Reliability and Factor Structure of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment of risk of sexual recidivism has progressed from tools containing only static factors to tools including dynamic (i.e., changeable) risk factors. The psychometric properties and factor structure of one such scale, the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS) were explored. Seven hundred and thirty-one men assigned probation for sexual crimes in New York City and Maricopa County, Arizona were administered SOTIPS three times: intake into probation, six months later, and six months after that. SOTIPS showed good internal consistency (Time 1 ω = .87, Time 2 ω = .89, and Time 3 ω = .91), and acceptable inter-rater reliability (for the 26 cases rated in the same month, ICC =.821). An exploratory factor analysis did not result in the original factor structure proposed by the developers; instead, SOTIPS showed two factors: sexual risk and antisocial opposition. This factor structure required the averaging of two items to avoid collinearity. SOTIPS showed temporal invariance indicating that its factor structure and its association to underlying latent variables are consistent over time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".