The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.
Abstract
In order to facilitate comparisons across follow-up studies that have used different measures of effect size, we provide a table of effect size equivalencies for the three most common measures: ROC area (AUC), Cohen's d, and r. We outline why AUC is the preferred measure of predictive or diagnostic accuracy in forensic psychology or psychiatry, and we urge researchers and practitioners to use numbers rather than verbal labels to characterize effect sizes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The magnitude of the effects of these risk domains ranged from small (i.e., r= 0.099 for “low IQ/learning difficulties”) to large (i.e., r= 0.553 for “having a negative school attitude”) based on the criteria of Rice and Harris (2005) for interpreting effect sizes.”
From Risk Factors for School Absenteeism and Dropout: A Meta-Analytic Review (2019) · cites this paper as Rice and Harris (2005)
In the citing paper
“The AUC of 0.62 is also a moderate effect size [14], but is less than that for deadly violence (but this difference was not statistically significant).”
From The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) Risk Assessment Instrument in Predicting Deadly or Persistent Domestic Abuse (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“The AUC of 0.67 for deadly violence is regarded as a “moderate” effect size [14].”
From The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) Risk Assessment Instrument in Predicting Deadly or Persistent Domestic Abuse (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“AUC values of 0.56, 0.64, and 0.71 indicate small, medium, and large effects (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
From Strategies for monitoring mentoring relationship quality to predict early program dropout (2022) · cites this paper as Rice & Harris, 2005
Citations
Cites
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients.
Hemphill, J. F. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.78 · Cited by 1,237
A common language effect size statistic
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.361 · Cited by 934 · cited 1×
“AUC also has a plain language interpretation because it is conceptually and mathematically similar to the common language effect size or CL ( McGraw & Wong, 1992; see also Delaney & Vargha, 2002).”
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Berlin, F. S., Galbreath, N. W., Geary, B., & McGlone, G. (2003). The use of actuarials at civil commitment hearings to predict the likelihood of future sexual violence. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 377–382. · DOI
- Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 155–159. · DOI · Paper page
- Delaney, H. D., & Vargha, A. (2002). Comparing several robust tests of stochastic equality with ordinally scaled variables and small to moderate sized samples. Psychological Methods, 7, 485–503. · DOI
- Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2003). Actuarial assessment of risk among sex offenders. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Understanding and managing sexually coercive behavior, Vol. 989 (pp. 198–210). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. · DOI
- Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 783–792. · DOI
- Pearson, E. S., & Hartley, H. O. (Eds.). (1954). Biometrika tables for statisticians, Vol. 1 (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737–748. · DOI
- Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology? American Psychologist, 45, 775–777. · DOI
- Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169. · DOI
- Swets, J. A. (1986). Indices of discrimination or diagnostic accuracy: Their ROCs and implied models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 100–117. · DOI
- Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 1, 1–26. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 1,001
Secondary Psychometric Examination of the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale
Thibodeau, M., Leonard, R. C., Abramowitz, J., & Riemann, B. (2015) · Assessment (Odessa, Fla.) · doi:10.1177/1073191114559123 · Cited by 27
“DOCS total scores exhibited a large (Rice & Harris, 2005) area under the curve of .85 (SE = 0.01).”
InfluentialWhat does it mean when age is related to recidivism among sex offenders?
Rice, M., & Harris, G. (2014) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000052 · Cited by 27
Self-citationResearch and Clinical Scoring of the Psychopathy Checklist can show good Agreement
Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. A. (2013) · doi:10.1177/0093854813492959 · Cited by 27
“1037/h0093988 Serin, R. C. (1993). Diagnosis of psychopathology with and without an interview. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 367-372. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199305) Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence an…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationWhen Forensic Examiners Disagree: Bias, or Just Inaccuracy?
