Risk and Need Assessment in Probation Services: an evaluation

By Raynor Peter. 2000

93 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries (2006, background): “Offenders in the treatment and control conditions could be matched on their individual risk levels (Andrews et al., 1990; Friendship et al., 2003; Raynor, Kynch, Roberts & Merrington, 2000 ).”
The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale: A treatment-friendly violence risk assessment tool. (2006, result): “Other studies using similar designs of test and retest with the LSI–R (Motiuk, Bonta, & Andrews, 1990, cited in Andrews & Bonta, 2003, p, 250; Raynor, Kynch, Roberts, & Merrington, 2000) produced similar results.”
Risk and need assessment in British probation: the contribution of LSI-R (2007, methodology): “[The HORS 211 study also showed good risk-related change measurement by the all-dynamic assessment instrument ACE (Roberts et al., 1996), but overall predictive validity was rather less for ACE than for LSI-R.]”