A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants.
By Jay P. Singh, M. Grann, S. Fazel. Clinical Psychology Review, 2011
602 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3f9643f65f44bee47ed6424e9457326f0e0a168b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Clinical Psychology
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- The predictive validity of risk assessment tools for female offenders: A systematic review (2015, positive): “This is unlike previous reviews in the area (Singh et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2009).”
- False Positives, False Negatives, and False Analyses: A Rejoinder to "Machine Bias: There's Software Used across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. and It's Biased against Blacks" (2016, neutral): “Singh et al. (2011) recommend first binning the low cases as the “low-risk group” and comparing them to the moderate and high-risk offenders binned together as the “high-risk group.”
- Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: a methodological primer. (2013, methodology): “While strategies have been developed to combine actuarial risk bins and SPJ risk judgments to use these performance indicators (Singh, Grann, & Fazel, 2011), what would arguably be more useful is a set of cut-off independent calibration indicators that measure high and low risk performance…”