An Examination of the Latent Constructs in Risk Tools for Individuals Who Sexually Offend: Applying Multidimensional Item Response Theory to the Static-2002R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) was used to study the construct validity of the Static-2002R, an actuarial scale for the assessment of reoffending among adult men who sexually offended. Using a sample of 2,569 individuals with a history of sexual crime, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) extracted three factors: Persistence/Paraphilia, General Criminality, and Youthful Stranger Aggression. MIRT confirmed the factor structure identified in the EFA model and provided item-level data on discrimination and difficulty. All Static-2002R items showed moderate to very high discrimination and covered a wide range of risk levels (i.e., difficulty). MIRT analyses attested to the construct validity of the scale, as no items were identified as problematic and the resulting factor structure was consistent with that of earlier studies. Considering the stability of results pertaining to the factor structure of the Static-2002R and the advantages of dimensional scoring, we recommend the integration of dimensional scores in the scale.
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 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".