Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gottfredson, S. D.
Right arrow Articles by Gottfredson, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Screening for Risk

A Comparison of Methods

Stephen D. Gottfredson

Johns Hopkins University

Don M. Gottfredson

Rutgers University

This study compares, within the context of parole decision-making, the predictive utility of five statistical methods commonly employed to develop correctional risk-screening devices: (a) two general linear additive models, (b) two configural models, and (c) a model based on a multivariate contingency approach. Devices felt to be operationally useful (at least potentially) were developed and cross-validated using large samples of federal releases. Results suggest that no apparent empirical advantage accrues given use of different models. Even when large amounts of error are randomly added to the predictor item-pool, substantive conclusions do not change. Further, most devices developed are highly intercorrelated. Implications for the practical development of screening instruments are discussed, and further research is suggested.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 7, No. 3, 315-330 (1980)
DOI: 10.1177/009385488000700306
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
E. SILVER, W. R. SMITH, and S. BANKS
Constructing Actuarial Devices for Predicting Recidivism: A Comparison of Methods
Criminal Justice and Behavior, December 1, 2000; 27(6): 733 - 764.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice Policy ReviewHome page
S. D. Gottfredson and D. M. Gottfredson
Tools For Structuring Court Discretion: What Do They Work For And Why Don't They Work Better?
Criminal Justice Policy Review, September 1, 1986; 1(3): 268 - 285.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyHome page
R. LOEBER, T. J. DISHION, and G. R. PATTERSON
Multiple Gating: A Multistage Assessment Procedure for Identifying Youths at Risk for Delinquency
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, February 1, 1984; 21(1): 7 - 32.
[Abstract] [PDF]