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 |