Calculating Probability in Sex Offender Risk Assessment

Elwood, Richard W.

doi:10.1177/0306624x16677784

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most DHS evaluators use the Static-99R, but their independence means each evaluator can use it in different ways to predict risk. They can choose risk groups from either the 2009 or 2015 samples and can predict risk by either logistic regression (Elwood et al, 2017; Phenix et al, 2015) or Bayesian posterior probabilities (Elwood, 2018). Some DHS evaluators augment the Static-99R with other scales, such as the VRS-SO (Violence Risk Scale–Sexual Offender Version; Olver, Beggs-Christofferson, Grace, & Wong, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement Between Courts and SVP Evaluators in the State of Wisconsin

Elwood¹

2019

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study compares agreement between Department of Health Services (DHS) evaluator’s opinions and court decisions in all 132 sexually violent person (SVP) trials in Wisconsin from 2012 through 2016. Previous research on mock jurors in simulated SVP cases may not extend to real-world SVP legal proceedings. This is the first study to directly compare evaluator opinions with court decisions in actual SVP commitment cases. Trial courts found 81% of participants to be an SVP (SVP+). Courts agreed with the DHS evaluator’s opinion in 67% of the cases, which represents slight to fair agreement beyond chance. Trial courts agreed with evaluators’ SVP+ opinions far more than they did with evaluators’ SVP– (not SVP) opinions. The rates of SVP+ opinions differed widely among DHS evaluators. The implications for public policy and forensic practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement Between Courts and SVP Evaluators in the State of Wisconsin

Elwood¹

2019

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this study, p (EA|IPV, CA) = ( p (EA∩IPV∩CA))/( p (IPV∩CA)), where p (EA|IPV, CA) is the conditioned probability of experiencing EA given a history of IPV and/or CA. Monte Carlo simulation was calculated, and the credible interval (CI) for each conditional probability [ 27 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The revictimization of older Mexican women: understanding the accumulation of multiple victimizations throughout a lifetime

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The victimization of women constitutes a human rights violation and a health risk factor. The central objectives of this study were to analyze the probability of revictimization among older adult Mexican women and to examine whether child abuse (CA) and/or intimate partner violence (IPV) are associated with a greater risk of elder abuse (EA) victimization. Methods We conducted a secondary data analysis of 18416 women 60 and older, based on data from the National Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relationships (2016), which is national and subnational representative. A descriptive analysis was carried out using retrospective self-reports of victimization experiences (CA, IPV, and EA). The prevalence of victimization and multiple victimizations in the various stages of the lives of women, as well as of revictimization among older adult women were obtained. Bayesian logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between victimization, multiple victimization, and EA victimization. Results A total of 17.3% of the older adult women reported EA in the last year; of these, 81.0% had been revictimized and 14.0% reported CA, IPV, and EA. The risk of EA rose among women who reported a combination of psychological and sexual CA, and psychological, physical and sexual CA and psychological and sexual IPV, and a psychological, economic, physical and sexual IPV. EA was higher among women who had suffered more than one type of violence. Conclusion CA and IPV, particularly sexual abuse and psychological violence, can be risk factors for EA. Screening tools used to prevent and detect EA should include questions about domestic violence over the course of a person’s lifetime.

show abstract

“…Margin of error is critical in sex offender risk assessment, particularly when forensic decisions are based on an absolute risk threshold (Elwood, 2016b). Like any sample statistic, an OR has a margin of error.…”

Section: Extrapolating Actuarial Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, risk assessment is inherently nomothetic, not idiographic. When evaluators incorporate an external risk factor, they make an empirical judgment about a reference class, rather than a clinical judgment about an individual (Elwood, 2016b; Imrey & Dawid, 2015). Kahneman and Tversky (1973) found that people rightly consider the group base rate when it is the only information they have but typically ignore the base rate when given more information, even when the additional information is irrelevant.…”

Section: Clinical Overrides Of Actuarial Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Updating Probability in Sex Offender Risk Assessment

Elwood¹

2017

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actuarial scales like the Static-99R are widely used to predict an individual's risk of sexual recidivism. However, current actuarial scales only provide rates of detected sex offenses over 10-year follow-up and do not account for all recidivism risk factors. Therefore, some forensic evaluators extrapolate, adjust, or override recidivism rates derived from actuarial scales to predict the lifetime risk of committed offenses that accounts for external risk factors, those not addressed by the actuarial scales. However, critics contend that altering rates from actuarial scales degrades their predictive validity. This article makes the case for extrapolating risk for time of exposure and for evidence-based external risk factors. It proposes using odds ratios (ORs) from case-control studies to adjust predictions from follow-up cohort studies. Finally, it shows how evaluators can apply ORs and their margins of error to sex offender risk assessment.

show abstract

Calculating Probability in Sex Offender Risk Assessment

Cited by 5 publications

References 52 publications

Agreement Between Courts and SVP Evaluators in the State of Wisconsin

Agreement Between Courts and SVP Evaluators in the State of Wisconsin

The revictimization of older Mexican women: understanding the accumulation of multiple victimizations throughout a lifetime

Updating Probability in Sex Offender Risk Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About