The predictive value of the dynamic risk outcome scales (DROS) for recidivism in (forensic) clients with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning

被引:2
作者
Delforterie, M. J. [1 ,2 ]
Hesper, B. L. [1 ]
Nijman, H. L. I. [2 ,3 ]
Korzilius, H. P. L. M. [4 ]
Turhan, A. [1 ,2 ]
Didden, R. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Trajectum Specialized & Forens Care, Zwolle, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Behav Sci Inst, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Fivoor Specialized & Forens Care, Utrecht, Netherlands
[4] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Inst Management Res, Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
borderline intellectual functioning; DROS; HKT-30; mild intellectual disability; recidivism; risk assessment; VIOLENCE RISK; OFFENDERS; ADULTS; BEHAVIOR;
D O I
10.1111/jar.13090
中图分类号
G44 [教育心理学];
学科分类号
0402 ; 040202 ;
摘要
BackgroundThe dynamic risk outcome scales (DROS) was developed to assess treatment progress of clients with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning using dynamic risk factors. We studied the predictive value of the DROS on various classifications and severity levels of recidivism. MethodData of 250 forensic clients with intellectual disabilities were linked to recidivism data from the Judicial Information Service in the Netherlands. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses were used to determine the predictive values. ResultsThe DROS total score could not significantly predict recidivism. A DROS recidivism subscale predicted general, violent and other recidivism. These predictive values were comparable to those of a Dutch tool validated for risk assessment in the general forensic population. ConclusionsThe DROS recidivism subscale predicted various classifications of recidivism better than chance. At present, the DROS appears to have no added value beyond the HKT-30 for the purpose of risk assessment.
引用
收藏
页码:750 / 757
页数:8
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
Achenbach T.M., 2003, Manual for ASEBA Adult Forms Profiles
[2]  
Andrews D.A., 2003, PSYCHOL CRIMINAL CON, V3rd
[3]   Predictive Validity of the HKT-R Risk Assessment Tool: Two and 5-Year Violent Recidivism in a Nationwide Sample of Dutch Forensic Psychiatric Patients [J].
Bogaerts, Stefan ;
Spreen, Marinus ;
ter Horst, Paul ;
Gerlsma, Coby .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OFFENDER THERAPY AND COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY, 2018, 62 (08) :2259-2270
[4]   Requirements for Minimum Sample Size for Sensitivity and Specificity Analysis [J].
Bujang, Mohamad Adam ;
Adnan, Tassha Hilda .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2016, 10 (10) :YE1-YE6
[5]  
de Ruiter C., 2007, Netherlands Journal of Psychology, V63, P166, DOI [DOI 10.1007/BF03061078, 10.1007/bf03061078]
[6]  
De Vogel V., 2012, IT TAKES 2 TANGO SYN, P137
[7]   Comparing STATIC-99R and STABLE-2007 between persons with and without intellectual disabilities [J].
Delforterie, Monique ;
van den Berg, Jan Willem ;
Bolt, Betto ;
van den Hazel, Teunis ;
Craig, Leam ;
Didden, Robert .
JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES AND OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR, 2019, 10 (03) :58-68
[8]   Psychometric properties of the Dynamic Risk Outcome Scales (DROS) for individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning and externalizing behaviour problems [J].
Delforterie, Monique ;
Hesper, Bren ;
Didden, Robert .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES, 2020, 33 (04) :662-672
[9]   COMPARING THE AREAS UNDER 2 OR MORE CORRELATED RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVES - A NONPARAMETRIC APPROACH [J].
DELONG, ER ;
DELONG, DM ;
CLARKEPEARSON, DI .
BIOMETRICS, 1988, 44 (03) :837-845
[10]   Violence risk assessment - Getting specific about being dynamic [J].
Douglas, KS ;
Skeem, JL .
PSYCHOLOGY PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW, 2005, 11 (03) :347-383