Validating a Measure of Client Change

Abstract

While risk assessment has been most used as an evaluation of which offenders are most likely to re-offend, there are also various models explaining the process of client change which is thought to further describe who is at risk. While elements of change have been validated, there is no one assessment which assesses a client's position in the process of changing from an antisocial offender into a prosocial individual. The current research therefore attempted to validate the Client Change Scale (CCS), which is a theoretically and empirically supported measure for quantifying client change. Parole decision with offenders in the California parole system was used as a proxy measure of recidivism. Results indicated that while the CCS was reliable and correlated with risk, it didn't provide a good model and didn't predict decision independently. Further research is needed to assess the CCS' ability to predict recidivism directly for differing populations. List of Appendices Client Change Scale……………………………………………………………………………112 Historical Risk Management.

Capturing Change: Validation of the Client Change Scale with the Correctional Service of Canada Community

“…Overall, the interrater reliability and internal consistency were excellent. The internal consistency for the current study was much higher than the internal consistency for the previous file-based study that investigated the CCS (α = .95 versus α = .86, respectively; Carty, 2019). Regardless of the group analyzed (Indigenous JIPs, non-Indigenous JIPs, and the overall sample), the predictive accuracy of the CCS (i.e., the AUCs) for technical violations after release were significant, with moderate to large effect sizes, and at the high-end of poor discrimination into the acceptable range of discrimination.…”

“…This study investigated the validity of the CCS, though the outcome measure was not recidivism, but rather parole decisions for lifers in California. For the 16 items on the CCS, the internal consistency was adequate (α = .86) (Carty, 2019). However, the CCS did not significantly predict parole hearing decisions above chance (AUC = .54) (Carty, 2019).…”

“…For the 16 items on the CCS, the internal consistency was adequate (α = .86) (Carty, 2019). However, the CCS did not significantly predict parole hearing decisions above chance (AUC = .54) (Carty, 2019).…”

“…This is the first study to validate and assess the predictive ability of the CCS in terms of post-release outcomes. There has only been one research study to date examining the CCS, though the outcome measure was not recidivism, but rather parole decisions for lifers in California (Carty, 2019). Therefore, this research is the first phase in the validation of this scale concerning post-release outcomes.…”