Using the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version in sexual violence risk assessments: Updated risk categories and recidivism estimates from a multisite sample of treated sexual offenders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study sought to develop updated risk categories and recidivism estimates for the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version (VRS-SO; Wong, Olver, Nicholaichuk, & Gordon, 2003-2017), a sexual offender risk assessment and treatment planning tool. The overarching purpose was to increase the clarity and accuracy of communicating risk assessment information that includes a systematic incorporation of new information (i.e., change) to modify risk estimates. Four treated samples of sexual offenders with VRS-SO pretreatment, posttreatment, and Static-99R ratings were combined with a minimum follow-up period of 10-years postrelease (N = 913). Logistic regression was used to model 5- and 10-year sexual and violent (including sexual) recidivism estimates across 6 different regression models employing specific risk and change score information from the VRS-SO and/or Static-99R. A rationale is presented for clinical applications of select models and the necessity of controlling for baseline risk when utilizing change information across repeated assessments. Information concerning relative risk (percentiles) and absolute risk (recidivism estimates) is integrated with common risk assessment language guidelines to generate new risk categories for the VRS-SO. Guidelines for model selection and forensic clinical application of the risk estimates are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".