MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941189887 · doi:10.1177/0093854819842585

Predictive and Convergent Validity of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument in a Sample of Male and Female Justice-Involved Youth

2019· article· en· W2941189887 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Terri Scott, Shelley L. Brown, Tracey A. Skilling

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecidivismPsychologyEconomic JusticePredictive validityRisk assessmentConvergent validityCriminal justiceReceiver operating characteristicSample (material)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsMedicineComputer securityCriminologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sufficient evidence exists that gender should and does matter in offender management. This study examined the predictive validity of risk and strength factors extracted from the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in a sample of 254 justice-involved youth (148 males, 106 females) from Ontario, Canada. Overall, total risk scores from both measures predicted recidivism (area under receiver operator characteristic curve [AUCs] = .62-.70). Domain-level analyses illustrated that criminal attitudes and associates (scored as risks or protective/strengths) were among the strongest predictors of recidivism in both genders. The YASI demonstrated strong convergent validity with the YLS/CMI. The results support the YASI and the YLS/CMI as viable risk assessment measures for justice-involved male and female youth. Given that the YASI includes both gender neutral and gender responsive items, it may be a particularly good choice for use with justice-involved females.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207