Law and human behavior · 2026
A risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-informed systematic review of needs during the pretrial period.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ingel Sydney, Lowder Evan M, Frye Peyton, Lawson Spencer G, Kent Autumn
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Pretrial risk assessments are becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Despite the importance of assessing and intervening around "needs" in the risk-need-responsivity model, few pretrial risk assessments include comprehensive assessment of needs. We aim to provide a systematic review of the prevalence of and predictive utility of needs within the pretrial population.
HYPOTHESES: There were no hypotheses given the nature of the study.
METHOD: We conducted searches for articles in the EBSCO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases using key words related to 11 needs domains: antisocial personality, procriminal attitudes, procriminal associates, substance use, family/marital relationships, school/work, prosocial recreational activities, self-esteem, housing, mental health, and physical health. We identified 215 articles that reported on the prevalence of needs or explored their predictive associations with pretrial misconduct outcomes in adult populations.
RESULTS: Overall, we find few comprehensive investigations of needs in the pretrial domain, apart from substance use. Variation in methodology and operationalization contributes to wide variability in prevalence estimates. We found only 15 articles that examined predictive associations between pretrial needs and outcomes, which were limited to investigations of behavioral health, employment, and housing needs. Substance use and housing needs emerged as the only consistent predictors of pretrial misconduct.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should more directly assess the prevalence and predictive utility of needs within the pretrial period to bolster the evidence base for including these factors in pretrial risk assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
HYPOTHESES: There were no hypotheses given the nature of the study.
METHOD: We conducted searches for articles in the EBSCO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases using key words related to 11 needs domains: antisocial personality, procriminal attitudes, procriminal associates, substance use, family/marital relationships, school/work, prosocial recreational activities, self-esteem, housing, mental health, and physical health. We identified 215 articles that reported on the prevalence of needs or explored their predictive associations with pretrial misconduct outcomes in adult populations.
RESULTS: Overall, we find few comprehensive investigations of needs in the pretrial domain, apart from substance use. Variation in methodology and operationalization contributes to wide variability in prevalence estimates. We found only 15 articles that examined predictive associations between pretrial needs and outcomes, which were limited to investigations of behavioral health, employment, and housing needs. Substance use and housing needs emerged as the only consistent predictors of pretrial misconduct.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should more directly assess the prevalence and predictive utility of needs within the pretrial period to bolster the evidence base for including these factors in pretrial risk assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).