1 / 14

An Australian risk-need inventory and what we have learnt about its accuracy

Explore the accuracy of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory-Australian Adaptation, detailing research findings and predictive validity. Investigate subgroup differences and implications for risk assessment with juvenile offenders. References provided.

hessm
Download Presentation

An Australian risk-need inventory and what we have learnt about its accuracy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Australian risk-need inventory and what we have learnt about its accuracy Andrew McGrath & Tony Thompson

  2. Risk/Need Assessment The risk/need/responsivity (RNR) correctional agenda The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory-Australian Adaptation (YLS/CMI-AA)

  3. The YLS/CMI-AA 47 yes/no items across 8 domains: Prior and current offences (8 items) Family and living circumstance (7 items) Education/employment (7 items) Peer relations (4 items) Substance abuse (6 items) Leisure/recreation (3 items) Personality/behaviour (7 items) Attitudes/beliefs (5 items)

  4. Research agenda 2000/2001, Initial norming study, N = 305 2003 – 2005, Re-norming study, N = 3568 2008 – 2010, N = 4401 first and previous YLS (2895 first assessment) 2012, N = 50, case reviews (with Jane Goodman-Delahunty)

  5. Basic descriptive data and predictive validity

  6. 2008/2010 data: Further breakdown

  7. YLS: Use of cut-scores

  8. Hit/miss rates within DJJ risk categories

  9. Gender differences (2008/10)

  10. Gender differences (2008/10)

  11. Ethnic differences (2008/10)

  12. Ethnic differences (2008/10)

  13. Case studies: some brief concluding remarks • 10 year research agenda • Predictive validity vs accuracy • Case studies: help to increase validity • Tension between assessment and intervention • Role of contextual factors • Follow-up data

  14. References McGrath, A., & Thompson, A. P. (2012). The relative predictive validity of the static and dynamic domain scores in risk-need assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 250-263. doi: 10.1177/0093854811431917 Thompson, A. P., & McGrath, A. (2012). Subgroup differences and implications for contemporary risk-need assessment with juvenile offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 345-355. doi: 10.1037/h0093930

More Related