The psychometric properties of the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT) in different subgroups of individuals convicted of offenses related to child sexual exploitation material (CSEM).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the increasing number of individuals convicted of offenses related to child sexual exploitation material (CSEM), empirical research on the psychometric properties of actuarial risk assessment instruments for this population is limited. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the German version of the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT) demonstrate predictive validity in an Austrian sample of individuals incarcerated for CSEM offenses? METHOD: Using an exploratory, retrospective, file-based research design, we calculated effect sizes for the total sample (N = 128; follow-up period: M = 8.5 years, SD = 3.68), a subsample with fixed 5-year follow-up periods (n = 104), and subgroups of individuals convicted of either CSEM offenses only or both CSEM and sexual contact offenses. The study was exploratory in nature, evaluating the discriminatory power of a German CPORT and a shortened version (CPORT-SV), with scoring rules adapted for correctional settings. RESULTS: The German CPORT validly classified CSEM recidivism in the total sample (Harrell's C = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.62, 0.82]), the subsample with fixed 5-year follow-up periods (n = 104, area under the curve [AUC] = .73, 95% CI [0.60, 0.86]), individuals with additional sexual contact offenses (n = 57, AUC = .82, 95% CI [0.69, 0.94]), and individuals convicted of CSEM offenses only (n = 47, AUC = .70, 95% CI [0.55, 0.86]). The CPORT-SV performed comparably with the CPORT full version. Furthermore, in a subsample of individuals with additional sexual contact offenses, the CPORT (AUC = .84, 95% CI [0.70, 0.97]) and the CPORT-SV (AUC = .82, 95% CI [0.67, 0.97]) yielded effect sizes that were comparable with those of the Static-99 (AUC = .81, 95% CI [0.64, 0.97]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the German version of the CPORT has potential as a risk assessment tool for professionals working in correctional settings, but further validation is needed before it can be fully implemented. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".