Standardized Instruments for Assessing Risk and Need in Youthful Offenders

By R. Hoge. 2002

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ec54730ea2f480d27be7a22f2769e56cd83ab104

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

A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instruments (2008, background): “Common risk factors measured in risk assessment instruments include offending history, substance abuse, family problems, peer delinquency, and school-related problems (Hoge, 2002; Johnson, Wagner, & Matthews, 2002; Schwalbe, Fraser, & Day, 2007; Wiebush, Wagner, & Ehrlich, 1999).”
Reliability and Validity Analyses of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (2005, background): “…and need in adult offenders continues to be actively studied (Douglas & Kropp, 2002; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996), but less attention has been paid to the development of such instruments for juvenile offenders (Hoge, 2002a, 2002b; Hoge & Andrews, 1996; Krysik & LeCroy, 2002; Le Blanc, 1998).”
Risk-Needs Assessment in Juvenile Justice (2011, background): “Structured decision-making models should use standardized risk assessment tools that incorporate findings from the social sciences about the factors that place youths at highest risk for reoffending (Hoge, 2002).”
Comparative Analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL:YV in Adolescent Offenders: A 10-year Follow-Up Into Adulthood (2011, methodology): “Other published articles using short-term analyses of this data set include Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes (2005), Schmidt, McKinnon, Chattha, & Brownlee (2006), Meyers & Schmidt (2008), and Welsh, Schmidt, McKinnon, Chattha, & Meyers (2008).”
Assessing Risk for Violence in Adolescents Who Have Sexually Offended (2008, background): “Courts often seek clinicians’ opinions about a youth’s violence risk level in making decisions about whether a youth should be transferred to adult court (Kent v. United States, 1966), and in determining appropriate placements and dispositions ( Hoge, 2002 ).”
RISK, RACE, AND RECIDIVISM: PREDICTIVE BIAS AND DISPARATE IMPACT*: RISK, RACE, AND RECIDIVISM (2016, background): “But risk assessment could instead have no effect on—or even reduce disparities—as others have predicted (Hoge, 2002: see also Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1988).”
Risk Assessment With Young Offenders (2009, background): “Youth court justices also routinely make risk assessment referrals, presumably because such evaluations can be helpful in assisting sentencing decisions (e.g., type of disposition, sentence length) or imposing special conditions (Hoge, 1999, 2002).”
Examining the Validity of a Juvenile Offending Risk Assessment Instrument Across Gender and Race/Ethnicity (2013, unknown): “One objective of using actuarial risk assessment is to decrease gender and racial biases, while providing valuable and accurate information for practitioners (Hoge, 2002; see also Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988).”
A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments in Juvenile Justice (2013, background): “They frequently divide risk factors into two groups: “static” and “dynamic” (see, for example, Schwalbe, 2008; Hoge, 2002).”