82\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOfficer Section of the PCRA 82\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHandling Scoring Omissions and Missing Data 83\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOffender Section of the PCRA 84\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighlighting Addressable Criminogenic Needs 84\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Role of Supervision Overrides in the PCRA’s Risk Assessment Mechanism 85\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe PCRA Assessment and Reassessment Policy 85\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview of Research Using the PCRA 86\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRevalidation of the PCRA’s Predictive Validity 86\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestigating the PCRA’s Dynamic Characteristics 88\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies Investigating the PCRA for Race\/Gender Bias 92\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluating the Predictive Value of the PICTS Criminal Thinking Styles 92\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe PCRA and Special Offender Populations 93\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies Using the PCRA to Investigate Supervision Overrides, Implementation of the Low-Risk Policy, the Presence of Responsivity Issues, and Convergence of Long-Term Recidivism Rates Across Risk Levels 94\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePCRA 2.0 and the Future of the PCRA 96\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion 97\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 97\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5 The Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS) 101\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eHolly A. Miller\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRationale and Development of the IORNS 102\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandardization 106\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability 106\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidity 107\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct Validity 107\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternal Structure 109\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Validity 109\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTracking Change through Treatment 110\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase Illustration 111\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUtility and Future Directions of the IORNS 114\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 114\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6 The Level of Service (LS) Instruments 117\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eJ. Stephen Wormith and James Bonta\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Origins and Evolution of the Level of Service (LS) Instruments 118\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Theoretical Underpinnings of the LS 119\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministration 121\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability 124\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidity 126\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent Issues, Concerns, and Future Directions 132\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary and Conclusions 135\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 139\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7 The Ohio Risk Assessment System 147\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eEdward J. Latessa, Brian Lovins, and Jennifer Lux\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview 147\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical Framework 150\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Creation and Validation of the ORAS 150\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministering the ORAS 151\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraining Requirements and Qualifications 152\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Validity of the Ohio Risk Assessment System 153\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOhio Validation 153\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eORAS Pretrial Assessment Tool 153\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eORAS Community Supervision Tool 153\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndiana Validation 154\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTexas Validation 155\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eORAS Prison Intake Tool 156\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOhio Risk Assessment System-Reentry and Supplemental Reentry Tools 157\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Reliability of the Ohio Risk Assessment System 158\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation Research 159\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUse of the ORAS 160\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenefits of ORAS 160\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent Issues and Future Directions 161\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 162\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8 Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A Tool for Assessing Violent and Non-Violent Recidivism 165\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eWagdy Loza\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment of the SAQ 165\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription of the SAQ Scales 166\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUses of the SAQ 166\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWho Can Administer the SAQ? 166\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministering the SAQ 167\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScoring the SAQ 167\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpreting the Score of the SAQ 168\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExample of Reporting the Results of the SAQ 168\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraining 168\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimitations of the SAQ 168\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies Demonstrating the Psychometric Properties of the SAQ 169\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability of the SAQ 169\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubscale\/Total Correlations 169\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct Validity 170\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcurrent Validity 170\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Validity 171\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Validity of the SAQ for Use with Female Offenders 173\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSAQ as a Classification Measure 173\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison Studies with Other Instruments 173\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SAQ and Deception 173\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural Diversity Comparisons 174\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Validity of the SAQ for Use with Mentally Ill Offenders 175\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Validity of the SAQ for Use with Young Offenders 175\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePostgraduate Research Projects 175\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Agenda 175\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion 175\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase Study: High Risk 176\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReason for Referral: Intake Assessment 176\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 177\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9 Service Planning Instrument (SPIn) 181\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eNatalie J. Jones and David Robinson\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview 181\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistory and Development 182\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical Foundations 184\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent and Measurement 185\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasurement of Strengths 186\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministration and Training 187\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychometric Properties 187\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Samples 187\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability Research 188\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Validity Research 189\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscussion 194\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 196\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e10 The Static Risk Offender Needs Guide – Revised (STRONG-R) 199\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eZachary Hamilton, Xiaohan Mei, and Douglas Routh\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview 199\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecidivism Prediction Spotlight 200\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem Types 202\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstrument Purpose(s) 203\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTarget Population and Setting 204\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Frame of Prediction 204\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical Framework 204\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistory of Development 205\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Static Risk Assessment 205\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Offender Needs Assessment 206\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe STRONG-R 206\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubscale Construction 206\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethodological Advances 207\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCustomization and the STRONG-R 207\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriminogenic Need Domains 208\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministration and Training 209\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraining at Implementation 209\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOngoing Training for Quality Assurance 211\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability and Validity Research 212\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLatent