The Accuracy of Five Risk Appraisal Instruments in Predicting Institutional Misconduct and New Convictions

By D. Kroner, J. Mills. 2001

279 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/57d5144e512899ca0f0131fe1ed3bcd134e449b4

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

1. J. Wormith
2. S. Wormith
3. Christopher T. Lowenkamp
4. Demetra Andrews
5. J. Bonta
6. Edward J. Latessa
7. F. Schmidt
8. Glenn D. Walters

In Sociology and Political Science

1. J. Wormith
2. S. Wormith
3. J. Bonta
4. Demetra Andrews
5. Christopher T. Lowenkamp
6. Edward J. Latessa
7. F. Schmidt
8. Glenn D. Walters

Citations in the corpus

• Comparative Validity Analysis of Multiple Measures of Violence Risk in a Sample of Criminal Offenders (2005, methodology): “For instance, Kroner and Mills (2001) compared the validities of the VRAG, HCR-20 (Version 1; Webster, Eaves, Douglas, & Wintrup, 1995), and the PCL-R (along with a few other instruments).”
• Is the PCL-R Really the “Unparalleled” Measure of Offender Risk? (2002, unknown): “…274 .19 Ilacqua, Coulson, Lombardo, and Nutbrown (1999) LSI-R 82 .38 LSI-R 82 .31 Kirkpatrick (1999) LSI-R 169 .41 Kirkpatrick (1998) LSI-R 277 .18 Kroner and Mills (2001) LSI-R 87 .24 PCL-R 87 .19 Loucks and Zamble (2001) PCL-R 81 .45 Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa (2001) LSI-R 317 .22 LSI-R…”
• Risk-Appraisal Versus Self-Report in the Prediction of Criminal Justice Outcomes (2006, methodology): “The five risk-appraisal procedures (see Table 1) on which the present meta-analysis was based had previously been scrutinized by Kroner and Mills (2001) in a major comparative study of institutional adjustment and recidivism.”
• Some Misconceptions about the Hare PCL-R and Risk Assessment (2004, background): “Three published studies (Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993; Kroner & Mills, 2001; Loza & Loza-Fanous, 2001) and two unpublished studies (Looman, 2001; Nugent, 2000) relevant to violent recidivism were identified.”
• Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems and New Applications (2006, background): “Over the past decade, a number of risk appraisal strategies have been developed; however, only a few have been compared (Kroner & Mills, 2001, p. 472).”
• The LSI-R and the Compas (2008, background): “…correctional professionals in making decisions concerning necessary levels of supervision and can also aid in decisions concerning sentencing, program or institutional classification, release from institutional custody, bail, and security ratings (Kroner & Mills, 2001; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002).”
• Offender Risk Assessment (2002, methodology): “One study (Grann, Belfrage, & Tengström, 2000) used only the historical component of the HCR-20, whereas the other two studies (Douglas, Ogloff, Nicholls, & Grant, 1999; Kroner & Mills, 2001) used all three components.”
• The Predictive Validity of a Gender-Responsive Needs Assessment (2009, result): “…is for planning release decisions rather than custody decisions, some studies have nevertheless observed that the dynamic instruments also predict institutional misconducts (Bonta, 1989; Bonta & Motiuk, 1987, 1990, 1992; Kroner & Mills, 2001; Motiuk, Motiuk, & Bonta, 1992; Shields & Simourd, 1991).”
• Psychopathy And Treatment Response In Incarcerated Female Substance Abusers (2003, background): “Incarcerated psychopaths are also more likely to be involved in institutional misbehavior (Edens, Poythress, & Lilienfeld, 1999; Kroner & Mills, 2001).”
• Use of Dynamic Risk/Need Assessment Instruments Among Long-Term Incarcerated Offenders (2004, background): “Kroner and Mills (2001) showed that the LSI-R predicts reconviction (r = .34) among this type of offender group.”
• INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING THROUGH THE RISK PRINCIPLE: IDENTIFYING OFFENDERS FOR RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT* (2005, result): “…validity with a correlation of 0.25 between the aggregate risk score and reincarceration, which is similar in value to those found in other studies of other risk prediction instruments (Gendreau et al., 1996; see also Gendreau et al., 2003; Hemphill and Hare, 2004; Kroner and Mills, 2001 ).”
• The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment (2006, background): “…in all, there are now a number of correctional instruments that seriously challenge the foren- sic mental health orientation of the VRAG for dominant status in terms of predictive criterion validity (for other promising alternatives, see Dieterich, 2003; Kroner & Mills, 2001; Loza & Green, 2003).”