Treatability evaluations for young offenders: an exploration of decision-making in context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop a model that describes clinicians' treatability decision-making for young offenders in the Ontario judicial system. A mixed methodological approach was used to quantitatively identify the variables clinicians consider when evaluating treatability and qualitatively explain why clinicians consider specific variables in their judgments. A series of complementary investigations were conducted. In Study 1, psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers were interviewed to determine the variables they consider in assessing treatability and what factors influence these judgments. Clinicians considered diagnostic, criminogenic, contextual, and attitudinal variables. Youth, clinician, and assessment context characteristics influenced judgments. In Study 2, the same clinicians ranked 17 variables in order of importance when evaluating treatability in young offenders. Inter-clinician differences were apparent in the ranking of variables and rankings were significantly influenced by clinical orientation. Clinicians who were strongly influenced by empirical research ranked Criminal History as more important while clinicians who primarily adhered to a clinical model ranked Mental Health History as more important. In Study 3, 348 assessment reports were examined to determine the variables considered in actual treatability decisions, whether judgments are influenced by profession, and whether judgments change over time. Clinicians weighed different variables when assessing treatability. For psychiatrists, a youth's presentation, presence of Antisocial Personality Disorder, denial of difficulties, and mental and criminal history predicted optimistic or pessimistic judgments while presentation and decade of an assessment predicted psychologists' judgments. Professional influences were also evident by the finding that psychologists offered optimistic judgments and treatment recommendations significantly more often than psychiatrists. The hypothesis that judgments would become pessimistic over time was not supported. The collective findings led to the development of a treatability decision model that characterized this judgment as considering different treatability criteria that, in turn, are based on factors associated with the youth, clinician, and assessment context. Findings suggest that there is no standard approach for assessing treatability and that judgments vary depending on who conducts the assessment. Areas of focus for standardization of treatability are delineated and suggestions for the content of a treatability scale, consistent with the judgment model, are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".