Applicability of the DUNDRUM-1 in a forensic Belgium setting

IF 0.6 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Forensic Practice Pub Date : 2019-01-31 DOI:10.1108/JFP-11-2018-0043
P. Habets, I. Jeandarme, Harry G. Kennedy
{"title":"Applicability of the DUNDRUM-1 in a forensic Belgium setting","authors":"P. Habets, I. Jeandarme, Harry G. Kennedy","doi":"10.1108/JFP-11-2018-0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nCriteria to determine in which level of security forensic patients should receive treatment are currently non-existent in Belgium. Research regarding the assessment of security level is minimal and few instruments are available. The DUNDRUM toolkit is a structured clinical judgement instrument that can be used to provide support when determining security level. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the applicability and validity of the DUNDRUM-1 in Flanders.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe DUNDRUM-1 was scored for 50 male patients admitted at the forensic units in the public psychiatric hospital Rekem. Some files were rated by three researchers who were blind to participants’ security status, resulting in 33 double measurements.\n\n\nFindings\nAlmost all files (96 per cent) contained enough information to score the DUNDRUM-1. Average DUNDRUM-1 final judgement scores were concordant with a medium security profile. No difference was found between the current security levels and the DUNDRUM-1 final judgement scores. Inter-rater reliability was excellent for the DUNDRUM-1 final judgement scores. On item level, all items had excellent to good inter-rater reliability with the exception of one item institutional behaviour which had an average inter-rater reliability.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe DUNDRUM-1 can be a useful tool in Flemish forensic settings. It has good psychometric properties. More research is needed to investigate the relationship between DUNDRUM-1 scores and security level decisions by the courts.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis is the first study that investigated the applicability of the DUNDRUM-1 in a Belgian setting, also a relative large number of repeated measurements were available to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the DUNDRUM-1.\n","PeriodicalId":44049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JFP-11-2018-0043","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-11-2018-0043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Purpose Criteria to determine in which level of security forensic patients should receive treatment are currently non-existent in Belgium. Research regarding the assessment of security level is minimal and few instruments are available. The DUNDRUM toolkit is a structured clinical judgement instrument that can be used to provide support when determining security level. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the applicability and validity of the DUNDRUM-1 in Flanders. Design/methodology/approach The DUNDRUM-1 was scored for 50 male patients admitted at the forensic units in the public psychiatric hospital Rekem. Some files were rated by three researchers who were blind to participants’ security status, resulting in 33 double measurements. Findings Almost all files (96 per cent) contained enough information to score the DUNDRUM-1. Average DUNDRUM-1 final judgement scores were concordant with a medium security profile. No difference was found between the current security levels and the DUNDRUM-1 final judgement scores. Inter-rater reliability was excellent for the DUNDRUM-1 final judgement scores. On item level, all items had excellent to good inter-rater reliability with the exception of one item institutional behaviour which had an average inter-rater reliability. Practical implications The DUNDRUM-1 can be a useful tool in Flemish forensic settings. It has good psychometric properties. More research is needed to investigate the relationship between DUNDRUM-1 scores and security level decisions by the courts. Originality/value This is the first study that investigated the applicability of the DUNDRUM-1 in a Belgian setting, also a relative large number of repeated measurements were available to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the DUNDRUM-1.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
DUNDRUM-1在比利时法医环境中的适用性
目的在比利时目前没有确定法医病人应接受何种安全级别治疗的标准。关于安全水平评估的研究很少,可用的工具也很少。DUNDRUM工具包是一种结构化的临床判断工具,可用于在确定安全级别时提供支持。本文的目的是研究DUNDRUM-1在佛兰德斯的适用性和有效性。设计/方法/方法对Rekem公立精神病医院法医部门收治的50名男性患者进行了DUNDRUM-1评分。一些文件由三名不知道参与者安全状况的研究人员打分,导致33次双重测量。几乎所有的文件(96%)都包含了足够的信息来给DUNDRUM-1打分。平均DUNDRUM-1最终判断得分与中等安全概况一致。目前的安全级别与DUNDRUM-1最终判断分数之间没有发现差异。评定者间信度对于DUNDRUM-1最终判断分数非常好。在项目水平上,除了一个项目制度行为具有平均的评级者间信度外,所有项目都具有优秀到良好的评级者间信度。实际意义DUNDRUM-1可以是一个有用的工具,在佛兰德法医设置。它具有良好的心理测量特性。需要更多的研究来调查DUNDRUM-1分数与法院安全级别判决之间的关系。原创性/价值这是第一个调查DUNDRUM-1在比利时环境中的适用性的研究,也有相对大量的重复测量可用于调查DUNDRUM-1的评级间可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Forensic Practice
Journal of Forensic Practice CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Two studies evaluating the Stoicism programme at a foreign national prison A preliminary exploration of using the power threat meaning framework with individuals currently serving IPP sentences in custody Enough is enough: treatment dropout predictors of adolescents with harmful sexual behaviors in a New Zealand community sample Are indeterminate sentenced prisoners prepared for open prison? Practical implications/applications of an exploratory study in an English open prison Exploring the impact of custodial parkrun in an English women’s prison: HMPPS psychologists and partners delivering a best practice evaluation
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1