Protective Factors in Forensic Practice: The Added Value of the SAPROF-Extended Version Pilot in Relation to Aggressive Incidents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protective factors are now commonly included in comprehensive risk assessment. This study concerns an initial validation of the new SAPROF-Extended Version (SAPROF-EV) pilot, containing modifications and additions to the original SAPROF. For 139 forensic psychiatric inpatients, assessment results with the SAPROF-EV pilot and HCR-20 V3 were compared with aggressive incidents. Results show good predictive validity for the SAPROF-EV pilot for all outcomes and incremental predictive validity for both the (modified) original SAPROF and the full SAPROF-EV pilot over the HCR-20 V3 . For the outcome aggression toward others, the additional SAPROF-EV factors provide incremental predictive validity over the (modified) original SAPROF. In addition, the user feedback from clinicians highlights experienced additional value of the new factors for treatment guidance. Based on the findings from this study, the SAPROF-EV pilot will be adjusted further into an improved and enhanced version of the SAPROF.
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 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".