Mossman, D. (2012) · Psychology Public Policy and Law · doi:10.1037/a0029242 · Cited by 30
Predictive Accuracy of Dynamic Risk Factors for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Sex Offenders
Helmus, L. M., Babchishin, K. M., & Blais, J. (2011) · International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · doi:10.1177/0306624x11414693 · Cited by 32
“As a rough heuristic, an AUC of .56 corresponds to a small effect size, whereas .64 reflects a moderate effect and .71 reflects a large effect size, as these values correspond to Cohen’s ds of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, when certain assumptions are satisfied (see Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialvan der Put, C. E., van der Laan, P. H., Stams, G., Deković, M., & Hoeve, M. (2011) · International Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · doi:10.18357/ijcyfs21/220115430 · Cited by 27
“The predictive validity indicates how effectively a risk-assessment instrument predicts recidivism, and the “area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve” (AUC) is regarded as the most important indicator for this (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
Criminogenic risk assessment: A meta-review and critical analysis
Prins, S. J., & Reich, A. (2021) · Punishment & Society · doi:10.1177/14624745211025751 · Cited by 26
“Cohen’s heuristic for small, medium, and large effects is 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively (Rice and Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSmartphone accelerometry to assess postural control in individuals with multiple sclerosis.
Hsieh, K. L., & Sosnoff, J. (2020) · Gait & Posture · doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.11.011 · Cited by 26
Connor, M., Armbruster, M., Hurley, K., Lee, E., Chen, B., & Doering, L. (2020) · Journal of Emergency Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.jen.2019.12.006 · Cited by 26
Evidence-Based Assessment of ADHD in Youth Using a Receiver Operating Characteristic Approach
Jarrett, M. A., Meter, A. V., Youngstrom, E. A., Hilton, D. C., & Ollendick, T. H. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1225502 · Cited by 31
Convergent Validity of Three Measures of Sexual Sadism: Value of a Dimensional Measure
Longpré, N., Proulx, J., & Brouillette-Alarie, S. (2018) · Sexual abuse. A Journal of Research and Treatment · doi:10.1177/1079063216649592 · Cited by 26
“As pointed out by Rice and Harris (2005), point-biserial correlation coefficients (rpb) tend to be smaller than product–moment correlation coefficients (r).”
BackgroundDoherty, C., Bleakley, C., Hertel, J., Caulfield, B., Ryan, J., & Delahunt, E. (2017) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.11.008 · Cited by 26
McPhail, I. V., Hermann, C. A., & Fernandez, Y. M. (2013) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.002 · Cited by 29
Hill, A., Rettenberger, M., Habermann, N., Berner, W., Eher, R., & Briken, P. (2012) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260512447570 · Cited by 26
“Referring to Cohen (1992), Rice and Harris (2005) formulated the following criteria for classification of the predictive accuracy of risk assessment tools: AUC values of .71 or above are classified as good and values between .64 and .70 are classified as moderate.”
MethodRettenberger, M., Matthes, A., Schilling, F., & Eher, R. (2011) · Forensische Psychiatrie Psychologie Kriminologie · doi:10.1007/s11757-010-0086-z · Cited by 26
The assessment of imminent inpatient aggression: a validation study of the DASA-IV in Scotland
Vojt, G., Marshall, L. A., & Thomson, L. (2010) · Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology · doi:10.1080/14789949.2010.489952 · Cited by 26
The Imperfection of Protection Through Detection and Intervention
Mossman, D. (2009) · The Journal of legal medicine · doi:10.1080/01947640802694635 · Cited by 26
Zhang, Y., & Chen, J. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20064746 · Cited by 33
Chiu, S.-I., Fan, L., Lin, C., Chen, T., Lim, W. S., Jang, J. R., & Chiu, M. (2022) · ACS Chemical Neuroscience · doi:10.1021/acschemneuro.2c00255 · Cited by 27
The Static-99R Is Not Valid For Women: Predictive Validity in 739 Females Who Have Sexually Offended
Marshall, E. A., Miller, H. A., Cortoni, F., & Helmus, L. M. (2020) · Sexual abuse. A Journal of Research and Treatment · doi:10.1177/1079063220940303 · Cited by 25
“Following Rice and Harris’ (2005) conventions for AUCs, Harrell’s C values of .56, .64, and .71 were considered small, moderate, and large effect sizes, as they are similar to Cohen’s d values of .20, .50, and .80, respectively.”
MethodDifferences in Risk Factors for Violent, Nonviolent, and Sexual Offending
van der Put, C. E., Assink, M., & Gubbels, J. (2020) · Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/24732850.2020.1735248 · Cited by 25
Thornton, D., Hanson, R. K., Kelley, S. M., & Mundt, J. (2019) · Sexual abuse. A Journal of Research and Treatment · doi:10.1177/1079063219871573 · Cited by 25
Here to stay or go? Connecting turnover research to applied attrition modeling
Speer, A. B., Dutta, S., Chen, M., & Trussell, G. (2019) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2019.22 · Cited by 25
“Rice and Harris (2005) also provide a table comparing r, d, and AUC values.”
