The Static-99R Is Not Valid For Women: Predictive Validity in 739 Females Who Have Sexually Offended
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many instruments have been validated to assess risk of sexual recidivism among men, no similar tool exists for women who have sexually offended. As a result, some jurisdictions use male-based instruments to assess women despite the lack of validation research examining the predictive utility for this subgroup. This study examined the utility of the Static-99R in predicting sexual recidivism among women. Based on a sample of 739 women convicted of sexual offenses in Texas, findings show that the total score was not significantly associated with sexual recidivism. When looking at individual items, other than a history of prior sexual offenses and noncontact sexual offenses, no item of the Static-99R was significantly associated with sexual recidivism among women. Furthermore, only three items (female victims/solo offender, 4+ sentencing dates, and having not lived with a romantic other for 2+ years) were significantly associated with nonsexual recidivism. These findings indicate that the Static-99R is not suitable to assess risk of recidivism among women convicted of sexual offenses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".