Risk Factors Critique Raymond Knight PhD Reliability amp Validity No evidence for the reliability or the predictive validity of the proposed operationalizations of the purported risk factors or the overall risk judgment is provided ID: 436838
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Proposed SORB Regulations" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Proposed SORB Regulations
Risk Factors Critique
Raymond Knight, Ph.D.Slide2
Reliability & Validity
No evidence for the reliability or the predictive validity of the proposed operationalizations of the purported risk factors or the overall risk judgment is provided.
There is no
empirical guarantee
that the proposed factor definitions
actually capture the predictive
variance for the domain measured.Slide3
Qualitative vs. Quantitative
The revised instrument remains a qualitatively
judged assortment of vaguely defined purported risk factors. There is substantial evidence that even the best of such “Structured Clinical Guidelines” is inferior in predictive validity to
quantitative
“
Mechanical or Empirical Actuarials.”
(e.g., Hanson & Morton-
Bourgon
, 2009)Slide4
Strategies for Improvement
The refusal to quantify the individual factors precludes any investigation of the reliability of the factors or their individual contribution to predicting recidivism. Empirical strategies for improving the instrument have been rejected.Slide5
Problematic Risk Factors
The “Factors” continue to include numerous domains that either have no or extremely weak and inconsistent empirical support as recidivism predictors, for instance—
#
5 Committed;
#
6 Maximum Term of Incarceration;
#11 Victim impact; #16 Recent Treats.Slide6
Concrete Anchors Lacking
The Factors are defined vaguely and lack concrete anchors for presence of absence. When semi-clear anchors are suggested, so many allowances for clinical adjustment are added that the criteria will not be reliably applied.Slide7
Anchor Example
Factor 2: Repetitive and Compulsive
“engages
in two or more separate episodes of sexual
misconduct”
Multiple adjustments—
Intervening intervention
“Uncontrollable urges and desires”
“Ritualistic pattern”
“Episode” ambiguous
(?alleged, self-reported, arrested, charged, convicted?)
“Sexual misconduct” ambiguous
(?
paraphilic
, nuisance, serious sexual?)Slide8
Link of Factor to Support
There is no indication how the references that are provided support the validity of the factor for which they are cited. No consistent criteria are provided for what aspects of empirical studies were used to determine purported “support” for each factor.Slide9
Linkage Example
Factor 1: Mental Abnormality
Four review articles cited
These depend on same four “studies”
Root & Marks (1974) –
trt
of exhibitionists article.
Prentky
, Knight, & Lee (1997) – only child molesters
Epperson et al. (1995) – ATSA presentation; not subsequently included in
MnSOST
.
Miner (2002) unpublished data on 129
juveniles
None include diagnosis
with
“a
paraphilic
disorder” Slide10
Factor Covariation
No indication of factor covariation
is provided and simple constructs like frequency of offending permeate multiple factors.Slide11
Factor Proliferation
The proliferation of factors from 24 to 40 from the prior to the proposed factors increases the problem that different judges will focus on different factors in making their judgments, thereby increasing problems of reliability.Slide12
ConclusionSlide13
It is hard to justify that the proposed criteria could provide a “
preponderance of evidence” judgment; much less
“
clear and convincing evidence
”
of high recidivism risk.