Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs Assessment

By P. van Voorhis, E. Wright, Emily J. Salisbury, Ashley Bauman. 2010

469 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f6eafa25f022af81d76f823fd9f74c6c56f2b4cb

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

Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled” Proposition (2013, background): “Numerous scholars (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Morash, 2009; Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998; Van Voorhis, Wright, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2010) have criticized risk instruments for over-classifying women, ignoring the risk factors and needs that are most relevant to women o”
The predictive validity of risk assessment tools for female offenders: A systematic review (2015, unknown): “Van Voorhis et al. (2010) found that the LSI-R accurately predicted recidivism in two correctional samples (AUC = .71 and .72, significant at the .01 level).”
The Relationship Between Matching Service to Criminogenic Need and Recidivism in Male and Female Youth (2012, background): “In addition, girls’ rate of involvement in violent crime appears to be on the rise, and there has been an increase in publicized assaults, drug violations, and public order offenses involving young females (Lazzari, Amundson, & Jackson, 2005; Leschied, Cummings, Van Brunschot, Cunningham, & Saunders”
Gender, risk assessment, and sanctioning: The cost of treating women like men. (2016, background): “There is some evidence that “gender-responsive” risk factors like relationship dysfunction, self-efficacy, and parental stress occasionally add weak incremental utility to the LSI-R, in predicting women’s recidivism (Van Voorhis et al., 2010).”
How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction (2013, background): “, age, sex, and criminal history risk)? The study provides a test of the first two criteria for identifying dynamic predictors of recidivism laid out by Walters (2012). The current study tests several hypotheses.”
Gender Matters: An Introduction to the Special Issues on Women and Girls (2016, methodology): “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).”