Offender Risk Assessment

By J. Bonta. 2002

214 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/01879db0437ff3395ec5729e990c50ef59e2b713

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. (2011, background): “Due to the potential utility of such tools, researchers have developed many risk assessment instruments, the manuals for which promise high rates of construct and predictive validity (Bonta, 2002).”
Examining the Validity of a Juvenile Offending Risk Assessment Instrument Across Gender and Race/Ethnicity (2013, background): “This allows for individualized strengths to be built upon, and responsivity factors and learning styles to be considered when determining appropriate interventions (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Bonta, 2002).”
Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach (2004, background): “Assessments should be based on empirically-based factors, be related to criminal activity, possess predictive validity, and sample multiple domains of risk and criminogenic need (Bonta, 2002).”
Development of the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA): Recidivism Risk Prediction in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2013, background): “The principles of evidence-based corrections acknowledge the need to identify risk levels and offender treatment needs appropriately if rehabilitation efforts are truly to be effective (Gendreau 1996; Bonta 2002; Andrews and Dowden 2006; Austin 2006).”
The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment (2006, background): “Proposals have been presented of breaking down the PCL-R items into static criminal history, dynamic criminogenic needs, and responsivity items (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Bonta, 2002; Simourd & Hoge, 2000).”
How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction (2013, background): “The distinction is that these dynamic items may be more relevant for informing treatment classification and placement decisions instead of predicting risk (Bonta, 2002; Gottfredson & Moriarty, 2006; Hannah-Moffat, 2005; Maurutto & Hannah-Moffat, 2006).”
Evaluating the Predictive Validity of the Compas Risk and Needs Assessment System (2009, unknown): “Criminologists have long lamented the lack of theory-guided assessments (Bonta, 2002; Clements, 1996; Jones, 1996).”
Risk and need assessment in British probation: the contribution of LSI-R (2007, background): “This potential for risk-related change measurement (or ‘‘dynamic predictive validity’’, Bonta, 2002) is demonstrated if it can be shown that changes over time in LSI-R scores are in fact related to changes in the probability of reconviction.”