The Predictive Validity of a Gender-Responsive Needs Assessment

191 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.

Examining the Validity of a Juvenile Offending Risk Assessment Instrument Across Gender and Race/Ethnicity (2013, background): “Inclusion of gender-responsive factors improved the ability to predict prison misconduct, though the factors did not improve prediction of recidivism above the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) composite score alone (Salisbury et al., 2009).”
The predictive validity of risk assessment tools for female offenders: A systematic review (2015, unknown): “…Correctional Recidivism 4.75 years General Recidivism 45% Violence Recidivism 13% 27 General Recidivism r = .63, n.s Violent Recidivism r = .44, n.s Salisbury et al. (2009) Retrospective N = 134 Correctional Recidivism 3.67 years 54.5% 21 Prison Misconduct r = .12, p<.10 Technical Violations r =…”
Gender Matters: An Introduction to the Special Issues on Women and Girls (2016, background): “The results for this adapted LSI for women show that both gender-sensitive factors and gender-neutral factors were predictive of misconduct in prison and general recidivism after release (Salisbury et al., 2009; van Voorhis et al., 2010).”
Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs Assessment (2010, result): “Early results empirically supported the use of the additional gender-responsive risk factors (Salisbury et al., 2009; Van Voorhis, Salisbury, Bauman, Holsinger, & Wright, 2008; Wright, Salisbury, & Van Voorhis, 2007).”