Allegiance or fidelity? A clarifying reply.

Harris, Grant T.; Rice, Marnie E.; Quinsey, Vernon L.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01197.x

Cited by 24 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We note that other risk scales developed in Canada also do well in Canada (e.g., Harris et al, 2009;Olver et al, 2009;Yang et al, 2010). We believe this is in large part attributable to the fact that Canadian researchers bring integrity, first, to the administration of their own instruments (predictor variable) by maximizing measurement precision and, second, to the determination of offender recidivism (outcome variable) by consistently using a comprehensive, national database.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…As noted previously, enhanced quality of assessments of the criterion will allow the magnitude of predictive validity estimates to approach their asymptote no matter the instrument under investigation. Similarly, Harris et al (2009) demonstrated fidelity in their review of VRAG validity research in that the quality of the VRAG assessment and the criterion outcome measure accounted for the effect of author involvement.…”

Section: Two Considerations: Gender and Nationalitymentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sources of Variability in Estimates of Predictive Validity

Andrews

Bonta

Wormith

et al. 2011

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Level of Service (LS) is one of the most widely used general risk and need assessment tools in criminal justice agencies across North America. However, there is significant interstudy variability in the magnitude of the validity estimates. This study was conducted to examine possible sources of this variability. The predictive validity of LS risk and need increased with length of follow-up period and with investigator allegiance to LS. The combination of these two variables reveals consistent increases in mean predictive validity estimates from modest (in the .20s) through large (in the mid .30s) to very large (in the .40s) in samples of both male and female offenders. We hypothesized that the "allegiance effect" reflects the integrity of LS implementation and support provided by the agency for risk assessment. This is akin to the difference between "demonstration projects" and "practical" rehabilitation programming in the offender treatment research. Moreover, controls for Canadian versus non-Canadian evaluations reduced the effect of allegiance and length of follow-up to nonsignificant levels. Possible explanations for these findings include the degree of integrity in conducting risk and need assessments, the accuracy of recidivism as the criterion measure, and generalizability across international boundaries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Two Considerations: Gender and Nationalitymentioning

confidence: 95%

Sources of Variability in Estimates of Predictive Validity

Andrews

Bonta

Wormith

et al. 2011

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous work has proposed several possible explanations of such bias [7], [9], [45]. First, tool designers may conduct studies to maximize the predictive validity of their instruments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The meta-analytic evidence concerning the existence of an authorship effect in the risk assessment literature is limited and reports contrasting conclusions [7]–[9]. First, Blair and colleagues [7] explored an authorship effect using the literature on the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) [10], [11], the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) [10], [11], and the Static-99 [12], [13]–actuarial risk assessment tools designed for use with adult offenders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, Guy [9], as part of a Master's thesis supervised by designers of a set of well-known SCJ tools, investigated whether being the author of the English-language version or a non-English translation of a risk assessment tool was associated with higher rates of predictive validity. The review concluded that studies on which the author or translator of an actuarial tool was also a study author produced similar AUCs to studies conducted by independent investigations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authorship Bias in Violence Risk Assessment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various financial and non-financial conflicts of interests have been shown to influence the reporting of research findings, particularly in clinical medicine. In this study, we examine whether this extends to prognostic instruments designed to assess violence risk. Such instruments have increasingly become a routine part of clinical practice in mental health and criminal justice settings. The present meta-analysis investigated whether an authorship effect exists in the violence risk assessment literature by comparing predictive accuracy outcomes in studies where the individuals who designed these instruments were study authors with independent investigations. A systematic search from 1966 to 2011 was conducted using PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and US National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts to identify predictive validity studies for the nine most commonly used risk assessment tools. Tabular data from 83 studies comprising 104 samples was collected, information on two-thirds of which was received directly from study authors for the review. Random effects subgroup analysis and metaregression were used to explore evidence of an authorship effect. We found a substantial and statistically significant authorship effect. Overall, studies authored by tool designers reported predictive validity findings around two times higher those of investigations reported by independent authors (DOR = 6.22 [95% CI = 4.68–8.26] in designers' studies vs. DOR = 3.08 [95% CI = 2.45–3.88] in independent studies). As there was evidence of an authorship effect, we also examined disclosure rates. None of the 25 studies where tool designers or translators were also study authors published a conflict of interest statement to that effect, despite a number of journals requiring that potential conflicts be disclosed. The field of risk assessment would benefit from routine disclosure and registration of research studies. The extent to which similar conflict of interests exists in those developing risk assessment guidelines and providing expert testimony needs clarification.

show abstract

Actuarial Risk Assessment of Sexual Offenders

Rettenberger

Craig

2016

The Wiley Handbook on the Theories, Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offending

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development and promulgation of the actuarial risk assessment methodology are certainly one of the most important advances in forensic and criminological psychology in the last few decades. Actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs) represent highly structured risk assessment scales using combinations of empirically determined and thoroughly operationalized predictor variables. Two further core variables of ARAIs are that they use explicit methods of combining the risk factors, and that the total score is linked to an empirically derived probability figure. Based on Meehl's seminal work in 1954, it is today the most replicated result of psychological assessment research that ARAIs usually yield better predictive accuracy than alternative prognostic approaches. Furthermore, following the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model about the effectiveness of offender rehabilitation programmes proposed by Andrews and Bonta in 2006, ARAIs have to be regarded as an integral part of successful rehabilitation and treatment programmes. This chapter gives an overview of the internationally most important ARAIs for sexual offenders and the current state of research on ARAIs, and discusses the strengths, opportunities, and also potential problems in the application of ARAIs.

show abstract

Allegiance or fidelity? A clarifying reply.

Cited by 24 publications

References 68 publications

Sources of Variability in Estimates of Predictive Validity

Sources of Variability in Estimates of Predictive Validity

Authorship Bias in Violence Risk Assessment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Actuarial Risk Assessment of Sexual Offenders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About