Lindsay William R, Hogue Todd E, Taylor John L, Steptoe Lesley, Mooney Paul, O'Brien Gregory, Johnston Susan, Smith Anne H W
The State Hospital, Carstairs, Scotland, UK.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2008 Feb;52(1):90-111. doi: 10.1177/0306624X07308111.
In mainstream offender samples, several risk assessments have been evaluated for predictive validity. This study extends this work to male offenders with intellectual disabilities. Participants from high-, medium-, and low-security settings, as well as community settings, were compared on a range of risk assessments. The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, HCR-20-Historical Scale, the Risk Matrix 2000-C (combined risk), and the Emotional Problems Scales-Internalising discriminated between groups, with participants from high security having higher scores than those in medium security, who had higher scores than those in the community. The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, all HCR-20 scales, the Short Dynamic Risk Scale, and the Emotional Problems Scales (Internalising and Externalising) showed significant areas under the curve for the prediction of violence. The Static-99 showed a significant area under the curve for the prediction of sexual incidents. The discussion reviews the value of these various scales to intellectual disability services.
在主流的罪犯样本中，已经对几种风险评估的预测效度进行了评估。本研究将这项工作扩展到了有智力障碍的男性罪犯。对来自高、中、低安全级别场所及社区场所的参与者进行了一系列风险评估的比较。《暴力风险评估指南》、HCR - 20历史量表、《风险矩阵2000 - C》（综合风险）以及《情绪问题量表 - 内化》在不同组之间存在差异，高安全级别场所的参与者得分高于中安全级别场所的参与者，中安全级别场所的参与者得分高于社区参与者。《暴力风险评估指南》、所有HCR - 20量表、《简短动态风险量表》以及《情绪问题量表》（内化和外化）在暴力预测方面显示出曲线下的显著面积。《静态 - 99》在性事件预测方面显示出曲线下的显著面积。讨论回顾了这些不同量表对智力障碍服务的价值。
Zotero 插件