A Comparison of Predictors of General and Violent Recidivism Among High-Risk Federal Offenders

By Anthony J. J. Glover, D. Nicholson, Toni Hemmati, G. Bernfeld, V. Quinsey. 2002

137 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.

Most items in structured risk assessment instruments do not predict violence (2011, background): “It has been argued that they may be limited to measuring a general construct of criminal risk rather than specific tendencies to violence as originally intended (Gendreau, Goggin & Smith, 2002; Glover et al., 2002; Kroner & Mills, 2001).”
A Comparison of Logistic Regression, Classification and Regression Tree, and Neural Networks Models in Predicting Violent Re-Offending (2011, background): “…developmental origins, and have noted their loss of accuracy when applied to different offender populations, particularly those with different characteristics from the population on which the instrument was originally standardized (Gendreau et al. 2002; Glover et al. 2002; Kroner and Mills 2001).”
The Prediction of Violence in Adult Offenders (2009, background): “At present, our results are congruent with findings that suggest that many of the commonly used risk instruments are moderately to highly intercorrelated (e.g., Dahle, 2006; Glover et al., 2002).”
The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. (2010, background): “predictors, such as the HCR-20, the VRS, and the LSI-R can accomplish some of these tasks provided that the dynamic predictors are, in fact, causal predictors according to criteria set forth by Kraemer et al. (1997). A causal risk predictor is one that can be manipulated and, when it is manipulated,”