A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instruments

By C. Schwalbe. 2008

185 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d61429fac5e3de9b0c98a5554fa17c7da0f2c8fd

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

Examining the Validity of a Juvenile Offending Risk Assessment Instrument Across Gender and Race/Ethnicity (2013, background): “More recently, analyses of the effectiveness of popular assessment instruments have focused on the area of gender differences in predictive ability (Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2009; Schwalbe, 2008; Smith, Cullen, & Latessa, 2009).”
Risk Assessment With Young Offenders (2009, unknown): “For example, the review of studies for some instruments has been rather narrow (e.g., Schwalbe, 2007, 2008), having neglected to include several unpublished theses and dissertations.”
Sources of Variability in Estimates of Predictive Validity (2011, background): “Schwalbe (2008) and Smith et al. (2009) reported that the predictive validity of length of follow-up was negatively associated with effect size, as did Yang et al. (2010) across multiple risk assessment tools.”
A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. (2011, background): “To date, no single risk assessment tool has been consistently shown to have superior ability to predict offending (Campbell, French, & Gendreau, 2007; Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 2002; SBU, 2005; Walters, 2003), and several major uncertainties remain regarding the populations and settings in which ri”
Gender Matters: An Introduction to the Special Issues on Women and Girls (2016, result): “Other studies found that the LSI performs equally well in male samples as in female samples in predicting general reoffending, though evidence was found for misclassification with respect to violence offenses (Reisig, Holtfreter, & Morash, 2006; Schwalbe, 2008).”
The Relationship Between Matching Service to Criminogenic Need and Recidivism in Male and Female Youth (2012, methodology): “Interpreting the odds ratios, wherein an exp(B) = 1 means no effect, exp(B) > 1 means that predictor increases the odds of the outcome, and exp(B) 1 decreases the odds of the outcome, Table 4 shows that for each point increase on the YLS/CMI, youth were 11% more likely to reoffend.”