Risk assessment with actuarial and clinical methods: Measurement and evidence-based practice

Natasha S. Mendoza, Roderick A. Rose, Jennifer M. Geiger, Scottye J. Cash

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Abstract

Child welfare agencies have adopted assessment tools and instruments to inform the level of risk and guide the agency's level of intervention with the family. Actuarial assessments may be more uniform but inflexible with respect to practice wisdom whereas clinical or consensus-based assessments are more comprehensive and intuitive but lack objectivity. The purpose of the current study is to compare clinical and actuarial methods of risk assessment used by child welfare workers to make decisions about substantiation and services. The current study examined the (1) association between clinical and actuarial dimensions, (2) association between actuarial dimensions and outcomes, (3) association between clinical dimensions and outcomes, (4) caseworker primary use of actuarial dimensions, and (5) caseworker supplementary use of actuarial dimensions. Findings indicated that the actuarial may not be solely predictive of agency intensity with respect to case decision and service provision. Our findings suggest that dual-measurement does inform intensity, and we speculate from these findings that the measures may be involved with decision-making in a complex way. This study may be best viewed as a means by which researchers begin to parse how decisions are made; with this information, instruments may be better tailored to facilitate clinical, critical thought.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages1-12
Number of pages12
JournalChild Abuse and Neglect
Volume61
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Evidence-Based Practice
Child Welfare
Consensus
Decision Making
Research Personnel
Child Protective Services

Keywords

  • Actuarial assessment
  • Child welfare
  • Consensus-based assessment
  • Risk assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Risk assessment with actuarial and clinical methods : Measurement and evidence-based practice. / Mendoza, Natasha S.; Rose, Roderick A.; Geiger, Jennifer M.; Cash, Scottye J.

In: Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 61, 01.11.2016, p. 1-12.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Mendoza, Natasha S. ; Rose, Roderick A. ; Geiger, Jennifer M. ; Cash, Scottye J./ Risk assessment with actuarial and clinical methods : Measurement and evidence-based practice. In: Child Abuse and Neglect. 2016 ; Vol. 61. pp. 1-12
@article{29eeabc3012f44f29ab81f28ba6e8431,
title = "Risk assessment with actuarial and clinical methods: Measurement and evidence-based practice",
abstract = "Child welfare agencies have adopted assessment tools and instruments to inform the level of risk and guide the agency's level of intervention with the family. Actuarial assessments may be more uniform but inflexible with respect to practice wisdom whereas clinical or consensus-based assessments are more comprehensive and intuitive but lack objectivity. The purpose of the current study is to compare clinical and actuarial methods of risk assessment used by child welfare workers to make decisions about substantiation and services. The current study examined the (1) association between clinical and actuarial dimensions, (2) association between actuarial dimensions and outcomes, (3) association between clinical dimensions and outcomes, (4) caseworker primary use of actuarial dimensions, and (5) caseworker supplementary use of actuarial dimensions. Findings indicated that the actuarial may not be solely predictive of agency intensity with respect to case decision and service provision. Our findings suggest that dual-measurement does inform intensity, and we speculate from these findings that the measures may be involved with decision-making in a complex way. This study may be best viewed as a means by which researchers begin to parse how decisions are made; with this information, instruments may be better tailored to facilitate clinical, critical thought.",
keywords = "Actuarial assessment, Child welfare, Consensus-based assessment, Risk assessment",
author = "Mendoza, {Natasha S.} and Rose, {Roderick A.} and Geiger, {Jennifer M.} and Cash, {Scottye J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.09.004",
volume = "61",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "Child Abuse and Neglect",
issn = "0145-2134",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk assessment with actuarial and clinical methods

T2 - Child Abuse and Neglect

AU - Mendoza,Natasha S.

AU - Rose,Roderick A.

AU - Geiger,Jennifer M.

AU - Cash,Scottye J.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Child welfare agencies have adopted assessment tools and instruments to inform the level of risk and guide the agency's level of intervention with the family. Actuarial assessments may be more uniform but inflexible with respect to practice wisdom whereas clinical or consensus-based assessments are more comprehensive and intuitive but lack objectivity. The purpose of the current study is to compare clinical and actuarial methods of risk assessment used by child welfare workers to make decisions about substantiation and services. The current study examined the (1) association between clinical and actuarial dimensions, (2) association between actuarial dimensions and outcomes, (3) association between clinical dimensions and outcomes, (4) caseworker primary use of actuarial dimensions, and (5) caseworker supplementary use of actuarial dimensions. Findings indicated that the actuarial may not be solely predictive of agency intensity with respect to case decision and service provision. Our findings suggest that dual-measurement does inform intensity, and we speculate from these findings that the measures may be involved with decision-making in a complex way. This study may be best viewed as a means by which researchers begin to parse how decisions are made; with this information, instruments may be better tailored to facilitate clinical, critical thought.

AB - Child welfare agencies have adopted assessment tools and instruments to inform the level of risk and guide the agency's level of intervention with the family. Actuarial assessments may be more uniform but inflexible with respect to practice wisdom whereas clinical or consensus-based assessments are more comprehensive and intuitive but lack objectivity. The purpose of the current study is to compare clinical and actuarial methods of risk assessment used by child welfare workers to make decisions about substantiation and services. The current study examined the (1) association between clinical and actuarial dimensions, (2) association between actuarial dimensions and outcomes, (3) association between clinical dimensions and outcomes, (4) caseworker primary use of actuarial dimensions, and (5) caseworker supplementary use of actuarial dimensions. Findings indicated that the actuarial may not be solely predictive of agency intensity with respect to case decision and service provision. Our findings suggest that dual-measurement does inform intensity, and we speculate from these findings that the measures may be involved with decision-making in a complex way. This study may be best viewed as a means by which researchers begin to parse how decisions are made; with this information, instruments may be better tailored to facilitate clinical, critical thought.

KW - Actuarial assessment

KW - Child welfare

KW - Consensus-based assessment

KW - Risk assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988733986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988733986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.09.004

DO - 10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.09.004

M3 - Article

VL - 61

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Child Abuse and Neglect

JF - Child Abuse and Neglect

SN - 0145-2134

ER -