CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 157

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems and New Applications

Gottfredson, Stephen D., Moriarty, Laura J.·2006·Crime & Delinquency
DOI 10.1177/0011128705281748
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Statistically based risk assessment devices are widely used in criminal justice settings. Their promise remains largely unfulfilled, however, because assumptions and premises requisite to their development and application are routinely ignored and/or violated. This article provides a brief review of the most salient of these assumptions and premises, addressing the base rate and selection ratios, methods of combining predictor variables and the nature of criterion variables chosen, cross-validation, replicability, and generalizability. The article also discusses decision makers’ choices to add or delete items from the instruments and suggests recommendations for policy makers to consider when adopting risk assessments. Suggestions for improved practice, practical and methodological, are made.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0011128705281748

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • RNA tools are used in almost every decision point in the criminal justice system with the goal of offering a uniform, evidence-based approach to properly target resources and increase public safety.

    “Risk need assessment (RNA) tools are used in almost every decision point in the criminal justice system with the goal of offering a uniform, evidence-based approach to properly target resources and increase public safety [11,12].”

    From Efficiency vs. Equity: A Structured Interdisciplinary Review of AI in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 93

  1. Andrews, D. A., 1995, The Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Color Plot Profile Form for male inmates
  2. 10.1177/002242786800500107 · DOI
  3. Baird, C., 1991, Validating risk assessment instruments used in community corrections
  4. 10.1177/009385480102800406 · DOI
  5. Berkson, J., 1947, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 42, 246
  6. Bonta, J., 1996, Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply, 18
  7. 10.1177/0093854802029004002 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/0093854800027003003 · DOI
  9. Burgess, E. W., 1928, The workings of the indeterminate sentence law and the parole system in Illinois, 221
  10. 10.1007/BF01053438 · DOI
  11. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1501 · DOI
  12. 10.2307/3053536 · DOI
  13. Clear, T., 1987, The prediction of criminal violence, 141
  14. Clear, T., 1997, Community Corrections Report, 4, 49
  15. Connolly, M. M. (2003). Critical examination of actuarial offender-based prediction assessments: Guidance for the next generation of assessments . Doctoral dissertation sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Number 2001-IJ-CX-0003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  16. Cronbach, L. J., 1957, Psychological tests and personnel decisions
  17. Dawes, R. M., 1975, Human judgment and decision processes in applied setting, 83
  18. Dawes, R. M., 1979, Psychological Bulletin, 34, 571
  19. 10.1037/h0037613 · DOI
  20. 10.1177/009385402236735 · DOI
  21. 10.1086/221224 · DOI
  22. 10.2307/3479746 · DOI
  23. Farrington, D. P., 1978, Aggression and antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence, 73
  24. 10.1007/BF01062737 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/002242787701400209 · DOI
  26. Fisher, F. M., 1983, Research on sentencing: The search for reform, 184
  27. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x · DOI · Paper page
  28. Gendreau, P., 1996, Predicting adult offender recidivism: What works!
  29. 10.2307/2087386 · DOI
  30. 10.1177/001112876200800303 · DOI
  31. Glueck, S., 1950, Unraveling juvenile delinquency
  32. 10.1037/h0029230 · DOI
  33. 10.1086/449133 · DOI
  34. 10.1007/978-1-4615-1821-1 · DOI
  35. 10.1086/221203 · DOI
  36. 10.1086/221204 · DOI
  37. Gottfredson, D. M., 1961, Research Newsletter, 3, 11
  38. Gottfredson, D. M., Western Psychological Association meetings
  39. Gottfredson, D. M., 1965, The validity of two parole prediction scales: An eight year follow-up study
  40. Gottfredson, D. M., Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section
  41. Gottfredson, D. M., 1961, A manual for intake base expectancy scoring
  42. 10.1002/bsl.2370070107 · DOI
  43. Gottfredson, D. M., 1978, Guidelines for parole and sentencing
  44. Gottfredson, M. R., 1980, Handbook of criminal justice evaluation, 97
  45. Gottfredson, S. D., 1987, The honest parole decision-maker’s guide to prediction and risk assessment: Everything you always wanted to know about decision-making but were afraid to ask
  46. 10.1086/449131 · DOI
  47. Gottfredson, S. D., 1979, Screening for risk: A comparison of methods
  48. Gottfredson, S. D., 1986, Criminal careers and “career criminals”, 212
  49. 10.1111/j.1468-2311.1993.tb00783.x · DOI
  50. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01161.x · DOI
  51. 10.1177/0022427896033001004 · DOI
  52. Gough, H. G., 1962, Psychology in the making, 526
  53. 10.1177/0011128701047004003 · DOI
  54. Green, D. M., 1966, Signal detection theory and psychophysics
  55. Guilford, J. P., 1965, Statistics for psychology and education
  56. Hare, R. D., 1991, The Hare Psychopathy Check list-Revised (PCL-R)
  57. 10.1177/0093854893020004001 · DOI
  58. Hirschi, T., 1967, Delinquency research: An appraisal of analytic methods
  59. 10.1016/0047-2352(83)90006-5 · DOI
  60. 10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.203 · DOI
  61. Horst, P., 1941, The prediction of personal adjustment
  62. Horst, P., 1966, Psychological measurement and prediction
  63. Jones, P. R., 1996, Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply, 33
  64. 10.1177/009385480102800405 · DOI
  65. 10.1016/0049-089X(78)90005-4 · DOI
  66. Latessa, E. J., Criminal Justice Forum
  67. Lee, W., 1971, Decision theory and human behavior
  68. 10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.68 · DOI
  69. 10.1177/009385480102800501 · DOI
  70. Loza, W., 1996, Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and non-violent recidivism
  71. 10.1177/0886260503253240 · DOI
  72. Meehl, P. E., 1965, Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 27
  73. 10.1037/h0048070 · DOI
  74. Monahan, J., 1981, Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques
  75. Nuffield, J., 1982, Parole decision-making in Canada
  76. 10.1086/220398 · DOI
  77. 10.1086/449134 · DOI
  78. 10.1086/220818 · DOI
  79. 10.2307/2087693 · DOI
  80. 10.1086/220911 · DOI
  81. 10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.737 · DOI
  82. Richardson, M. W., 1950, Handbook of applied psychology, 192
  83. Simon, F. H., 1971, Prediction methods in criminology, including a prediction study of young men on probation
  84. 10.1177/002242787200900105 · DOI
  85. 10.1007/BF02354472 · DOI
  86. 10.1086/449140 · DOI
  87. Tonry, M., 1995, Malign neglect—Race, crime, and punishment in America, 10.1093/oso/9780195077209.001.0001 · DOI
  88. Van Voorhis, P., 1997, Risk classification in the 1990s
  89. Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, 2004, 2004 annual report
  90. 10.1037/0033-2909.83.2.213 · DOI
  91. Wilbanks, W., 1972, Summarizing experience for parole decision-making, 101
  92. 10.1177/002242786400100103 · DOI
  93. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1984.tb00291.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gottfredson, S. D., & Moriarty, L. J.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond
Venue
Crime & Delinquency
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2006-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
178-200
ISSN
  • 0011-1287
  • 1552-387X
DOI
10.1177/0011128705281748
Cited by
157
References
0
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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