BackgroundExploratory study of sport-related concussion effects on peripheral micro-RNA expression
Svingos, A., Asken, B., Bauer, R., Dekosky, S., Hromas, G. A., Jaffee, M. S., Hayes, R., & Clugston, J. (2019) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699052.2019.1573379 · Cited by 25
“The following cut-offs are used in this study based on previously published relationships between AUC values and traditional conventions for Cohen’s d effect sizes (31): 0.”
MethodRevalidation of the Federal PTRA: Testing the PTRA for Predictive Biases
Cohen, T. H., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2018) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854818810315 · Cited by 27
Mcewan, T., Shea, D., & Ogloff, J. (2018) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854818806031 · Cited by 25
Olver, M., Neumann, C., Sewall, L. A., Lewis, K., Hare, R., & Wong, S. C. P. (2018) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000533 · Cited by 25
“AUC values of .56, .64, and .71 can be interpreted as small/low, medium/moderate, and large/high effects, respectively (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
von der Embse, N. P., Kilgus, S. P., Iaccarino, S., & Levi-Nielsen, S. (2017) · School Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s12310-017-9214-7 · Cited by 25
Howard, P. (2017) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854816678899 · Cited by 25
“…popularity due to its ease of interpretation and a perception that it is insensitive to changes in the base rate of recidivism—it has therefore been recommended as, “the preferred measure of predictive or diagnostic accuracy in forensic psychology and psychiatry” (Rice & Harris, 2005, p. 618).”
BackgroundRevisiting the “Christmas Holiday Effect” in the Southern Hemisphere
Knight, J., Schilling, C., Barnett, A., Jackson, R., & Clarke, P. (2016) · Journal of the American Heart Association : Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease · doi:10.1161/jaha.116.005098 · Cited by 25
“Cohen’s d is a measure of the size of the difference between 2 values for continuous data.(8) It is often used in cases for which a very large sample size means that a t test will typically result in a statistically significant P value; however, this P value provides no information about the practical significance of…”
BackgroundReplicating the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide: A Total Forensic Cohort Study
Rossegger, A., Endrass, J., Gerth, J., & Singh, J. P. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091845 · Cited by 25
“Although there is considerable variability in what constitutes a small, moderate, and large value for AUC [39], there is general agreement that this effect size represents good discrimination [40].”
BackgroundRelationships among Race, Education, Criminal Thinking, and Recidivism
Walters, G. (2014) · Assessment (Odessa, Fla.) · doi:10.1177/1073191112436665 · Cited by 25
“Rice and Harris (2005) have determined that an AUC of .556 is comparable to a small effect size, an AUC of .639 is comparable to a moderate effect size, and an AUC of .714 is comparable to a large effect size.”
Folkes, S., Hilton, N., & Harris, G. T. (2013) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260512468232 · Cited by 25
“The ODARA’s prediction accuracy in construction was large by common standards (Hilton et al., 2004; Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationNumber Processing and Calculation in Brazilian Children Aged 7-12 Years
dos Santos, F. D., da Silva, P. A., Ribeiro, F. S., Dias, A. L. R. P., Frigério, M. C., Dellatolas, G., & von Aster, M. (2012) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5209/rev_sjop.2012.v15.n2.38862 · Cited by 25
“To assess the effect size of group and gender effect was used Cohen’s d calculated NUMERICAL COGNITION IN BRAZILIAN CHILDREN 519 through the free software (Devilly, 2005); small, median, and large effects are respectively correspondent to effect sizes of .20, .50, and .80 (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
MethodCohen, J., Richter, V., Neumann, M., Black, D. P., Haq, A., Wright-Berryman, J. L., & Ramanarayanan, V. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1135469 · Cited by 25
Automated detection and analysis of subdural hematomas using a machine learning algorithm.
