Kroner Daryl G, Derrick Bree
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USA.
Idaho Department of Correction, Boise, ID, USA.
Assessment. 2022 Mar;29(2):169-180. doi: 10.1177/1073191120958066. Epub 2020 Sep 18.
Correctional and forensic mental health settings potentially have multiple risk assessment instruments administered on a single client. Because of the various methods of determining risk categories, risk-level consistency can become an issue. The Council of State Governments Justice Center developed a Five-Level System that can be applied to most risk assessment instruments. Using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised and two created risk assessment instruments, the present study assessed if the Five-Level System (vs. normative percentile categories) demonstrated greater agreement between the two instruments, and, if so, the percentage of greater agreement. The Five-Level System demonstrated 4% to 5% greater agreement for both risk-level placement and recidivism rates. The implications of this greater consistency among risk assessment instruments is an increased fairness in making risk-level assignments.
惩教和法医心理健康机构可能会对单个客户使用多种风险评估工具。由于确定风险类别的方法多种多样，风险水平的一致性可能会成为一个问题。州政府司法中心理事会开发了一种五级系统，可应用于大多数风险评估工具。本研究使用修订后的服务水平量表和两种自创的风险评估工具，评估五级系统（相对于标准百分位类别）是否在两种工具之间表现出更高的一致性，如果是，更高一致性的百分比是多少。五级系统在风险水平定位和再犯率方面都表现出高4%至5%的一致性。风险评估工具之间这种更高一致性的影响是在进行风险水平分配时提高了公平性。
