Validating the Structured Dynamic Assessment Case-Management 21-item (SDAC-21) in a Sample of Incarcerated Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the importance of ensuring that offenders do not engage in offending behaviour while incarcerated and remain crime free once they are released, the field has devoted considerable effort to the development and validation of risk assessment tools.The purpose of this dissertation was to validate the Structured Dynamic Assessment Case-Management 21-Item (SDAC-21;Serin & Wilson, 2012).Importantly, this was the first empirical validation of the SDAC-21.The SDAC-21 is a new body of work that includes empirically derived and theoretically informed dynamic risk factors, responsivity factors, and protective factors.It is an institutional assessment tool that was developed based on the successful implementation of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR; Serin, 2007), which is a dynamic risk assessment tool used in the community.Using a sample of 4,217 incarcerated male offenders held in the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC), this study examined the psychometric properties and the accuracy of the SDAC-21 in predicting institutional misconducts.In addition, the incremental contribution of the SDAC-21 in predicting institutional misconducts over and above static risk was also evaluated.Lastly, an exploration of the relationship between risk and protective factors in relation to outcomes was also undertaken.The SDAC-21 demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties (e.g., internal consistency, inter-rater reliability).The SDAC-21 significantly predicted institutional misconducts (AUC's ranging from .60 -.75) and demonstrated incremental validity over and above static risk estimates.Further, the results from the moderation analyses indicated that the Protective domain showed independent effects in predicting institutional misconducts, regardless of static risk.These results showed that the SDAC-21 is a valid tool for predicting institutional misconducts.It is anticipated that the results VALIDATING THE SDAC-21iii of this research endeavour will improve the overall ability to manage and supervise offenders more effectively within correctional institutions. High expectationsCosts/ benefits
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".