Jodi L. Viljoen

Bio: Jodi L. Viljoen is an academic researcher from Simon Fraser University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Poison control & Risk assessment. The author has an hindex of 26, co-authored 79 publications receiving 2156 citations. Previous affiliations of Jodi L. Viljoen include University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Assessing Violence Risk and Psychopathy in Juvenile and Adult Offenders: A Survey of Clinical Practices

Abstract: This study surveyed 199 forensic clinicians about the practices that they use in assessing violence risk in juvenile and adult offenders. Results indicated that the use of risk assessment and psychopathy tools was common. Although clinicians reported more routine use of psychopathy measures in adult risk assessments compared with juvenile risks assessments, 79% of clinicians reported using psychopathy measures at least once in a while in juvenile risk assessments. Extremely few clinicians, however, believe that juveniles should be labeled or referred to as psychopaths. Juvenile risk reports were more likely than adult reports to routinely discuss treatment and protective factors, and provide recommendations to reevaluate risk. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Assessing risk for violence in adolescents who have sexually offended: A comparison of the J-SOAP-II, J-SORRAT-II, and SAVRY.

Abstract: As the youth justice system has evolved, clinicians have been increasingly asked to make judgments about the likelihood that a youth who has committed a sexual offense will reoffend. However, there is an absence of well-validated tools to assist with these judgments. This study examined the ability of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool—II (J-SORRAT-II), Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol—II (J-SOAP-II) to predict violent behavior in 169 male youth who were admitted to a residential adolescent sex offender program. Total scores on the SAVRY and J-SOAP-II significantly predicted nonsexual violence but none of the instruments predicted sexual violence. The J-SOAP-II and SAVRY were less effective in predicting violent reoffending in youth aged 15 and younger than in older youth. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals.

Abstract: While there is an increasing recognition that developmental differences may exist in legal decision-making, little research has examined this. This study examined the legal judgments of 152 defendants aged 11–17 (73 females, 79 males). Adolescents aged 15 and younger were more likely than older adolescents to confess and waive their right to counsel, and less likely to report that they would appeal their case or discuss disagreements with their attorneys. Also, while adolescents aged 15–17 were more likely to confess, plead guilty, and accept a plea bargain if they perceived that there was strong evidence against them, younger defendants’ legal decisions were not predicted by the strength of evidence. Importantly, defendants with poor legal abilities were more likely to waive legal protections, such as the right to counsel and to appeal. Defendants from below-average socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to waive their interrogation rights, and defendants from ethnic minority groups were less likely to report that they would disclose information to their attorneys. The advice of attorneys, parents, and peers emerged as important predictors of plea decisions. None of the defendants reported that their parents advised them to assert the right to silence during police interrogation.

Assessment of Reoffense Risk in Adolescents Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses: Predictive Validity of the ERASOR, PCL:YV, YLS/CMI, and Static-99

Abstract: Clinicians are often asked to assess the likelihood that an adolescent who has committed a sexual offense will reoffend. However, there is limited research on the predictive validity of available assessment tools. To help address this gap, this study examined the ability of the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR), the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV), and the Static-99 to predict reoffending in a sample of 193 adolescents. Youth were followed for an average of 7.24 years after discharge from a residential sex offender treatment program. Although none of the instruments significantly predicted detected cases of sexual reoffending, ERASOR’s structured professional judgments nearly reached significance (p = .069). Both the YLS/CMI and the PCL:YV predicted nonsexual violence, any violence, and any offending; however, the YLS/CMI demonstrated incremental validity over the PCL:YV. Although the Static-99 ha...

Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies

Abstract: (1998). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Gifted and Talented International: Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 97-98.

Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis Modeling Change And Event Occurrence

Abstract: Thank you very much for downloading applied longitudinal data analysis modeling change and event occurrence. As you may know, people have look hundreds times for their favorite novels like this applied longitudinal data analysis modeling change and event occurrence, but end up in malicious downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they are facing with some infectious virus inside their computer.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Abstract: As an alternative to traditional juvenile courts, juvenile drug courts attempt to provide substance abuse treatment, sanctions, and incentives to rehabilitate nonviolent drug-involved youth, empower families to support them in this process, and prevent recidivism. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored a multisite study of juvenile drug courts to examine the ability of these courts to reduce recidivism and improve youth’s social functioning, and to determine whether these programs use evidence-based practices in their treatment services. This bulletin provides an overview of the findings.

Current index to legal periodicals

Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

Abstract: 1. Resolving Ethical Issues 1.01 Misuse of Psychologists’ Work 1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority 1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands 1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations 1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations 1.06 Cooperating With Ethics Committees 1.07 Improper Complaints 1.08 Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants and Respondents