Colasurdo, M., Leibushor, N., Robledo, A., Vasandani, V., Luna, Z. A. E., Rao, A. S., Garcia, R., Srinivasan, V., Sheth, S. A., Avni, N., et al. (2022) · Journal of Neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/2022.8.jns22888 · Cited by 24
Santamaría, A. L., Masot, O., Vélez, O. C., Botigué, T., Sánchez, T. C., & Roca, J. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19127053 · Cited by 24
How heated is it? Understanding GitHub locked issues
Ferreira, I., Adams, B., & Cheng, J. (2022) · IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories · doi:10.1145/3524842.3527957 · Cited by 24
“Then, we computed the effect size between the means of the two groups for each dependent variable using Cohen’s d [20].”
MethodInforming Developmental Milestone Achievement for Children With Autism: Machine Learning Approach
Haque, M. M., Rabbani, M., Dipal, D. D., Zarif, M., Iqbal, A., Schwichtenberg, A., Bansal, N., Soron, T., Ahmed, S. I., & Ahamed, S. (2021) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/29242 · Cited by 24
Empirical attrition modelling and discrimination: Balancing validity and group differences
Speer, A. B. (2021) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12355 · Cited by 28
Fernandes‐Jesus, M., Lima, M. L., & Cameselle, J. M. S. (2020) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.v8i1.1116 · Cited by 39
“…to identity which variables differentiate the two groups the most, we calculated the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, considering areas under the ROC curve (AUC) an indicator of effect size (Rice & Harris, 2005), and values of .70 to .80 to be acceptable (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000).”
MethodViljoen, J. L., Bhanwer, A. K., Shaffer, C. S., & Douglas, K. (2020) · Assessment (Odessa, Fla.) · doi:10.1177/1073191118768435 · Cited by 24
Coon, C. A. C., Mahoney, P. J., Edelblutte, É., McDonald, Z., & Stoner, D. C. (2020) · Wildlife Biology · doi:10.2981/wlb.00540 · Cited by 30
“2002, Rice and Harris 2005) using the roc function in the ‘pROC’ R package (Robin et al.”
MethodLee, S. C., Hanson, R. K., & Blais, J. (2020) · Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · doi:10.1037/cap0000182 · Cited by 24
McLachlan, K., Gray, A. L., Roesch, R., Douglas, K., & Viljoen, J. L. (2018) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000612 · Cited by 24
Speth, M., Gaudin, R., Hoehle, L., Phillips, K., Caradonna, D., Gray, S., & Sedaghat, A. (2018) · Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery · doi:10.1177/0194599818774741 · Cited by 24
Strengths-Based Assessments for Use with Forensic Populations: A Critical Review
Wanamaker, K. A., Jones, N. J., & Brown, S. L. (2018) · International Journal of Forensic Mental Health · doi:10.1080/14999013.2018.1451414 · Cited by 41
Cohen, J. R., So, F. K., Hankin, B. L., & Young, J. F. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2017.1416617 · Cited by 21
“In the present study, an AUC greater than 0.56 conferred a significant, albeit small effect (Rice & Harris, 2005), whereas an AUC of 0.70 (Swets, 1988) was prioritized.”
BackgroundInfluentialEvaluating the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment in an Australian Frontline Police Setting
Lauria, I., Mcewan, T., Luebbers, S., Simmons, M., & Ogloff, J. (2017) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854817738280 · Cited by 24
Campbell, C. M. (2016) · doi:10.1177/0887403414553098 · Cited by 24
“Due to the fact that there are many difficulties in comparing scale predictive validity across follow-up studies, also reported in these findings are standardized AUC scores and point-biserial correlation coefficients as discussed by Rice and Harris (2005).”
Backgroundvan den Brink, R. V. D., Troquete, N., Beintema, H., Mulder, T., van Os, T., Schoevers, R., & Wiersma, D. (2015) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0500-3 · Cited by 24
O'Shea, L., & Dickens, G. (2015) · doi:10.1080/14999013.2015.1033112 · Cited by 24
“Rice and Harris (2005) report that AUC values of .556, .638 and .714 respectively are equivalent to small (.2), moderate (.5) and large (.8) Cohen’s d values (Cohen, 1992), which are one of the most commonly reported measures of effect size (Kraemer & Kupfer, 2006; Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundProtective Factors and Recidivism in Accused Juveniles Who Sexually Offended
Klein, V., Rettenberger, M., Yoon, D., Köhler, N., & Briken, P. (2015) · Sexual abuse. A Journal of Research and Treatment · doi:10.1177/1079063214554958 · Cited by 24
“The guidelines proposed by Rice and Harris (2005) were used to interpret the predictive accuracy values (AUC ≤ .63 = small, AUC between .64 and .71 = moderate, and AUC ≥ .72 = large effect size).”
MethodResultStockdale, K. C., Olver, M., & Wong, S. C. P. (2014) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854813496999 · Cited by 24
Acute glucocorticoid effects on the multicomponent model of working memory
Vaz, L. J., Pradella‐Hallinan, M., Bueno, O. F. A., & Pompéia, S. (2011) · Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experimental · doi:10.1002/hup.1230 · Cited by 25
The health impacts of energy performance investments in low-income areas: a mixed-methods approach
Poortinga, W., Rodgers, S., Lyons, R., Anderson, P., Tweed, C., Grey, C., Jiang, S.-Y., Johnson, R., Watkins, A., & Winfield, T. G. (2018) · Public Health Research · doi:10.3310/phr06050 · Cited by 24
McCuish, E., Mathesius, J., Lussier, P., & Corrado, R. R. (2017) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000468 · Cited by 29
“T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. AUC) values were in the moderate to high range (see Rice & Harris, 2005).”
FatigueSense: Multi-Device and Multimodal Wearable Sensing for Detecting Mental Fatigue
Kodikara, C., Wijekoon, S., & Meegahapola, L. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · doi:10.1145/3709363 · Cited by 24
“Therefore, we also report Cohen’s d (effect size) [104] (all of the features were found to have a 95% confidence interval that did not include zero [63]) for high fatigue and low fatigue classes for both psychological and physiological mental fatigue.”
Stay in dairy? Exploring the relationship between farmer wellbeing and farm exit intentions
Hansen, B. G. (2022) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.04.004 · Cited by 26
Ayan, S., Buğday, E., Varol, T., Özel, H., & Thurm, E. (2022) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-022-03940-w · Cited by 23
“In the literature, the fact that the AUC value is 0.65–0.75 indicates a medium-scale model success, while values over 0.75 indicate an acceptable model success, and 0.95 and above indicate that the model success is excellent (Hanley and McNeil 1982; Rice and Harris 2005; Tharwat 2018).”
ResultInfluentialWallace, M., Coleman, T., Mentch, L., Buysse, D. J., Graves, J., Hagen, E., Hall, M., Stone, K., Redline, S., & Peppard, P. (2021) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.13386 · Cited by 23
“For example, the changes in AUC between a small to medium effect size and a medium to large effect size are ~0.08 (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialAlone or With Others? Understanding Eating Episodes of College Students with Mobile Sensing
Meegahapola, L., Ruiz-Correa, S., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2020) · International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia · doi:10.1145/3428361.3428463 · Cited by 23
Pratt, A. S., Peña, E. D., & Bedore, L. M. (2020) · Bilingualism: Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728920000498 · Cited by 23
Pratt, A. S., Adams, A. M., Peña, E. D., & Bedore, L. M. (2020) · Topics in Early Childhood Special Education · doi:10.1177/0271121420942308 · Cited by 23
“AUC values between .70 and .80 are considered to have acceptable classification accuracy, values between .80 and .90 are considered excellent, and values above .90 are considered outstanding (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundFalligant, J., & Hagopian, L. (2020) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1002/jaba.739 · Cited by 23
“Accordingly, larger AUC values reflect better predictive accuracy, with values of 0.7 or greater representing acceptable discrimination between responders and nonresponders and values of 0.8 and greater considered excellent (see Hagopian et al., 2018; Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialZuñiga, J., Harrison, M., Henneghan, A. M., García, A. A., & Kesler, S. (2019) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2019.151224 · Cited by 23
Hamilton, Z. K., Kowalski, M. A., Kigerl, A. C., & Routh, D. (2019) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854819857108 · Cited by 24
Prior Record and Recidivism Risk
Hester, R. (2018) · American Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1007/s12103-018-9460-8 · Cited by 23
ACEF score adapted to ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients: The ACEF-STEMI score.
Reindl, M., Reinstadler, S., Tiller, C., Kofler, M., Theurl, M., Klier, N., Fleischmann, K., Mayr, A., Henninger, B., Klug, G., et al. (2018) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.017 · Cited by 23
Abbiati, M., Palix, J., Gasser, J., & Moulin, V. (2018) · Behavioral sciences & the law · doi:10.1002/bsl.2364 · Cited by 23
Cyr, S. A. S., Abuaish, S., Spinieli, R. L., & McGowan, P. (2018) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00136 · Cited by 23
Walters, G., & Espelage, D. L. (2018) · International Journal of Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.05.006 · Cited by 23
Cook, A., Moulden, H. M., Mamak, M., Lalani, S., Messina, K., & Chaimowitz, G. (2018) · Assessment (Odessa, Fla.) · doi:10.1177/1073191116653828 · Cited by 23
“When interpreting predictive accuracy, Rice and Harris (2005) recommend using AUC in forensic psychology or psychiatry over other methods (e.g., regression), in part for ease of communication and comparison of results, but also to provide clear metrics of accuracy.”
MethodResultInfluentialKashiwagi, H., Kikuchi, A., Koyama, M., Saito, D., & Hirabayashi, N. (2018) · Annals of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12991-018-0175-5 · Cited by 23
Marshall, E. A., Miller, H. A., & Bouffard, J. A. (2017) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260517743549 · Cited by 23
Ludwig, C., & Busnel, C. (2017) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0604-3 · Cited by 23
Lee, S. C., & Hanson, R. K. (2017) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854817711477 · Cited by 35
“According to Rice and Harris (2005), AUCs of .56 would be considered small, .64 would be moderate, and .71 would be large.”
BackgroundField validity of the HCR-20 in forensic medium security units in Flanders
Jeandarme, I., Pouls, C., Laender, J. D., Oei, T., & Bogaerts, S. (2017) · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2016.1258467 · Cited by 23
“AUC values of .56 or above represent a small effects, .64 or above a moderate effect and .71 or above a large effect (Rice & Harris, 2005), although other authors promote more conservative interpretations with AUC below .60 indicating low accuracy, between .60 and .70 marginal accuracy, between .70…”
ResultA More Consistent Application of the RNR Model
Hamilton, Z. K., Campagna, M. F., Tollefsbol, E., van Wormer, J. G., & Barnoski, R. (2017) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854816678032 · Cited by 23
“Underlined figures indicate domains possessing moderate effect sizes (AUC > 0.63; see Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDevelopment and Validation of a Disease-Specific Questionnaire for Basal Joint Arthritis
Noback, P., Lombardi, J. M., Seetharaman, M., Lee, D. H., Strauch, R., & Rosenwasser, M. (2016) · Journal of wrist surgery · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1593612 · Cited by 23
O'Shea, L., & Dickens, G. (2016) · Clinical Psychology Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/cpsp.12146 · Cited by 23
“AUC values were converted to Cohen’s d values according to the tables provided by Rice and Harris (2005); Cohen’s d values are a commonly used measure of effect size well suited to random effects models (Yang, et al., 2010).”
Edens, J., & Ruiz, M. (2009) · International Journal of Forensic Mental Health · doi:10.1080/14999010903358771 · Cited by 23
“These AUC values 1The VPI incorporates results from both ANT and AGG subscales in computing this index, thus resulting in nonindependent variables. are in a range that would be identified as “medium” based on Cohen’s rough guidelines (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
The Misuse of AUC: What High Impact Risk Assessment Gets Wrong
Kwegyir-Aggrey, K., Gerchick, M., Mohan, M., Horowitz, A., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2023) · Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594100 · Cited by 22
“The report characterizes an AUC of .70 or higher as indicative of “a strong model fit,” referencing Rice and Harris [2005], using AUC to validate model performance at the population level, and also as a benchmark to validate performance across different racial groups.”
