Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology 331 > Risk Assesment > Flashcards

Risk Assesment Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

what is risk assessment?

A

prior to 2002 - dichotomy = either dangerous or not

now - range/degree - prediction (probability and risk factors) and management (treatments etc.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Civil settings

A
  • Civil commitment = if person poses danger to themselves or others can be hospitalized involuntarily
  • Child Protection - remove child from home to protect from abuse
  • Immigration laws - prohibit admission into can if believe will engage in violence or pose risk to social, cultural, economic functioning
  • school and labour - prevent any act that would endanger others
  • duty to warn/ common law - patient may commit violent act
  • statutory law - mandatory reporting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Criminal setting

A

during pretrial, sentencing and release
adolescents - only committed to secure custody if high risk
smith v jones - public safety outweighs client privilege’s
long term offenders = high risk
parole needs assessment
- NCMD only released after assessment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Smith v. Jones

A

when defense did not head psychiatrists warnings on future violence, filed affidavit to judge
= when clear serious and imminent danger public safety outweighs solicitor-client privilege

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

parole board

A

use many sources including risk assessment to determine if get statutory release (2/3 sentence) or early release
- statutory release can be denied with high risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

prediction outcomes

A

true positive - predicted to be and is violent
true negative - predicted to not be and is not violent
false positive
false negative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Base Rate problem

A

Base rate = percentage of ppl within population that commit criminal or violent act

  • low base rate = many false positives
  • easier to predict frequent events than non frequent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Baxstrom v. Herald

A

detained beyond sentence and ordered to be released

- released more than 300 mentally ill offenders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Steadman and Cocozza

A

followed 98 patients relased after Baxstrom that considered too dangerous to be released - 7%violently reoffended
- 86% false positive rate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Thornberry and jacoby

A

followed 400 forensic patients released after dixon v. attorney general of common… of Pennsylvania

  • 15% violently reoffended
  • 85% false positive rate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Ennis and Litwack

A

clinical expertise like “flipping coins in courtroom”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Monahan

A

psychiatrists active in 1/3 of predictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Barefoot v. Estelle

A

US supreme court ruled mental health professionals predictions admissible and “not always wrong only most of time”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R. Moore v. the Queen

A

supported the role of mental health professionals in

the prediction of violent behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Monahan and Steadman

A

3 weaknesses in violence prediciton

  1. limited number of risk factors studied
  2. how criterion variable is measured - official records underestimates violenmce - not reported/ found
    - when records combined with interviews, rates increase
    - base rate increases from 4.5 - 27.5% (6 times higher)
  3. how criterion variable defined - violent or not
    - change to severity, type, target, location, and motivation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

heuristics

A

shortcuts ppl use to make decisions. lead to inaccurate decisions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

illusory correlation

A

Belief that a correlation exists between two events that in reality are either not correlated or correlated to a much lesser degree

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Desmaris, Nicholls, Read, and Brink

A

association btw clinicians confidence and accuracy at predicting short term in patient violence
- minimal association = overconfident bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Methods of Risk assessment

A

Unstructured clinical judgement, actuarial, structured professional judgement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Unstructured clinical judgement

A

professional discretion and lack of guidelines
- Grove and Meehl - “ informal in the head subjective…”
Pros: flexible, widely applicable, inform treatment and prevention
Cons: highly subjective and inconsistent, questionably relevant outcome, elude scrutiny

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Actuarial Approach

A

Decisions are based on risk factors that are selected and combined based on their empirical or statistical association with a specific outcome. No clinical judgement
pros: demonstrated link btw risk factors and outcomes, reliability btw raters, consistency across time, transparency
limits:
estimates may not generalize to new samples, predictive properties may change in different contexts, constrained use, under samples risk
ex. Violence risk appraisal guide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Tarasoff v. Regents of university of California

A

common law duty to warn - expressed desire to kill individual in therapy - warned campus security but not police and person killed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Dr. James Grigson

A

Dr. death - testified in death penalty cases
- 100% certainty would kill again etc.
estelle v. smith - smith “ severe sociopath” bc lacked remorse
- Randall Adams - declared sociopath based off 15 min interview - sentenced to death - released after another inmate confessed
- 1995 expelled from APA for ethical violations

24
Q

Structured Professional Judgement

A

Decisions are guided by a predetermined list of risk
factors that have been selected from the research and professional literature. Judgment of risk level is based on the evaluator’s professional judgment
- final decision uses discretion
- allows idiographic risk factors - flexibility and case specific
- relevance to management and prevention
- reflects current themes in field - risk is ongoing, dynamic, and requires re-assessment
- Limitations : expertise (training), and time (comprehensive assessment not just screening)

25
Q

static risk factors

A

Risk factors that do not fluctuate over time and
are not amenable to change (e.g., criminal history)
also historical risk factors

26
Q

Dynamic risk factors

A

Risk factors that fluctuate over time and are amenable to change (e.g., antisocial attitude, mental state, substance use etc.)
also criminogenic needs

27
Q

Dispositional risk factors

A

Risk factors that reflect the individual’s

traits, tendencies, or styles (e.g., negative attitudes

28
Q

clinical risk factors

A

Types and symptoms of mental disorders (e.g., substance abuse)

29
Q

contextual risk factors

A

Risk factors that refer to aspects of the current environment (e.g., access to victims or weapons). Sometimes called situational risk factors

30
Q

Demographic risk factors

A

age- younger 1st offense, greater chance engage in criminal behaviour
sex - males higher risk for general offending and more serious violent acts, females less serious violence

31
Q

personality risk factors

A
  • impulsiveness
  • increases likelihood of engaging in crime and violence
  • lifestyle impulsivity distinguishes recidivistic rapists
  • psychopathy
  • moderatly related to recidivism and violence in prison
  • predicts reoffending across different countries in both males and females, mental disorders, male adolescents, sexual offenders
  • weakly related to violent reoffending in adolescent females
  • psychopathy and deviant sexual arousal predicts sexual recidivism
32
Q

deviant sexual arousal

A

sexual offender shows relative preference for inappropriate stimuli such as children and violent nonconsensual sex

33
Q

terrorism risk factors

A

Monahan 2012 :
age - 20-29
gender- most males, depends on group, female able to get closer to targets
marital status - single
social class - representative of local population, suicide terr = more highly educated
prior crime - usually no record - 6% committed again (bergman)
suicidality - differ greatly from general suicidal public
mental illness - low rates
substance use - very rare
psychopathy - low rates

Malik et al. :

  1. social wellbeing
  2. economic indicators
  3. governance
  4. law enforcement
  5. armed conflict
34
Q

past behaviour as risk factor

A

past violent and non violent behaviour predict future risk for violence

35
Q

age of onset

A

earlier start = more chronic and serious offenders
farrington - 50% of boys who committed prior to 16 committed again
Elliott - 50% boys before 11, 30% btw 11-13, 10% adolescent

females not predictor

36
Q

childhood history

A

maltreatment

  • physical abuse/ neglect - increased risk for violence
  • sexual abuse - no more likely
  • childhood abuse predicts initiated delinquency
  • prolonged abuse predicts chronic offending
  • physical abuse in adolescents directly related to adolescent offending
37
Q

chaiken and chaicken

A

severe drug users commit 15 - 20 x more robberies and burglaries

38
Q

types of drugs and crimes

A

heroin associated most with crimes
heroin and crack greatest risk for property crimes
some cases depends on amount of drug used
drug use moderately related to recidivism

39
Q

substance use

A

swanson survey
- men/women less than 3% with no disorder committed violence vs substance use men 22%, women 17% violence
morley et al.
- violent behaviour associated with all drugs
- high risk associated with more serious polysubstance abuse

40
Q

mental disorder risk factor

A
  • affective disorder and schiz. higher rates
  • suicide attempts/ self harm history - more likely verbal/ physical aggression to others
    douglas, guy, hart
  • psychosis 49-68% increase in violence odds
  • link depends on study design, measurement, timing of symptoms/violence
41
Q

social support

A

instrumental
emotional
appraisal
information

42
Q

access to weapons/ victims

A

released to environment with access/ around other antisocial ppl, potential for violence increases

43
Q

Static -99

A

10 item acturial scale to predict sexual recidivism (0-12)

  • age at time of release
  • lived with previous intimate partner
  • prior nonsexual violence
  • index nonsexual violence
  • # of prior sex offenses
  • # prior offenses
  • male victims
  • unrelated victims
  • stranger victims
  • noncontact sex offenses
44
Q

Violence risk appraisal Guide (VRAG)

A 
acturial predict violence from prior violent episodes
- made by quincey et al. from 685 violent offenders
- need to be charged to be counted ( needs record)
risk factors:
psychopathy checklist (PCL-R) - positive relationship, 70% of decisions
elementary maladjustment
DSM-III personality disorder
age at index offense
separated from parents before 16
failure on prior conditional release
property offense
marital status
schizophrenia
victim injury
alcohol abuse
female victim
45
Q

Douglas, Hart, Dempster, Lyon

A

VRAG replication from quincey data
- results were not the same - depends on subset of individuals used for coding the VRAG
also needs to be same n to be more accurate
- estimates may not generalize to new samples,
predictive properties may change in different contexts, constrained use,
under samples risk

46
Q

Paul bernardo

A

scarborough rapist

actuarial VRAG example - only 17-31% chance of violence

47
Q

administering SPJ

A
  1. relevant information from multiple sources
  2. presence of risk factors
  3. relevance of risk factors
  4. formulation of violence risk / case formulation
  5. primary scenarios of violence
  6. case management plans
  7. final opinions - low moderate or high
48
Q

HCR-20

A

SPJ approach to predict future violence in correctional and forensic samples
- Historical (static) documented - 10
ex violence, antisocial, relationship, employment etc.
- clinical (dynamic) present/observed - 5
ex. insight, violent intent, mental disorder, instability, treatment response
- Future (speculative) projected - 5 = RISK MANAGEMENT
ex. professional services, living situation, support, treatment response, stress

49
Q

Guy (2008)

A

compared SPJ and actuarial

both good at predicting future violence

50
Q

Recidivism process

A

Precipitating situation (stressor) - cognitive and emotional appraisal

  • a. individual influences ( psychopathy, emotional reactivity) - criminal bevaviour
  • b. available response mechanism (social support, coping) - criminal behaviour
51
Q

female offenders

A
  • less criminal behaviour
  • more prostitution charges
  • more likely to target family
  • reoffend at lower rate
  • childhood victimization is higher than men
  • more serious mental illnesses
  • about same risk factors + history of self-injury or attempted suicide, and self-esteem problems
  • being married is a risk factor for women!
  • LSI-R
  • substance use more associated with recidivism than males
52
Q

aboriginal offenders

A

culturally relevant risk factors

risk assessment tools not as accurate

53
Q

Ashley Smith

A

suicide in prison while on suicide watch
death ruled homicide
last year transferred 17 times - no treatment plan

54
Q

Ewert v. Canada

A

risk assessments not valid for aboriginal offenders

overturned in 2016

55
Q

protective factors

and how to measure

A

factors that mitigate or reduce the likelihood of negative outcome
- more research in youth - prosocial involvement, social support, social orientation, attachments, intelligence
- high risk offenders - employment stability
- low risk males - family connections
- male sex offenders - professional and social support, structured group activities, goal directed living
START - assesses weaknesses and strengths

56
Q

Desistance

A

process of ceasing to engage in criminal behaviour

57
Q

Haggard et al.

A

why high risk offenders stop offending

  • insight triggered by negative events connected to criminal lifestyle
  • social avoidance
  • orientation to the family

Psychology 331 (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions