A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instruments

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 1367-1381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig S. Schwalbe
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Female Offenders ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Case Processing ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Gender Biases ◽  
Meta Analyses

Juvenile justice systems have widely adopted risk assessment instruments to support judicial and administrative decisions about sanctioning severity and restrictiveness of care. A little explored property of these instruments is the extent to which their predictive validity generalizes across gender. The article reports on a meta-analysis of risk assessment predictive validity with male and female offenders. Nineteen studies encompassing 20 unique samples met inclusion criteria. Findings indicated that predictive validity estimates are equivalent for male and female offenders and are consistent with results of other meta-analyses in the field. The findings also indicate that when gender differences are observed in individual studies, they provide evidence for gender biases in juvenile justice decision-making and case processing rather than for the ineffectiveness of risk assessment with female offenders.

Predictive Validity of the Joint Risk Matrix With Juvenile Offenders

2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 348-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig S. Schwalbe ◽  
Mark W. Fraser ◽  
Steven H. Day
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Risk Matrix ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Actuarial Risk ◽  
Gender Based

Actuarial risk assessment instruments promise to increase decision-making accuracy and equity in settings such as the juvenile justice system, but both aims presume high levels of predictive validity. Prior research suggests that the predictive validity of some juvenile justice risk assessment instruments differs across gender and race/ethnicity. The Joint Risk Matrix (JRM) described herein is an instrument developed to increase the predictive validity of risk assessment for the diverse populations served by the nation’s juvenile courts. The predictive validity of the JRM was estimated on a sample of 536 court-involved juveniles. The instrument demonstrated acceptable levels of validity across all juveniles (AUC = .710). Gender-based differences were explained by gendered patterns of referral to out-of-home placements. Differences by race/ethnicity were reduced compared with previous reports. The findings suggest that risk assessment can be improved by including measures related to the behavior and demeanor of offenders and the cooperation of their parents or caretakers.

The predictive properties of dynamic sex offender risk assessment instruments: A meta-analysis.

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Willem van den Berg ◽  
Wineke Smid ◽  
Klaartje Schepers ◽  
Edwin Wever ◽  
Daan van Beek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Sex Offender Risk Assessment

Risk assessment and prediction of violent and sexual recidivism in sex offenders: Long-term predictive validity of four risk assessment instruments

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelis Stadtland ◽  
Matthias Hollweg ◽  
Nikolaus Kleindienst ◽  
Julia Dietl ◽  
Ursula Reich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Sexual Recidivism

scholarly journals Empathy: Assessment Instruments and Psychometric Quality – A Systematic Literature Review With a Meta-Analysis of the Past Ten Years

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Fernandes de Lima ◽  
Flávia de Lima Osório
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Internal Consistency Reliability ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Reactivity Index ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
New Instruments

Objective: To verify the psychometric qualities and adequacy of the instruments available in the literature from 2009 to 2019 to assess empathy in the general population.Methods: The following databases were searched: PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scielo, and LILACS using the keywords “empathy” AND “valid∗” OR “reliability” OR “psychometr∗.” A qualitative synthesis was performed with the findings, and meta-analytic measures were used for reliability and convergent validity.Results: Fifty studies were assessed, which comprised 23 assessment instruments. Of these, 13 proposed new instruments, 18 investigated the psychometric properties of instruments previously developed, and 19 reported cross-cultural adaptations. The Empathy Quotient, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy were the instruments most frequently addressed. They presented good meta-analytic indicators of internal consistency [reliability, generalization meta-analyses (Cronbach’s alpha): 0.61 to 0.86], but weak evidence of validity [weak structural validity; low to moderate convergent validity (0.27 to 0.45)]. Few studies analyzed standardization, prediction, or responsiveness for the new and old instruments. The new instruments proposed few innovations, and their psychometric properties did not improve. In general, cross-cultural studies reported adequate adaptation processes and equivalent psychometric indicators, though there was a lack of studies addressing cultural invariance.Conclusion: Despite the diversity of instruments assessing empathy and the many associated psychometric studies, there remain limitations, especially in terms of validity. Thus far, we cannot yet nominate a gold-standard instrument.

The Effect of Sample Heterogeneity and Risk Categorization on Area Under the Curve Predictive Validity Metrics

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip D. Howard
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Sentence Type ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
High Variability ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Sample Composition ◽  
Sample Heterogeneity ◽  
Risk Categorization

Forensic researchers often assume that the widely used area under the curve (AUC) predictive validity statistic can be readily compared across risk assessment instruments and between studies. From risk distributions for 224,771 convicted English and Welsh offenders, I quantify the extent to which the AUCs of two continuously scored actuarial instruments are dependent upon sample heterogeneity and risk categorization. Sample composition can cause predictive validity to vary by 10% to 20% over chance between subpopulations, with higher AUCs for female subgroups whose scores have high variability, and lower AUCs when sampling is restricted by index offense and/or sentence type. Risk categorization has a potentially large effect on AUCs, which fall when few categories are used, especially when those categories contain unequal numbers of offenders. An improved understanding of how these factors can affect AUCs will inform professionals using risk assessment instruments and researchers comparing the validity of multiple instruments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document