000 01450nab a2200265Ia 4500
001 21604
005 20250625151202.0
008 110331s1995 eng
022 _a0113-7662
040 _aWSS
_dAFV
100 _aStrathern, Brenda
_92166
245 _aRisk assessment :
_bstructured decision making
_cStrathern, Brenda
260 _c1995
365 _a00
_b0
500 _aSocial Work Review 7(3) June 1995 : 2-5
520 _aThis article discusses risk assessment instruments in the practice of child protection work with a focus on informed decision making processes. Clinical judgment as a risk assessment method is briefly canvassed along with the perceived decline in efficiency in the standard of statutory social work in child protection. The signs and symptoms of abuse and risk indicators are critically discussed. Actuarial and consensus risk assessment, two major types of risk assessment, are explained along with their strengths and limitations. A more favourable risk assessment instrument, the Manitoba Risk Estimation System, is discussed in light of the limitations of the actuarial and consensus models.
650 2 7 _2FVC
_aCHILD PROTECTION
_9118
650 2 7 _aCHILDREN AT RISK
_9131
650 2 4 _aRISK ASSESSMENT
_9504
651 4 _aNEW ZEALAND
_92588
650 2 7 _9103
_aCHILD ABUSE
_2FVC
773 0 _tSocial Work Review 7(3) June 1995 : 2-5
830 _aSocial Work Review
_95166
942 _2ddc
_cARTICLE
999 _c2319
_d2319