Volltextdatei(en) vorhanden
DC ElementWertSprache
dc.contributor.advisorWetzels, Peter (Prof. Dr.)
dc.contributor.authorYoon, Dahlnym
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-19T12:55:16Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-19T12:55:16Z-
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.urihttps://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/handle/ediss/5239-
dc.description.abstractDespite the great development in the field of sex offender rehabilitation in the last two decades, the effectiveness of intervention programs is still a controversially discussed issue. Starting with a meta-analysis on the efficacy of rehabilitation services (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990), the most influential theory of offender rehabilitation has been developed over the next years: the Risk, Need, Responsivity Principles. Whereas the RNR model has been focused on the effectiveness of the intervention by matching the level of risk and service, a recent development has been influenced by positive psychology (Seligman, 2002). Constructs related to pro-social behavior such as resilience (Rutter, 1985) or protective factors (Costa, Jessor, & Turbin, 1999; Jessor, 1991) were adapted to forensic mental health research. The next rehabilitation theory has been suggested as consequence: the Good Lives Model (see Chapter 1 for detailed description of these theories). Forensic questions used to focus primarily on prediction of recidivism. However, with the improvements in research and practice, those questions have become more sophisticated requiring a more detailed view on individuals and their possibility to be reintegrated into the society. Although the field consensus on the importance of applied forensic assessment as an integral part of the intervention process is given, the status quo in the clinical practice does not seem to be mature enough to reflect the theoretical development (see Chapter 6 for elaboration of current state of research regarding offender rehabilitation). In spite of the changes in the paradigm, the most standardized assessment tools commonly used are merely focused on risk factors. If both recidivism prevention and offender rehabilitation should be the goal of the penal system, a risk-only assessment is not sufficient. This type of assessment can lead to a biased assessment and distorts the view of resources that may be important for the intervention (de Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, & de Vries Robbé, 2009; Rogers, 2000). However, empirically based researches on protective factors in adult sexual offender populations are rare. Moreover, most studies are missing a clear operational definition of protective factors but have been investigating the factors with negative links to recidivism risk, though empirical data on the relationship between risk and protective factors in adult sexual offenders is not much available (Brown, Harkins, & Beech, 2011; Ullrich & Coid, 2011; Willis & Grace, 2008). The variety of the terminological use of protection needs a differentiated conceptualization for a better clinical risk communication and further research. Furthermore, these factors identified are not well investigated in terms of their reliability and validity. The need for improving theoretical background and empirically investigating those factors is undeniable. The main purpose of this dissertation is to bridge the gap between the theories and practices in the field of applied forensic assessment.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherStaats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.subjectSexualstraftäterde
dc.subjectRisikoeinschätzungde
dc.subjectprotektive Faktorende
dc.subjectInterventionde
dc.subjectSAPROFde
dc.subjectsexual offenderen
dc.subjectrisk assessmenten
dc.subjectprotective factorsen
dc.subjectinterventionen
dc.subjectSAPROFen
dc.subject.ddc150 Psychologie
dc.titleResource-oriented Risk Assessment and Intervention in Sexual Offendersen
dc.title.alternativeRessourcen-orientierte Risikoeinschätzung und Intervention bei Sexualstraftäternde
dc.typedoctoralThesis
dcterms.dateAccepted2013-08-02
dc.rights.ccNo license
dc.rights.rshttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subject.bcl44.91 Psychiatrie, Psychopathologie
dc.subject.bcl77.69 Sozialpsychologie: Sonstiges
dc.subject.bcl77.80 Spezielle Intervention
dc.subject.bcl77.83 Behandlung, Rehabilitation: Sonstiges
dc.subject.bcl86.41 Kriminologie
dc.type.casraiDissertation-
dc.type.dinidoctoralThesis-
dc.type.driverdoctoralThesis-
dc.type.statusinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.thesisdoctoralThesis
tuhh.opus.id6551
tuhh.opus.datecreation2014-01-07
tuhh.type.opusDissertation-
thesis.grantor.departmentSozialwissenschaften
thesis.grantor.departmentMedizin
thesis.grantor.placeHamburg
thesis.grantor.universityOrInstitutionUniversität Hamburg
dcterms.DCMITypeText-
tuhh.gvk.ppn777824639
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:gbv:18-65515
item.advisorGNDWetzels, Peter (Prof. Dr.)-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.languageiso639-1other-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.creatorOrcidYoon, Dahlnym-
item.creatorGNDYoon, Dahlnym-
Enthalten in den Sammlungen:Elektronische Dissertationen und Habilitationen
Dateien zu dieser Ressource:
Datei Beschreibung Prüfsumme GrößeFormat  
Dissertation.pdfaf61f819132c7efdeebcbc3cfd2d26a62.11 MBAdobe PDFÖffnen/Anzeigen
Zur Kurzanzeige

Diese Publikation steht in elektronischer Form im Internet bereit und kann gelesen werden. Über den freien Zugang hinaus wurden durch die Urheberin / den Urheber keine weiteren Rechte eingeräumt. Nutzungshandlungen (wie zum Beispiel der Download, das Bearbeiten, das Weiterverbreiten) sind daher nur im Rahmen der gesetzlichen Erlaubnisse des Urheberrechtsgesetzes (UrhG) erlaubt. Dies gilt für die Publikation sowie für ihre einzelnen Bestandteile, soweit nichts Anderes ausgewiesen ist.

Info

Seitenansichten

692
Letzte Woche
Letzten Monat
geprüft am 26.04.2024

Download(s)

132
Letzte Woche
Letzten Monat
geprüft am 26.04.2024
Werkzeuge

Google ScholarTM

Prüfe