NCJ Number
187885
Date Published
2000
Length
41 pages
Annotation
This article considers the relative validity of actuarial- and consensus-based risk assessment systems.
Abstract
In consensus-based systems, workers assess specific client characteristics identified by the consensus judgment of experts and then exercise their own clinical judgment about the risk of future abuse or neglect. Actuarial systems are based on an empirical study of child protection services cases and future abuse/neglect outcomes. Items/factors having a strong association with future abuse/neglect are used to construct an actuarial instrument that workers score to identify low, medium, or high risk families. This article covers the second phase of a 3-year study to determine the relative reliability and validity of three approaches to risk assessment in child protective services. The study compared the reliability and validity of two consensus models and one actuarial model. This article summarizes results of the validity study. The primary measure of validity was the ability of each system to classify cases into risk groups with significantly different rates of subsequent maltreatment reported. The article concludes that actuarial-based systems are more accurate than consensus-based or expert systems and, therefore, have the potential to improve child protection services decision making. Bibliography, tables, notes