바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN1229-067X
  • E-ISSN2734-1127
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.3

Citation Share

Psychometric Characteristics of Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument: Inter-rater Reliability and Predictive Validity

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2009, v.28 no.3, pp.485-505


& (2009). Psychometric Characteristics of Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument: Inter-rater Reliability and Predictive Validity. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 28(3), 485-505.

Abstract

Crime heavily affects public security regardless of time and area. All these situations considered, precise risk assessment on recidivism helps not only its society, but also criminal defendants in need of rehabilitation. A number of researches on development and use of risk assessment has been conducted in foreign countries whereas there is lack of research on this field in Korea. However, this study attempted to test reliability and validity of risk assessment tool for juvenile delinquents. Also, cut-off scores with better predictive power were explored. Kappa indices which is correlation coefficient between raters were produced in the range of 0.375 to 1.000. And the ICC index of the total score was .96~.98. Results also indicated that score of 12 to have better predictive power than score of 8 which was drawn from previous study in 2005. These results indicated that risk assessment tool for juvenile delinquent can be useful to make recidivism prediction and rehabilitation decision in Korean criminal justice system.

keywords
Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument, Juvenile Delinquency, Risk Assessment, Recidivism Prediction, Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument, Juvenile Delinquency, Risk Assessment, Recidivism Prediction, 비행촉발요인조사서, 청소년 비행, 위험성 평가, 재범예측

Reference

1.

경찰청 (2004). 소년범 경찰 다이버젼 도입을 위한「전문가 참여 사례 분석집」.

2.

경찰청 (2007). 경찰백서 2007.

3.

김영환, 김지혜, 오상우, 이수정, 조은경, 홍상황 (2006). 청소년 성격평가 질문지(PAI-A). 학지사.

4.

김지선 (2000). 청소년범죄의 발생추세와 특성, 한국형사정책학회, 형사정책.

5.

김희주, 공은경, 이수정 (2005). 소년사법처리 절차에 있어 경찰의 역할: 미국 선도 경찰관을 통한 한국의 소년보호정책. 한국공안행정학회보, 20, 187-221.

6.

노호래 (2005). 청소년범죄자에 대한 경찰단계의 다이버젼(Diversion), 법학연구, 19, 347- 366.

7.

대검찰청 (2008). 범죄분석. 법학연구원, 347- 366.

8.

오영근 (2004). 소년사법과 청소년 인권. 2004년도 선택전문교육과정 소년보호분류심사관리자반 교재집 3-42, 법무연수원.

9.

원혜욱 (1999). 적정한 소년사건처리절차의 보장. 형사정책연구소식, 11, 535-371.

10.

이금형 (2008). 비행소년에 대한 경찰의 다이버전 정책에 관한 연구. 동국대학교 대학원 경찰행정학과 박사학위논문.

11.

이수정 (2007). 경찰단계에서의 범죄소년 다이버젼을 위한 비행성평가절차의 재범예측력 연구, 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21, 47-57.

12.

이수정, 윤옥경 (2003). 범죄위험성 평가와 활용방안, 학국심리학회지: 일반, 22, 99-126.

13.

이수정, 이인희 (2007). 수용자의 교정심리검사와 교정상담 평가의 예측타당도 연구: 수용자의 5년 후 재범과 규율위반 예측. 한국심리학회지 사회 및 성격, 21, 1-15.

14.

이수정, 조은경 (2005). 경찰단계에서의 소년범 위험성 평가를 위한 비행촉발요인조사도구 개발. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 19, 27-42.

15.

이윤호 (1999). 형사정책. 박문각.

16.

이현희 (2004). 재범요인에 관한 인과적 분석: 형벌과 사회적 결속. 한국교정학회.

17.

조영오 (2007). 경찰단계에서의 소년범 위험성평가를 위한 검사도구의 효과성 검증. 경기대학교 석사학위논문.

18.

차종석, 김영배 (1994). 평가자간 신뢰도 및 동의도에 관한 분석적 고찰, 한국경영학회. 경영학연구, 23, 75-102.

19.

Altman, D. C. (1991). Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London England: Chapman and Hall.

20.

Anastasi, A. (1997). Psychological Testing. 7th Ed. Macmillan.

21.

Assessments.com. (2006). Assessment catalog. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www. assessments.com/purchase/category.asp?cid=3&cl=2

22.

Bartko, J. J. (1976). On Various Intraclass Correlation Reliability Coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762-765.

23.

Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs: Assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp.18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Bonta, J., Law, M., and Hanson, R. K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bullentin, 39, 127- 144.

25.

Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal Scale Agreement with Provision for Scaled Disagreement and Partical Credit. Psychological Bullentin, 70, 213-220.

26.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

27.

Conrad, E. and Maul, T. (1981). Introduction to Experimental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

28.

Cottle, C. C., Lee, R. J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 367-394.

29.

Gavazzi, S. M., Slad, D., Buettner, C. K., Partridge, C., Yarcheck, C. M., & Andrews, D. W. (2003). Toward conceptual development and empirical measurement of global risk indicators in the lives of court-involved youth. Psychological Reports, 92, 599-615.

30.

Hoge, R. D. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 380-396.

31.

Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). The youth level of service/case management inventory (YCS/CMI): Intake manual and item scoring key. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

32.

Howell, J. C. (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

33.

James, L. R. and Demaree, R. G. and Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating Within-Group Interrater Reliability With and Without Response Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

34.

Juvenile Sanctions Center. (2002). Structured decision making for graduated sanctions. Training and Technical Assistance Program, 1, 2.

35.

Landy, F. J. and Farr J. L. (1980). Performance Rating. Psychological Bullentin, 87., 72-107.

36.

Miller, J., & Lin, J. (2007). Applying a generic juvenile risk assessment instrument to a local context: Some practical and theoretical lessons. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 552-580.

37.

Mitchell, S. K. (1979). Interobserver Agreement, Reliabilty, and Generalizability of Data Collected in Observational Studies. Psychological Bullentin, 86, 376-390.

38.

Orbis Partners. (2006). Welcome. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.orbispartners.com /frame.htm

39.

Padgett, M. Y. and Ilgen, D. R. (1989). The Effect of Ratee Performance Characteristics on Alternative Measures of Rater Accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 232-260.

40.

Schwalbe, C. S. (2008). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments: Predictive validity by gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1367-1381.

41.

Schwalbe, C. S., Fraser, M. W., & Day, S. H. (2007). Predictive validity of the Joint Risk Matrix with juvenile offenders: A focus on gender and race/ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 348-361.

42.

Selltiz, C. (1959). Research Methods in Social Relation. Toronto : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

43.

Shrout, P. E. and Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.

44.

Tinsley, H. E. and Weiss, D. J. (1975). Research Methodology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 358-376.

45.

Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier., C. A. (1998). Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy