Validation and examination of the Ohio Youth Assessment System with juvenile sex offenders
Research In this study, we examined the use of an actuarial risk assessment tool—the Ohio Youth Assessment System-Disposition Tool (OYAS-Disposition Tool)—with juvenile sex offenders. Specifically, the main goals of the study were to (a) examine the predictive validity of the tool with sex offenders...
| Authors: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[2020]
|
| In: |
Criminology & public policy
Year: 2020, Volume: 19, Issue: 2, Pages: 433-450 |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1724819747 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20200715111700.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 200715s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/1745-9133.12464 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1724819747 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1724819747 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Papp, Jordan |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Validation and examination of the Ohio Youth Assessment System with juvenile sex offenders |
| 264 | 1 | |c [2020] | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Research In this study, we examined the use of an actuarial risk assessment tool—the Ohio Youth Assessment System-Disposition Tool (OYAS-Disposition Tool)—with juvenile sex offenders. Specifically, the main goals of the study were to (a) examine the predictive validity of the tool with sex offenders and (b) explore the nature of the use of professional discretion used to override the tool. The sample consisted of 3,235 youth from a large juvenile county court in the Midwest. The results indicated that the OYAS-Disposition Tool was a significantly better option for predicting general recidivism for sex offenders than it was for non-sex offenders. The tool was also an effective method for predicting sexual recidivism. Most importantly, however, the use of professional overrides significantly reduced the ability of researchers to apply the tool to predict new court petitions and adjudications to nonsignificant levels. Finally, several justifications were commonly used for overrides: treatment needs, offense seriousness, and use of an alternative sex-offender-specific assessment. Policy Implications The findings in this study highlight several important policy implications that would improve the assessment process for juvenile sex offenders. First, agencies using specialized risk assessments designed for sex offenders may consider applying a general risk assessment tool to identify a broader set of criminogenic needs and to predict risk of general recidivism. Second, there is a need to evaluate policies and practices that allow for the use of professional discretion with sex offenders given that they reduce the predictive validity of the risk tool evaluated. The high rate of overrides for juvenile sex offenders and justification for their use go against best practices in corrections. For instance, overrides were often justified based on offense seriousness; however, focusing on evidence-based criminogenic risk factors provides the best accuracy in predicting future offending. In this study, we call into question court policies that allow for overrides based on crime type or based on a practitioner's professional judgment concerning a juvenile's level of service needs. Last, agencies should consider validation research within their agency before full adoption of a general risk assessment tool to quell concerns about the use and accuracy of a tool for special populations like juvenile sex offenders. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Overrides | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Professional discretion | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Risk Assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a |sSex offenders | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Campbell, Christina A. |e VerfasserIn |0 (DE-588)1175056596 |0 (DE-627)1045897221 |0 (DE-576)51606620X |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Miller, William T. |d 1941- |e VerfasserIn |0 (DE-588)173875440 |0 (DE-627)698777182 |0 (DE-576)134714008 |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Criminology & public policy |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 2001 |g 19(2020), 2, Seite 433-450 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)357169069 |w (DE-600)2094251-5 |w (DE-576)262493047 |x 1745-9133 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:19 |g year:2020 |g number:2 |g pages:433-450 |
| 856 | |u http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155472/2/capp12464_am.pdf |x unpaywall |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang |h repository [oa repository (via OAI-PMH doi match)] | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12464 |x Resolving-System |3 Volltext |
| 936 | u | w | |d 19 |j 2020 |e 2 |h 433-450 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 3724450907 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1724819747 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20200715111618 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 200715||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-21-110 |c DE-627 |d DE-21-110 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-21-110 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a krub |a krzo | ||
| OAS | |a 1 | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw | ||