Slide
Centre Interdisciplinaire
de Recherche et d’Innovation
en Cybersécurité et Société
de Recherche et d’Innovation
en Cybersécurité et Société
1.
Guay, J. -P.; Parent, G.; Benbouriche, M.
Disentangling Promotive and Buffering Protection: Exploring the Interface Between Risk and Protective Factors in Recidivism of Adult Convicted Males Article de journal
Dans: Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 47, no 11, p. 1468–1486, 2020, ISSN: 00938548 (ISSN), (Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.).
Résumé | Liens | BibTeX | Étiquettes: LS/CMI, moderation analysis, protective factors, recidivism, risk assessment
@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}
}
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.
2.
Guay, J. -P.; Parent, G.
Broken Legs, Clinical Overrides, and Recidivism Risk: An Analysis of Decisions to Adjust Risk Levels With the LS/CMI Article de journal
Dans: Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 45, no 1, p. 82–100, 2018, ISSN: 00938548 (ISSN), (Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.).
Résumé | Liens | BibTeX | Étiquettes: clinical override, LS/CMI, recidivism, risk assessment
@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}
}
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.
3.
Guay, J. -P.; Benbouriche, M.; Parent, G.
Dans: Pratiques Psychologiques, vol. 21, no 3, p. 235–257, 2015, ISSN: 12691763 (ISSN), (Publisher: Elsevier Masson s.r.l.).
Résumé | Liens | BibTeX | Étiquettes: assessment, Best practices, recidivism, risk assessment
@article{guay_assessing_2015,
title = {Assessing risk of reoffending using structured assessment:Practical and methodological issues [L'valuation structure'e du risque de re'cidive des personnes place'es sous main de justice: me'thodes et enjeux]},
author = {J. -P. Guay and M. Benbouriche and G. Parent},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84940447363&doi=10.1016%2fj.prps.2015.05.005&partnerID=40&md5=f19c3a58225ab86a1c1f6a98af12cd91},
doi = {10.1016/j.prps.2015.05.005},
issn = {12691763 (ISSN)},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Pratiques Psychologiques},
volume = {21},
number = {3},
pages = {235–257},
abstract = {Although the prevention of recidivism in France is currently undergoing numerous transformations, the evaluation of the risk of recidivism of individuals under the justice system is a major issue. The absence of structure and standardization in current evaluation procedures raises doubts regarding their validity and underlines the necessity to determine evaluation methods that are clinically and scientifically validated. The professionals and their administration would benefit largely from a range of strategies that would aid in executing the most just, transparent and coherent evaluation possible. This article will trace the evolution of the evaluation of the risk of recidivism, the principal strategies and methods, the most common risk factor families used, as well as illustrations of two typical strategies of evolution of the risk of recidivism; integrated evaluation with the LS/CMI and evaluation based on structured professional judgment guided by the HCR-20. © 2015 Socie'te' francąise de psychologie.},
note = {Publisher: Elsevier Masson s.r.l.},
keywords = {assessment, Best practices, recidivism, risk assessment},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Although the prevention of recidivism in France is currently undergoing numerous transformations, the evaluation of the risk of recidivism of individuals under the justice system is a major issue. The absence of structure and standardization in current evaluation procedures raises doubts regarding their validity and underlines the necessity to determine evaluation methods that are clinically and scientifically validated. The professionals and their administration would benefit largely from a range of strategies that would aid in executing the most just, transparent and coherent evaluation possible. This article will trace the evolution of the evaluation of the risk of recidivism, the principal strategies and methods, the most common risk factor families used, as well as illustrations of two typical strategies of evolution of the risk of recidivism; integrated evaluation with the LS/CMI and evaluation based on structured professional judgment guided by the HCR-20. © 2015 Socie'te' francąise de psychologie.