Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAlmond, Louiseen_US
dc.contributor.authorAlison, Laurenceen_US
dc.contributor.authorPorter, Louiseen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:52:14Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:52:14Z
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.date.modified2010-08-13T07:24:29Z
dc.identifier.issn15444767en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jip.59en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/33437
dc.description.abstractThis study examined the content of a contemporary sample of behavioural investigative advice reports produced by the National Policing Improvements Agency (NPIA), formally known as the National Centre for Policing Excellence, and compared this sample with previous offender-profiling samples reported by Alison, Smith, Eastman, and Rainbow in 2003. Forty-seven reports written in 2005 were content analysed. The reports contained 805 claims, although 96% of the claims contained grounds for their claim, only 34% had any formal support or backing. In terms of confirmability, 70% of the claims were verifiable. However, only 43% were falsifiable, in that they could be objectively measured post-conviction. Analysis also showed that there were differences when comparing the different types of claims made (i.e. behavioural, temporal) and the different types of reports compiled by the NPIA (i.e. behavioural assessment report, linking report, etc.) Comparisons show that there is a very large positive difference between the contemporary behavioural investigative advice sample and previous non-NPIA expert advice in terms of the substantiveness of their arguments. Contemporary NPIA behavioural investigative advice has clearer boundaries around the claims made and presents material in a more coherent and evidence-based format than previous expert advice.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherJohn Wileyen_US
dc.publisher.placeChichester, Englanden_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom71en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto83en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue2en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profilingen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume4en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPsychology not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode170199en_US
dc.titleAn evaluation and comparison of claims made in behavioural investigative advice reports compiled by the National Policing Improvements Agency in the United Kingdomen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2007
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record