MethodLong Term Recidivism Rates Among Individuals at High Risk to Sexually Reoffend
Hanson, R. K., Lee, S. C., & Thornton, D. (2022) · Sexual abuse. A Journal of Research and Treatment · doi:10.1177/10790632221139166 · Cited by 22
“Following Cohen ’ s (1988) conventions for Cohen ’ s d, AUC values of .56, .64, and .71 are considered small, moderate, and large, respectively (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
Kundu, A., Fu, R., Grace, D., Logie, C. H., Abramovich, A., Baskerville, N. B., Yager, C., Schwartz, R. M., Mitsakakis, N., Planinac, L. C., et al. (2022) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.06.013 · Cited by 24
Prediction is Local: The Benefits of Risk Assessment Optimization
Hamilton, Z. K., Kigerl, A., & Kowalski, M. A. (2021) · Justice quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2021.1894215 · Cited by 22
“The AUC value magnitude is represented in four effect size ranges (see Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialBraun, S. S., Roeser, R. W., & Mashburn, A. J. (2020) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00718-7 · Cited by 29
Czyz, E. K., Yap, J. R. T., King, C. A., & Nahum-Shani, I. B. (2020) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191120939168 · Cited by 29
“Hence, risk factors were selected for further investigation if their model’s AUC was at least medium in magnitude (i.e., AUC ≥ 0.64; see Pencina et al., 2012; Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSpivak, B., Mcewan, T., Luebbers, S., & Ogloff, J. (2020) · Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy · doi:10.1080/10439463.2020.1757668 · Cited by 22
Huysse, J. L. V., Smith, K. N., Mammel, K. A., Prohaska, N., & Rienecke, R. (2020) · International Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1002/eat.23248 · Cited by 22
“Most AUC values were in the 0.6–0.7 range, which can be considered similar to a moderate effect size (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialInformation leakage in the Response Time‐Based Concealed Information Test
Lukács, G., & Ulrich Ansorge, A. (2019) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3565 · Cited by 26
“…between guilty and informed innocent conditions, we calculated AUCs (a diagnostic efficiency measure, for binary classification, that takes into account the distribution of all predictor values; Rice & Harris, 2005; Zou, O'Malley, & Mauri, 2007) for receiver operating characteristics (ROCs).”
MethodService Planning Instrument (SPIn)
Jones, N., & Robinson, D. (2017) · doi:10.1002/9781119184256.ch9 · Cited by 22
The Extra-Examination Time Granting Policy: A Reconceptualization
Cahan, S., Nirel, R., & Alkoby, M. (2016) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/0734282915616537 · Cited by 16
“Because X is binary in this case, rXG is directly obtained from r d d n n n XG G G = + +( )2 1 2 2 1 2 n , (1) where dG (Cohen, 1988) is the standardized mean GS difference between the LD and non-LD groups (see Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundResting-state EEG microstate features for Alzheimer’s disease classification
Yang, X.-L., Fan, Z., Li, Z.-W., & Zhou, J.-Y. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311958 · Cited by 21
Roy, K. C., Barman, J., & Biswas, B. (2024) · Groundwater for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101101 · Cited by 21
Are mental disorders associated with recidivism in men convicted of sexual offenses?
Biedermann, L., Eher, R., Rettenberger, M., Gaunersdorfer, K., & Turner, D. (2023) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/acps.13547 · Cited by 21
Rollo, S., Fraser, B. J., Seguin, N., Sampson, M., Lang, J. J., Tomkinson, G. R., & Tremblay, M. S. (2021) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01537-3 · Cited by 29
Ankle Sprains Risk Factors in a Sample of French Firefighters: A Preliminary Prospective Study.
Vaulerin, J., Chorin, F., Emile, M., d'Arripe-Longueville, F., & Colson, S. (2020) · Journal of sport rehabilitation · doi:10.1123/jsr.2018-0284 · Cited by 21
Hales, S., & Gannon, T. A. (2021) · Sexual Abuse · doi:10.1177/10790632211051682 · Cited by 30
“…between SAs and NSAs at better-than-chance level; area under the curve (AUC) = .77, p < .001, 95% CI [.68, .85], corresponding to a large Cohen’s d effect size of approximately 1.04 (Rice & Harris, 2005).2 Study 2 Study 2 was pre-registered as a replication of Study 1 with minor modifications.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialIdentifying epilepsy psychiatric comorbidities with machine learning
Glauser, T., Santel, D., Delbello, M., Faist, R., Toon, T., Clark, P. O., McCourt, R., Wissel, B. D., & Pestian, J. (2019) · Acta Neurologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/ane.13216 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T.
- Affiliations
- Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (CA)
- Venue
- Law and Human Behavior
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 615-620
- ISSN
- 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-661X
- OpenAlex
- W2060774914
- Cited by
- 1,608
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 60 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 151 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 174 · 2019: 137 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 88 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 51
- FWCI
- 11.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- effect size, Cohen's d, diagnostic accuracy, prediction accuracy, forensic psychology, follow-up study
- MeSH terms
- Forecasting, Humans, ROC Curve, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
