Construct Validity of the Violence Risk Scale–Sexual Offender Version Instrument in a Multisite Sample of Treated Sexual Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the construct validity of the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version (VRS-SO) through an examination of its factor structure and convergence with psychological measures assessing conceptually relevant constructs in a sample of 732 treated incarcerated adult male sex offenders. The VRS-SO was rated prospectively pre- and posttreatment by service providers, and several of the men had completed a psychometric battery at each time point. Prospective Stable 2000 ratings were examined for comparison purposes. Results of exploratory longitudinal factor analysis, performed on VRS-SO pre- and posttreatment dynamic item scores, supported a three-factor model (comparative fit index = .990) and the measurement invariance of the loadings over time. A stringent longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis of the VRS-SO items also supported the three-factor structure. Scores from the three factors (Sexual Deviance, Criminality, and Treatment Responsivity) were correlated in conceptually meaningful ways with scores from the Stable 2000 and selected psychometric measures. The results provide evidence for the construct validity of VRS-SO test scores as providing an index of sex offender risk and, more specifically, that its item content and factor domains measure psychological constructs pertinent to sex offender risk and need.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".