Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35676601›Full record

ArticleHealth & justice2022

Assessing the reliability and validity of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) program tool.

Niloofar Ramezani, Avi Bhati, Amy Murphy, Douglas Routh, Faye S Taxman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & justice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Niloofar RamezaniDepartment of Statistics, School of Computing, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 4A7, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA. nramezan@gmu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8941-4696
Avi BhatiMaxarth, LLC, North Potomac, MD, USA.
Amy MurphySchar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, Arlington, VA, 22201, USA.
Douglas RouthUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Faye S TaxmanSchar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, Arlington, VA, 22201, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFidelity assessment tools can assess whether a program embraces a core set of principles and performs well. A quality fidelity tool with valid scales can be a feedback loop to identify areas that need further work to improve the program. Using data collected from 1816 correctional and reentry programs in the United States in the construction sample and 761 programs in the confirmation sample, this study examined the internal consistency of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Program Tool, an online resource to capture information about structural features of a program.

resultsThe study reports on reliability statistics and factor analyses to highlight individual subscales. Six scales emerged and had acceptable to excellent levels of internal consistency. These scales are staffing, reward-and-sanction, clinical standards for programs, coaching, program duration, and risk-need assessment.

conclusionsThis article discusses fidelity scales from the RNR Program Tool and provides guidance on the importance of tool development processes to ensure accurate, valid, and reliable scales. The purpose of the RNR Program Tool is to create a modern, online tool integrating both the empirical (research) literature on effective practices and clinical standards on quality programming. This process minimizes the need for consultants by giving program administrators the ability to gather information on their programs, score them, and receive instant and targeted feedback with recommendations for improvement to assess their programs against empirical standards in the field. Furthermore, it provides a standardized tool that administrators can use to examine what type of individuals fare better in their programs. The provided targeted feedback can give the programs the ability to seek technical assistance or guidance in specific areas that can strategically strengthen their program.

Indexed as

Fidelity scalesReliabilityRisk assessmentRisk-need-responsivityValidity

Identifiers

PMID35676601
PMCPMC9178799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.