Structure 212\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent Validity 214\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternal Consistency 215\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-rater Reliability 215\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConvergent\/Divergent Validity 218\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcurrent Validity 219\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive Validity 220\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation of the STRONG-R 221\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent Issues and Future Directions 222\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoftware Applications 222\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponsivity, Case Planning, and Management 223\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethods of Customization 224\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 225\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePart III Risk\/Needs Assessment Abroad 229\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e11 Offender Group Reconviction Scale 231\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003ePhilip Howard\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview 231\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistory of Development, and Key Differences between the Versions 231\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Copas Rate, and Unusual Changes in OGRS Score 232\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Introduction of Offence-free Time and Violence Prediction in OGRS4 233\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of Risk Factors Scored in Each Version 234\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperationalizing Recidivism and the Follow-up Period 234\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical Framework 236\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministration 236\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability and Validity Research 237\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation in Correctional Practice 238\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent Issues and Future Directions 239\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 240\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12 Forensic Operationalized Therapy\/Risk Evaluation System (FOTRES) 243\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eLeonel C. Gonçalves, Astrid Rossegger, and Jérôme Endrass\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview 243\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistory of Development 243\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription of FOTRES and its Subscales 243\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReview of FOTRES Versions 246\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical Framework 247\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScope of Application 247\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk Characteristics 247\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTarget Offense 247\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOffense Mechanism Hypothesis 247\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministration 248\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidity and Reliability Research 249\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation Research 250\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase Studies 251\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent Issues and Future Directions 251\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 252\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e13 The RisCanvi: A New Tool for Assessing Risk for Violence in Prison and Recidivism 255\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eAntonio Andrés-Pueyo, Karin Arbach-Lucioni, and Santiago Redondo\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntroduction 255\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA Brief Overview of the Catalan Correctional System 255\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe RisCanvi: A New Tool for Risk Assessment of Prison Recidivism 256\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe RisCanvi: Structure and Some Psychometric Properties 258\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing the RisCanvi in Practice 264\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusions 266\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcknowledgments 267\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 267\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePart IV Conclusion 269\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e14 Risk Assessment: Where Do We Go From Here? 271\u003cbr\u003e \u003c\/b\u003e\u003ci\u003eFaye S. Taxman\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat Are Major Issues Affecting the Development and Evaluation of Risk Assessment Tools? 272\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDo Risk Assessment Tools Accurately Identify the Probability of Recidivism (Predictive Validity)? 273\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDo the Risk Assessment Instruments Differentiate Between Those in the Justice System and Those That Are not in the Justice System? 275\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre the Methods to Score Items and Categorize Risk Appropriate? 275\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAre Instruments Neutral on Race, Gender, and Other Key Demographic Issues? 277\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDo the Domains on the Risk Assessment Instruments Have Construct and Content Validity? 278\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow to Implement Risk Assessment Instruments so They Are Useful in Practice Including Case Planning, Resource Allocation, Treatment Referral or Placement, and Clinical Progress? 280\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion 281\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences 282\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAppendix 285\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndex 305\u003c\/p\u003e   \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e JAY P. SINGH, PhD, PhD,\u003c\/b\u003e is the Founder of the Global Institute of Forensic Research and is affiliated with the Department of Psychiatry and the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.   \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e DARYL G. KRONER, PhD,\u003c\/b\u003e is a Professor at Southern Illinois University and reviewed the effectiveness of offender programs at the Illinois Department of Corrections.   \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e J. STEPHEN WORMITH, PhD,\u003c\/b\u003e is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Saskatchewan, and Director of the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies.   \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e SARAH L. DESMARAIS, PhD,\u003c\/b\u003e is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Applied Social and Community Psychology Program at North Carolina State University.    \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e ZACHARY HAMILTON, PhD,\u003c\/b\u003e is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology and the Director of the Washington State Institute for Criminal Justice at Washington State University.      \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e Provides comprehensive coverage on \u003ci\u003eRecidivism Risk\/Needs Assessment Tools \u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/b\u003e  \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Correctional and healthcare professionals around the world utilize structured instruments referred to as \u003ci\u003erisk\/needs assessment tools\u003c\/i\u003e to predict the likelihood that an offender will recidivate. Such tools have been found to provide accurate and reliable evaluations and are widely used to assess, manage, and monitor offenders both institutionally as well as in the community. By identifying offenders in need of different levels of intervention, examining causal risk factors, and individualizing case management plans, risk\/needs assessment tools have proven invaluable in addressing the public health issue of recidivism. \u003ci\u003eHandbook of Recidivism Risk\/Needs Assessment Tools\u003c\/i\u003e brings together the developers of the most commonly used risk\/needs assessment tools to provide a comprehensive overview of their development, peer-reviewed research literature, and practical application.   \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e With contributions from leading professionals in the field of risk\/needs assessment, the book provides chapters on: Recidivism Risk Assessment in the 21st Century; Performance of Recidivism Risk Assessment Instruments in Correctional Settings; Correctional Offender Management Profiles for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS); the Federal Post-Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument; the Inventory of Offender Risks, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS); the Level of Service (LS) Instruments; the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS); the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ); the Service Planning Instrument (SPIn); the Static Risk Offender Needs Guide-Revised (STRONG-R); the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS); the Forensic Operationalized Therapy\/Risk Evaluation System (FOTRES); the RisCanvi; and more.   \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003eSystematically identifies currently validated recidivism risk\/needs assessment tools\u003c\/li\u003e \u003cli\u003eReviews research on recidivism risk\/needs assessment tools used internationally\u003c\/li\u003e \u003cli\u003eEach chapter presents sufficient detail to decide whether a given recidivism risk\/needs assessment tool is right for your practice\u003c\/li\u003e \u003c\/ul\u003e \u003cbr\u003e  \u003cp\u003e The \u003ci\u003eHandbook of Recidivism Risk\/Needs Assessment Tools\u003c\/i\u003e is ideal for correctional, probation and parole, and behavioral health professionals.\u003c\/p\u003e","brand":"Wiley-Blackwell","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47989341126885,"sku":"NP9781119184294","price":60.95,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9781119184294.jpg?v=1761783736","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/es\/products\/handbook-of-recidivism-risk-needs-assessment-tools-isbn-9781119184294","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}