NCJ Number: 81781
Title: Assessment of Dangerous Behavior - Two New Scales
Author(s): D Slomen; C D Webster; B T Butler
Corporate Author: Toronto Forensic Service
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 44
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Grant Number: DM395
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
Document: PDF
Language: English
Country: Canada
Annotation: The rating scheme used for predicting dangerous behavior in the current project conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto Forensic Service (Canada) is described, and clinician opinions of the scheme are discussed.
Abstract: In the scheme for rating dangerous behavior, clinician response alternatives span across a seven-point scale of 'extremely low,' 'quite low,' 'fairly low,' 'medium,' 'fairly high,' 'quite high,' and 'extremely high.' The personality factors rated in the scheme are (1) passive aggressive (covert or latent hostility), (2) hostility (a relatively enduring posture of antagonism), (3) anger (situation-specific aggression), (4) rage (a major loss of control), (5) emotionality (ability to control expression of current emotional state), (6) guilt (regret or discomfort over past actions), (7) capacity for empathy (ability to recognize the effect of actions on others), (8) capacity for change (degree of insight and motivation for change), (9) self-perception as dangerous (patient comments on own behavior and personality), (10) control over actions (actions impulsive or premeditated), and (11) tolerance (degree of frustration tolerated before aggression occurs). Situational factors rated are environmental stress and emotional support. Other factors considered are whether dangerousness increased under the influence of alcohol or drugs, whether the patient is manipulative during the interview, whether the person provided accurate information, and whether sufficient information was received to make an accurate assessment. After using the ratings scheme over 4 months, the majority of clinicians were satisfied with definition specifications of the categories but differed on the practical use of the different categories in the interviews. The validation procedure is described. The forms used are appended, and 21 references are listed.
Index Term(s): Canada; Criminality prediction; Dangerousness; Testing and measurement
Note: Working Paper number 14
To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=81781
. A title search of 