<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim https://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01899     2200265   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">408234</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="011" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">15527581</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">408234</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">20240108d        kkky0pory50      ba</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="101" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">eng</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="102" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">US</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="200" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Comparing sex offender risk classification using the Static-99 and LSI-R assessment instruments</subfield>
    <subfield code="f">Amanda L. Gentry, Catherine N. Dulmus, Matthew T. Theriot</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="330" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Objective: This study compares sex offender risk classification using two popular actuarial risk assessment
instruments&#x2014;the Static-99 and the Level of Service Inventory&#x2013;Revised (LSI-R). Despite their extensive use, the two
scales assess different types of risk factors and research has yet to compare them. Method: Static-99 and LSI-R risk
assessments were compared for 30 adult male sex offenders attending a community-based treatment program.
Results: A paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a significant difference (Z = &#x2013;3.962, p &lt; .001) between the
instruments, with 63.3% of the sample classified as higher risk for reoffending by the Static-99 than by the LSI-R.
Conclusions: The Static-99 may be a more conservative risk assessment tool. Yet because the LSI-R provides useful information about an offender&#x2019;s current needs not included on the Static-99, treatment providers should use bothinstruments. This more comprehensive assessment of criminogenic risk and need will better inform supervision and intervention decisions.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="461" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">Tennessee</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2005</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">p. 557-563</subfield>
    <subfield code="t">Research on Social Work Practice </subfield>
    <subfield code="v">Vol. 15</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">VIOL&#xCA;NCIA SEXUAL</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">OFENSORES SEXUAIS</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">AN&#xC1;LISE DE RISCO</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="675" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">343.8</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Gentry</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Amanda L. </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="701" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="4">070</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Dulmus</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Catherine N. </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="701" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="4">070</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Theriot</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Matthew T.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="801" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">PT</subfield>
    <subfield code="g">RPC</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="852" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="j">343.8GEN</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="995" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">343_000000000000000_8GEN</subfield>
    <subfield code="5">2024-01-08</subfield>
    <subfield code="6">9273</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">479719</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">DGRSP</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">DGRSP</subfield>
    <subfield code="f">DGRSP9273</subfield>
    <subfield code="k">343.8GEN</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">2024-01-08</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">AP</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
