Risk Assessment: What is Being Predicted by Actuarial Prediction Instruments?

111 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: a methodological primer. (2013, background): “Expert opinion is divided as to whether this has been a positive development (Douglas, Otto, Desmarais, & Borum, 2012; Kroner, 2007; Sjöstedt & Grann, 2002; Szmukler, 2012; Urbaniok, Rinne, Held, Rossegger, & Endrass, 2008).”
Delinquent Development in a Sample of High-Risk Youth (2009, background): “In doing so, these investigators underestimate the complexity of the dependent variable and ignore the fact that from a treatment perspective, other dimensions of recidivism, such as frequency, temporal distribution, and overall duration, are important evaluation criteria (Sjostedt and grann 2002).”
A Comparison of Logistic Regression, Classification and Regression Tree, and Neural Networks Models in Predicting Violent Re-Offending (2011, background): “There is still no consensus as to the proper interpretation of AUC estimates for predictive validity, although different interpretations have been suggested by different researchers (Rice and Harris 1995b; Sjöstedt and Grann 2002).”
LOW BASE RATES LIMIT EXPERT CERTAINTY WHEN CURRENT ACTUARIALS ARE USED TO IDENTIFY SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS An Application of Bayes's Theorem (2006, background): “Finding “C”, taken together with evidence that ATSRs are most accurate for very short follow-up periods (Sjostedt & Grann, 2002), suggests that this assumption is probably wrong.”