Cited by 49

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Designed to Fit: The Development and Validation of the STRONG-R Recidivism Risk Assessment

Hamilton, Zachary, Kigerl, Alex, Campagna, Michael, Barnoski, Robert, Lee, Stephen, van Wormer, Jacqueline, Block, Lauren·2016·Criminal Justice and Behavior

Abstract

Recidivism risk assessment tools have been utilized for decades. Although their implementation and use have the potential to touch nearly every aspect of the correctional system, the creation and examination of optimal development methods have been restricted to a small group of instrument developers. Furthermore, the methodological variation among common instruments used nationally is substantial. The current study examines this variation by reviewing methodologies used to develop several existing assessments and then tests a variety of design variations in an attempt to isolate and select those which provide improved content and predictive performance using a large sample ( N = 44,010) of reentering offenders in Washington State. Study efforts were completed in an attempt to isolate and identify potential incremental performance achievements. Findings identify a methodology for improved prediction model performance and, in turn, describe the development and introduction of the Washington State Department of Correction’s recidivism prediction instrument—the Static Risk Offender Need Guide for Recidivism (STRONG-R).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0093854815615633

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 74

  1. Andrews D. A., 1982, The Level of Service Inventory (LSI)
  2. Andrews D. A., 1995, The LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory–Revised
  3. Andrews D. A., 2010, The psychology of criminal conduct
  4. Andrews D. A., 2004, The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)
  5. 10.1177/0011128705281756 · DOI
  6. 10.1177/0306624X10395716 · DOI
  7. Austin J., 2003, Reliability and validity study of the LSI-R risk assessment instrument
  8. 10.1198/0003130043277 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Baird C. S., 1981, Corrections Today, 43, 36
  10. Baird C. S., 2009, A question of evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in the justice system
  11. 10.1177/0093854812474262 · DOI
  12. Barnoski R., 1997, Standards for improving research effectiveness in adult and juvenile justice
  13. Barnoski R., 2010, Washington State Static Risk Assessment—Version 2.0
  14. Barnoski R., 2003, Washington’s Offender Accountability Act: An analysis of the Department of Corrections’ risk assessment
  15. Barnoski R., 2007, Washington’s Offender Accountability Act: Department of Corrections’ static risk assessment
  16. Berk R., 2013, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 513
  17. 10.1002/9780470713013 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00207-5 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1177/0093854812456777 · DOI
  20. 10.1177/0093854808326545 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Brennan T., 2000, Evaluation of reliability and validity of COMPAS scales: National aggregate sample
  22. Britton D. M., 2003, At work in the iron cage: The prison as gendered organization
  23. Burgess E. W., 1928, The workings of the indeterminate sentence law and the parole system in Illinois, 221
  24. 10.1111/1745-9133.12059 · DOI
  25. 10.1145/1143844.1143865 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1177/0093854801028003005 · DOI
  27. Daly K., 1992, Southern California Review of Law & Women’s Studies, 2, 11
  28. Daly K., 1994, Gender, crime and punishment
  29. 10.1037/0003-066X.34.7.571 · DOI
  30. 10.2307/2531595 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1177/0887403413478821 · DOI
  32. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5003_8 · DOI
  33. 10.1002/bsl.2043 · DOI
  34. 10.1177/0734016809360332 · DOI
  35. 10.2307/3054045 · DOI
  36. 10.1177/0011128705281748 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1177/0093854806290250 · DOI
  38. 10.1177/0093854812464219 · DOI
  39. 10.1007/s11292-014-9221-8 · DOI
  40. Hamilton Z., 2014, The STRONG-R recidivism risk assessment
  41. 10.1007/s10994-009-5119-5 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00549.x · DOI
  43. Hare R., 1991, The Revised Psychopathy Checklist
  44. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4 · DOI
  45. 10.1177/0093854893020004001 · DOI
  46. 10.1177/0093854899026001004 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.01.011 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.2307/1143356 · DOI
  49. Latessa E. J., 2009, Creation and validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System: Final report
  50. Loerber R., 1998, Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions
  51. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00235.x · DOI
  52. 10.1177/0022427810393019 · DOI
  53. 10.3818/JRP.9.1.2007.1 · DOI
  54. Miller S. L., 1999, Gender and community policing: Walking the talk
  55. 10.1177/0011128710376336 · DOI
  56. Nuffield J., 1982, Parole decision-making in Canada: Research towards decision guidelines
  57. Oliver W. L., 2014, American Society of Criminology annual conference
  58. Ostermann M., 2013, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 93, 291
  59. 10.1111/1745-9133.12057 · DOI
  60. 10.1177/0093854809334076 · DOI
  61. 10.1177/0011128707308102 · DOI
  62. 10.1177/0011128793039003010 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 10.1177/0093854800027006004 · DOI
  64. 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00551.x · DOI
  65. 10.1525/sp.2001.48.2.206 · DOI
  66. 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00103-1 · DOI
  67. 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00341-9 · DOI · Paper page
  68. 10.1177/0011128705281754 · DOI
  69. 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01056.x · DOI
  70. Van Voorhis P., 2001, Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices
  71. 10.1177/0093854809357442 · DOI
  72. 10.1037/0033-2909.83.2.213 · DOI
  73. 10.1177/0093854813503543 · DOI
  74. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1984.tb00291.x · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Hamilton, Z., Kigerl, A., Campagna, M., Barnoski, R., Lee, S., van Wormer, J., & Block, L.
Affiliations
  • Washington State University
  • University of Idaho
  • University of Nevada, Reno
Venue
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Published
2015-12-01
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
230-263
ISSN
  • 0093-8548
  • 1552-3594
Cited by
49
References
3
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review