@article{guay_disentangling_2020,

title = {Disentangling Promotive and Buffering Protection: Exploring the Interface Between Risk and Protective Factors in Recidivism of Adult Convicted Males},

author = {J. -P. Guay and G. Parent and M. Benbouriche},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85088814931&doi=10.1177%2f0093854820945745&partnerID=40&md5=b8bf490e7396f8e49e17e337bd658a86},

doi = {10.1177/0093854820945745},

issn = {00938548 (ISSN)},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

journal = {Criminal Justice and Behavior},

volume = {47},

number = {11},

pages = {1468–1486},

abstract = {The quality of risk assessment instruments has improved greatly during the last 40 years. While assessing protective factors has become common practice, with some instruments now devoted entirely to such assessments, little is known about the effect of risk and protective factors on recidivism. The present study investigates the effects (promotive or buffering protective) of protective factors captured by the LS/CMI for a sample of 18,031 convicted adult males under the supervision of provincial services in Canada. Effects of protective factors and possible interactions between risk and protective factors were investigated using moderation analyses. Results indicate that protective factors can be both promotive and buffering protective for risk and that the benefits of protective factors are related to the risk to which people are exposed. Patterns of protective effects appear to differ for general and violent recidivism. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed. © 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology.},

note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.},

keywords = {LS/CMI, moderation analysis, protective factors, recidivism, risk assessment},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{guay_broken_2018,

title = {Broken Legs, Clinical Overrides, and Recidivism Risk: An Analysis of Decisions to Adjust Risk Levels With the LS/CMI},

author = {J. -P. Guay and G. Parent},

url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85038420788&doi=10.1177%2f0093854817719482&partnerID=40&md5=44505c37562130bf454636728569fac0},

doi = {10.1177/0093854817719482},

issn = {00938548 (ISSN)},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Criminal Justice and Behavior},

volume = {45},

number = {1},

pages = {82–100},

abstract = {Risk assessment practices have evolved considerably over the past three decades. Structured assessments of recidivism risk allow for the proper identification of criminogenic needs, which in turn, allow decision makers to make informed recommendations regarding criminal justice interventions and measures. Although actuarial assessments are common practice, situations exist where evaluators may call into doubt the risk assessment’s conclusions, and may exercise their discretionary professional judgment to adjust the risk rating. Despite being common practice, clinical overrides have been the subject of very little empirical work. The aim of the current study is to examine the impact of clinical overrides on a large sample of individuals (N = 3,646) who were assessed using the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI). Findings demonstrate that upward overrides produce different results than downward overrides. The practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed. © 2017, © 2017 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology.},

note = {Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.},

keywords = {clinical override, LS/CMI, recidivism, risk assessment},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}