Predictive Validity of Pretrial Risk Assessments: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Abstract
Bail reform is sweeping the nation and many jurisdictions are looking to pretrial risk assessment as one potential strategy to support these efforts. This article summarizes the findings of a systematic review of research examining the predictive validity of pretrial risk assessments. We reviewed 11 studies (13 publications) examining the predictive validity of six pretrial risk assessment instruments reported in the gray and peer-reviewed literature as of December, 2018. Findings typically show good to excellent predictive validity. Differences in predictive validity for men and women were mixed and small. When it could be examined, predictive validity was generally comparable across racial/ethnic subgroups; however, three comparisons revealed notably lower, albeit still fair to good, predictive validity for defendants of color than White defendants. Findings suggest that pretrial risk assessments predict pretrial outcomes with acceptable accuracy, but also emphasize the need for continued investigation of predictive validity across gender and racial/ethnic subgroups.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Pretrial risk assessments commonly involve simple scoring systems, focusing on factors like age and prior convictions.
“Pretrial risk assessments commonly involve simple scoring systems, focusing on factors like age and prior convictions (67).”
From Interpretable algorithmic forensics (2023) · cites this paper as [67]
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It is well accepted that human judgment is influenced by our personal beliefs and that increasing structure can reduce reliance on heuristics in the decision-making process, thereby producing less biased and more accurate decisions (Tversky & kahneman, 1974).”
BackgroundPRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223 · see citing works
Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses
Riley, R. D., Higgins, J. P. T., & Deeks, J. J. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d549 · Cited by 2,884 · see citing works
The role of google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching
Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 · Cited by 2,387 · see citing works
Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., & Franco, O. H. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y · Cited by 2,114 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In keeping with practices used in prior reviews, we restricted our review of Google results to the first 300 hits of each search (see, for example, Bramer et al., 2017; Haddaway et al., 2015; Piasecki et al., 2018; Viljoen et al., 2019).”
MethodHow Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies
Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen, S. (2010) · Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · doi:10.1080/03610911003650383 · Cited by 1,952 · see citing works
Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7 · Cited by 1,608 · see citing works
The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism
Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aao5580 · Cited by 1,071 · see citing works
Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews
Piasecki, J., Waligora, M., & Dranseika, V. (2017) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-0010-4 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interpretable algorithmic forensics
Garrett, B. L., & Rudin, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2301842120 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“Pretrial risk assessments commonly involve simple scoring systems, focusing on factors like age and prior convictions (67).”
Background
- Authors
- Desmarais, S. L., Zottola, S. A., Duhart Clarke, S. E., & Lowder, E. M.
- Affiliations
- North Carolina State University
- George Mason University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Desmarais, Sarah L.
- Venue
- Criminal Justice and Behavior
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-06-18
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 398-420
- ISSN
- 0093-8548 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3594
- OpenAlex
- W3036561926
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 1.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Criminal Justice and Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- pretrial risk assessment, predictive validity, bail reform, pretrial detention, risk assessment tools, gender differences, racial and ethnic disparities
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