使用《配偶攻击风险评估指南第三版》(SARA-V3)调查暴力风险评估中的种族差异:土著人和非土著人的结构化专业判断评级和累犯率。

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-21 DOI:10.1037/pas0001307
Neil R Hogan, Gabriela Corăbian
{"title":"使用《配偶攻击风险评估指南第三版》(SARA-V3)调查暴力风险评估中的种族差异:土著人和非土著人的结构化专业判断评级和累犯率。","authors":"Neil R Hogan, Gabriela Corăbian","doi":"10.1037/pas0001307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes are widely observed. In Canada, such disparities are particularly evident between Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons. The role of formal risk assessment in contributing to such disparities remains a topic of interest to many, but critical analysis has almost exclusively focused on actuarial or statistical risk measures. Recent research suggests that ratings from other common tools, based on the structured professional judgment model, can also demonstrate racial disparities. This study examined risk assessments produced using a widely used structured professional judgment tool, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3, among a sample of 190 individuals with histories of intimate partner violence. We examined the relationships among race, risk factors, summary risk ratings, and recidivism while also investigating whether participants' racial identity influenced the likelihood of incurring formal sanctions for reported violence. Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 risk factor totals and summary risk ratings were associated with new violent charges. Indigenous individuals were assessed as demonstrating more risk factors and were more likely to be rated as high risk, even after controlling for summed risk factor totals and prior convictions. They were also more likely to recidivate and to have a history of at least one reported act of violence that did not result in formal sanctions. The results suggest that structured professional judgment guidelines can produce disparate results across racial groups. The disparities observed may reflect genuine differences in the likelihood of recidivism, driven by psychologically meaningful risk factors which have origins in deep-rooted systemic and contextual factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"339-350"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating racial disparities in violence risk assessment using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 (SARA-V3): Structured professional judgment ratings and recidivism among Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals.\",\"authors\":\"Neil R Hogan, Gabriela Corăbian\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001307\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes are widely observed. In Canada, such disparities are particularly evident between Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons. The role of formal risk assessment in contributing to such disparities remains a topic of interest to many, but critical analysis has almost exclusively focused on actuarial or statistical risk measures. Recent research suggests that ratings from other common tools, based on the structured professional judgment model, can also demonstrate racial disparities. This study examined risk assessments produced using a widely used structured professional judgment tool, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3, among a sample of 190 individuals with histories of intimate partner violence. We examined the relationships among race, risk factors, summary risk ratings, and recidivism while also investigating whether participants' racial identity influenced the likelihood of incurring formal sanctions for reported violence. Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 risk factor totals and summary risk ratings were associated with new violent charges. Indigenous individuals were assessed as demonstrating more risk factors and were more likely to be rated as high risk, even after controlling for summed risk factor totals and prior convictions. They were also more likely to recidivate and to have a history of at least one reported act of violence that did not result in formal sanctions. The results suggest that structured professional judgment guidelines can produce disparate results across racial groups. The disparities observed may reflect genuine differences in the likelihood of recidivism, driven by psychologically meaningful risk factors which have origins in deep-rooted systemic and contextual factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"339-350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001307\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001307","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在刑事司法结果中普遍存在种族差异。在加拿大,土著人和非土著人之间的这种差异尤为明显。正式风险评估在造成这种差异方面所起的作用仍然是许多人感兴趣的话题,但重要的分析几乎都集中在精算或统计风险措施上。最近的研究表明,基于结构化专业判断模式的其他常用工具的评级也能显示种族差异。本研究对使用广泛使用的结构化专业判断工具--《配偶攻击风险评估指南--第 3 版》--进行的风险评估进行了研究,该工具在 190 名有亲密伴侣暴力史的人中进行了抽样调查。我们研究了种族、风险因素、简要风险评级和累犯之间的关系,同时还调查了参与者的种族身份是否会影响因报告的暴力行为而受到正式制裁的可能性。配偶攻击风险评估指南-第 3 版》的风险因素总数和简要风险评级与新的暴力指控有关。即使在控制了风险因素总和和前科之后,土著人也被评估为表现出更多的风险因素,更有可能被评为高风险。他们也更有可能再次犯罪,并有至少一次未受到正式制裁的暴力行为报告史。研究结果表明,结构化专业判断准则可能会在不同种族群体中产生不同的结果。观察到的差异可能反映了累犯可能性的真正差异,这种差异是由心理上有意义的风险因素造成的,而这些风险因素又源于根深蒂固的系统和环境因素。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Investigating racial disparities in violence risk assessment using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 (SARA-V3): Structured professional judgment ratings and recidivism among Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals.

Racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes are widely observed. In Canada, such disparities are particularly evident between Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons. The role of formal risk assessment in contributing to such disparities remains a topic of interest to many, but critical analysis has almost exclusively focused on actuarial or statistical risk measures. Recent research suggests that ratings from other common tools, based on the structured professional judgment model, can also demonstrate racial disparities. This study examined risk assessments produced using a widely used structured professional judgment tool, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3, among a sample of 190 individuals with histories of intimate partner violence. We examined the relationships among race, risk factors, summary risk ratings, and recidivism while also investigating whether participants' racial identity influenced the likelihood of incurring formal sanctions for reported violence. Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 risk factor totals and summary risk ratings were associated with new violent charges. Indigenous individuals were assessed as demonstrating more risk factors and were more likely to be rated as high risk, even after controlling for summed risk factor totals and prior convictions. They were also more likely to recidivate and to have a history of at least one reported act of violence that did not result in formal sanctions. The results suggest that structured professional judgment guidelines can produce disparate results across racial groups. The disparities observed may reflect genuine differences in the likelihood of recidivism, driven by psychologically meaningful risk factors which have origins in deep-rooted systemic and contextual factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of a method for deriving MMPI-3 scores from MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF item responses. Evaluation of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Unlikely Virtues Scale in the detection of underreporting. Prospectively predicting violent and aggressive incidents in prison practice with the Risk Screener Violence (RS-V): Results from a multisite prison study. Development of the Food Addiction Symptom Inventory: The first clinical interview to assess ultra-processed food addiction. Does the Bayley-4 measure the same constructs across girls and boys and infants, toddlers, and preschoolers?
×
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