CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining the Predictive Validity of the Public Safety Assessment

Brittain, Brian J., Georges, Leah, Martin, Jim·2021·Criminal Justice and Behavior
DOI 10.1177/00938548211005836
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive validity of the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), an actuarial pretrial assessment instrument, administered to 15,931 individuals in Volusia County, Florida, between 2016 and 2017. A series of logistic regression models analyzed the influence of the PSA’s risk scores for Failure to Appear (FTA) and New Criminal Activity (NCA), as well as gender, race, and the length of time spent in pretrial custody on incidents of failure to appear and new pretrial arrest. The findings suggest that while both the FTA and NCA scales predicted pretrial failure fairly well, the variation explained by the models suggest that there is much that we do not understand about predicting pretrial failure to appear and new pretrial arrest, indicating the need for further research and refinement of pretrial assessment instruments.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00938548211005836

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Bonta J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854802029004002 · DOI
  2. DeMichele M., Baumgartner P., Wenger M., Barrick K., Comfort M. (2020). Public safety assessment: Predictive utility and differential prediction by race in Kentucky. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(2), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12481 · DOI
  3. Demuth S., Steffensmeier D. (2004). The impact of gender and race-ethnicity in the pretrial release process. Social Problems, 51(2), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2004.51.2.222 · DOI
  4. Desmarais S. L., Johnson K. L., Singh J. P. (2016). Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in US correctional settings. Psychological Services, 13(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000075 · DOI
  5. Desmarais S. L., Zottola S. A., Duhart Clarke S. E., Lowder E. M. (2021). Predictive validity of pretrial risk assessments: A systematic review of the literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48, 398–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820932959 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Douglas K. S., Kropp P. R. (2002). A prevention-based paradigm for violence risk assessment: Clinical and research applications. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(5), 617–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385402236735 · DOI
  7. Freese J., 2006, Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata
  8. Klingele C. (2015). The promises and perils of evidence-based corrections. Notre Dame Law Review, 91(2), 537–584. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4633&context=ndlr
  9. Kruttschnitt C., McCarthy D. (1985). Familial social control and pretrial sanctions: Does sex really matter. Criminal Law & Criminology, 76(1), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143356 · DOI
  10. McElroy J. (2011). Introduction to the Manhattan Bail Project. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 8–9. https://doi.org/10.1525/frs.2011.24.1.8 · DOI
  11. Moksony F., 1990, Szociológiai Szemle, 130
  12. Nagel I. H., Hagan J. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. Crime and Justice, 4, 91–144. https://doi.org/10.1086/449087 · DOI
  13. Sacks M., Ackerman A. R. (2012). Bail and sentencing: Does pretrial detention lead to harsher punishment? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412461501 · DOI
  14. Steadman H. J., Silver E., Monahan J., Appelbaum P. S., Clark Robbins P., Mulvey E. P., Banks S. (2000). A classification tree approach to the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005478820425 · DOI
  15. Vera Institute of Justice. (2011). Fair treatment for the indigent: The Manhattan Bail Project. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24(1), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1525/frs.2011.24.1.10 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brittain, B. J., Georges, L., & Martin, J.
Affiliations
Creighton University
ORCID
Brittain, Brian J.
Venue
Criminal Justice and Behavior
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-04-07
Volume
48
Issue
10
Pages
1431-1449
ISSN
  • 0093-8548
  • 1552-3594
DOI
10.1177/00938548211005836
Cited by
15
References
2
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