缺少“坚强”的风险因素

{"title":"缺少“坚强”的风险因素","authors":"","doi":"10.4018/978-1-7998-1147-3.ch010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Burnham and Anderson observed that while a model can never be “truth,” a model might be ranked on a continuum from very useful, to useful, to somewhat useful, to essentially useless. The prevailing Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model is essentially useless for two reasons: 1) there is no difference in recidivism between Second Chance Grant recipients and non-Second Chance recipients, and 2) our probation and parole numbers have been increasing not decreasing as jurisdictions, unquestioningly, adhere to the RNR model's principles and tenets. The fundamental attribution bias of overestimating the role of person-factors while underestimating the role of each jurisdictional environment is a key aspect of RNR risk assessment algorithms. Thus, the RNR model and its associated risk assessment instruments have no ecological validity. More specifically, neither attends to variations in “Get Tough” jurisdictions policy. Yet, “Get Tough” variables are unacknowledged moderator variables.","PeriodicalId":147452,"journal":{"name":"Community Risk and Protective Factors for Probation and Parole Risk Assessment Tools","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Missing “Get Tough” Risk Factors\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.4018/978-1-7998-1147-3.ch010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Burnham and Anderson observed that while a model can never be “truth,” a model might be ranked on a continuum from very useful, to useful, to somewhat useful, to essentially useless. The prevailing Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model is essentially useless for two reasons: 1) there is no difference in recidivism between Second Chance Grant recipients and non-Second Chance recipients, and 2) our probation and parole numbers have been increasing not decreasing as jurisdictions, unquestioningly, adhere to the RNR model's principles and tenets. The fundamental attribution bias of overestimating the role of person-factors while underestimating the role of each jurisdictional environment is a key aspect of RNR risk assessment algorithms. Thus, the RNR model and its associated risk assessment instruments have no ecological validity. More specifically, neither attends to variations in “Get Tough” jurisdictions policy. Yet, “Get Tough” variables are unacknowledged moderator variables.\",\"PeriodicalId\":147452,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Community Risk and Protective Factors for Probation and Parole Risk Assessment Tools\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Community Risk and Protective Factors for Probation and Parole Risk Assessment Tools\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1147-3.ch010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community Risk and Protective Factors for Probation and Parole Risk Assessment Tools","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1147-3.ch010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

伯纳姆和安德森观察到,虽然一个模型永远不可能是“真理”,但一个模型可能在一个连续体上被排序,从非常有用,到有用,到有点有用,到基本上没用。流行的风险-需求-反应(RNR)模型本质上是无用的,原因有两个:1)第二次机会资助接受者和非第二次机会接受者在再犯方面没有区别;2)我们的缓刑和假释人数一直在增加,而不是减少,因为司法管辖区毫无疑问地坚持RNR模型的原则和原则。高估人因素作用而低估各管辖环境作用的基本归因偏差是RNR风险评估算法的一个关键方面。因此,RNR模型及其相关的风险评估工具没有生态有效性。更具体地说,两者都不关注“强硬”司法管辖区政策的变化。然而,“Get Tough”变量是未被承认的调节变量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Missing “Get Tough” Risk Factors
Burnham and Anderson observed that while a model can never be “truth,” a model might be ranked on a continuum from very useful, to useful, to somewhat useful, to essentially useless. The prevailing Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model is essentially useless for two reasons: 1) there is no difference in recidivism between Second Chance Grant recipients and non-Second Chance recipients, and 2) our probation and parole numbers have been increasing not decreasing as jurisdictions, unquestioningly, adhere to the RNR model's principles and tenets. The fundamental attribution bias of overestimating the role of person-factors while underestimating the role of each jurisdictional environment is a key aspect of RNR risk assessment algorithms. Thus, the RNR model and its associated risk assessment instruments have no ecological validity. More specifically, neither attends to variations in “Get Tough” jurisdictions policy. Yet, “Get Tough” variables are unacknowledged moderator variables.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信