MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000381797

An Evaluation of Risk/Need Factors for Adult Women with Violent Offenses

2025· article· en· W7000381797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecidivismRisk assessmentSample (material)Forensic scienceReliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)PsychopathyPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examines the validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of forensic risk [Violence Risk Scale (VRS), Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Saskatchewan Primary Risk Assessment (SPRA), Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA)) and protective tools (Structured Assessment of Protective Factors(SAPROF)] as well as the importance of including gender informed variables (co-offending, suicidality, substance use) in risk assessment for adult justice involved women with histories of violence. The total sample consisted of 246 provincially sentenced women in Saskatchewan who had perpetrated a violent index offence in 2018 or 2019. Of the 246, 188 cases had enough information available within corrections files to be rated on the forensic tools and gender informed variables. Recidivism information was collected after file-based ratings were made and was available for the entire sample (N = 246) over a mean follow-up time of approximately five years. The forensic measures and their component/factors demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.81 – 0.98). Generally, there was also strong convergent validity amongst the forensic tools, with correlations in the large range. Predictive accuracy evidence was obtained for all five tools with respect to violent, non-violent, and general recidivism at fixed follow up times and for total recidivism. Area under the curve (AUC) values varied based on the tool and the type of recidivism, but generally fell in the moderate (AUC = 0.64 – 0.70) to large (AUC = 0.71 – 0.83) range for the total sample. Calibration analyses further supported the ability of the VRS and SPRA to differentiate between low, medium, and high-risk justice involved women (depending on recidivism type). Depending on recidivism and the tool it was compared against, the gender informed variables uniquely predicted recidivism suggesting the importance of considering these variables when examining risk for justice involved women. There were high rates of intimate partner and familial violence, and gang affiliation was significantly related to higher rates of recidivism. The present study provides vital evidence for the use of these forensic tools and gender informed variables to inform risk, needs, and responsivity variables in justice involved women. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207