MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154296651 · doi:10.1177/1073191112458312

Even Highly Correlated Measures Can Add Incrementally to Predicting Recidivism Among Sex Offenders

2012· review· en· W2154296651 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityPublic Safety Canada
FundersSolar Energy Technologies OfficeSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologySex offenderSex offenseClinical psychologySocial psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlSexual abuseMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criterion-referenced measures, such as those used in the assessment of crime and violence, prioritize predictive accuracy (discrimination) at the expense of construct validity. In this article, we compared the discrimination and incremental validity of three commonly used criterion-referenced measures for sex offenders (Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism [RRASOR], Static-99R, and Static-2002R). In a meta-analysis of 20 samples (n = 7,491), Static-99R and Static-2002R provided similar discrimination but outperformed the RRASOR in the prediction of sexual, violent, and any recidivism. Remarkably, despite large correlations between them (rs ranging from .70 to .92), these risk scales consistently added incremental validity to one another. The direction of the incremental effects, however, was not consistently positive. When controlling for the other measures, high scores on the RRASOR were associated with lower risk for violent and any recidivism. We also examined different methods of combining risk scales and found that the averaging approach produced better discrimination than choosing the highest score and produced better calibration than either choosing the lowest or highest risk score. The findings reinforce the importance of understanding the psychological content of criterion-referenced measures, even when the sole purpose is to predict a particular outcome and provide some direction concerning the best methods for combining risk scales.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it