This study was conducted to investigate whether the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), which has been demonstrated to be reliable and valid for the prediction of violent and nonviolent recidivism, could also be effective as a classification tool for offenders. The results demonstrated that the SAQ could be a useful tool for classifying offenders to different levels of security, assigning to appropriate programs, and assisting with the prediction of offenders' institutional adjustment. These results have broadened the utility of the SAQ within the criminal justice system
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. A. (1989). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk assessments to reduce recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 1, 11-18.
2.
Andrews, D. A. , & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory–Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
3.
Andrews, D. A. , Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 19-52.
4.
Austin, J. (1983). Assessing the new generation of prison classification models.Crime and Delinquency, 29, 561-576.
5.
Austin, J. (1986). Evaluating how well your classification system is operating: Practical approach. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 302-322.
6.
Bonta, J. & Motiuk, L. L. (1992). Inmate classification. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343-353.
7.
Brown, S. L. (1998). The case needs review project: Background and research strategy. Forum on Corrections Research, 10, 9-11.
8.
Clinard, M. B. , & Quinney, R. (1973). Criminal behavior systems: A typology. New York: Holt, Rinhart & Winston.
9.
Cooper, R. P. , & Werner, P. D. (1990). Predicting violence in newly admitted inmates: A lens model analysis of staff decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 431-447.
10.
Gibbons, D. C. (1988). Some critical observations on criminal types and criminal careers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 8-23.
11.
Gottfredson, D. (1987). Statistical and actuarial considerations. In F. Dutile & C. Foust (Eds.), The prediction of violence (pp. 71-81). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
12.
Jesness, C. F. (1988). The Jesness inventory classification system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 78-91.
13.
Kroner, D. , & Loza, W. (2001). Evidence for the efficacy of self-report in predicting violent and non-violent criminal recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 168-177.
14.
Lerner, K. , Arling, G., & Baird, S. C. (1986). Client management classification strategies for case supervision. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 254-271.
15.
Levinson, R. B. (1988). Development in the classification process: Quay's AIMS approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 24-38.
16.
Loza, W. (1996). Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and non-violent recidivism. Unpublished manuscript.
17.
Loza, W. , Dhaliwal, G., Kroner, D.G., & Loza-Fanous, A. (2000). Reliability, construct and concurrent validities of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and non-violent recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 356-374.
18.
Loza, W. , & Loza-Fanous, A. (2000). Predictive validity of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and non-violent release failures. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 1184-1192.
19.
Loza, W. , & Loza-Fanous, A. (2001). The effectiveness of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) in predicting offenders'post-release outcome: A comparison study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 105-121.
20.
Luciani, F. , Motiuk, L. L., & Nafekh, M. (1996). An operational review of the Custody Rating Scale: Reliability, validity, and practical utility. Report No. R-47. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
21.
Luciani, F. (1997). Tried and true: Proof that the Custody Rating Scale is still reliable and valid. Forum on Corrections Research, 9, 13-17.
22.
MacGuigan, M. (1977). Standing Committee on justice and legal affairs: Sub-committee on the penitentiary system in Canada. Report to Parliament. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
23.
Megargee, E. I. , & Bohn, M. J. (1979). Classifying criminal offenders: A new system based on the MMPI. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
Motiuk, L. (1991). Antecedents and consequences of prison adjustment: A systematic assessment and reassessment approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University.
25.
Motiuk, L. (1997). Classification for correctional programming: The Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. Forum on Corrections Research, 9, 18-22.
26.
Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decisions-making in Canada: Research towards decision guidelines. Ottawa, Canada: Solicitor General of Canada.
27.
Quay, H. C. (1984). Managing adult inmates: Classification for housing and program assignments. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.
28.
Taylor, G. (1997). Implementing risk and needs classification in the Correctional Service of Canada. Forum on Corrections Research, 9, 32-35.
29.
Wright, K. N. , Clear, T. R., & Dickson, P. (1984). Universal applicability of probation risk-assessment instruments. Criminology, 22, 113-134.
