Towards a More Evidence-Based Risk Assessment for People in the Criminal Justice System: the Case of OxRec in the Netherlands.
AUC
Calibration
Prediction
Recidivism
Risk assessment
Violence
Journal
European journal on criminal policy and research
ISSN: 0928-1371
Titre abrégé: Eur J Crim Pol Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101617580
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
accepted:
14
06
2022
entrez:
13
9
2022
pubmed:
14
9
2022
medline:
14
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Risk assessment tools are widely used throughout the criminal justice system to assist in making decisions about sentencing, supervision, and treatment. In this article, we discuss several methodological and practical limitations associated with risk assessment tools currently in use. These include variable predictive performance due to the exclusion of important background predictors; high costs, including the need for regular staff training, in order to use many tools; development of tools using suboptimal methods and poor transparency in how they create risk scores; included risk factors being based on dated evidence; and ethical concerns highlighted by legal scholars and criminologists, such as embedding systemic biases and uncertainty about how these tools influence judicial decisions. We discuss the potential that specific predictors, such as living in a deprived neighbourhood, may indirectly select for individuals in racial or ethnic minority groups. To demonstrate how these limitations and ethical concerns can be addressed, we present the example of OxRec, a risk assessment tool used to predict recidivism for individuals in the criminal justice system. OxRec was developed in Sweden and has been externally validated in Sweden and the Netherlands. The advantages of OxRec include its predictive accuracy based on rigorous multivariable testing of predictors, transparent reporting of results and the final model (including how the probability score is derived), scoring simplicity (i.e. without the need for additional interview), and the reporting of a wide range of performance measures, including those of discrimination and calibration, the latter of which is rarely reported but a key metric. OxRec is intended to be used alongside professional judgement, as a support for decision-making, and its performance measures need to be interpreted in this light. The reported calibration of the tool in external samples clearly suggests no systematic overestimation of risk, including in large subgroups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36097585
doi: 10.1007/s10610-022-09520-y
pii: 9520
pmc: PMC9458683
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
397-406Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of InterestTwo of the authors (SF and TF) were a part of the team that derived and validated the OxRec tool.
Références
Br J Psychiatry. 2013 May;202(5):365-71
pubmed: 23520222
Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 Feb;8(2):150-161
pubmed: 33096045
Schizophr Bull. 2011 Jul;37(4):800-10
pubmed: 19959703
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:489-513
pubmed: 26666966
Sci Adv. 2018 Jan 17;4(1):eaao5580
pubmed: 29376122
Stat Med. 2016 Jan 30;35(2):214-26
pubmed: 26553135
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Aug;42(4):1057-66
pubmed: 24062294
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;3(6):535-43
pubmed: 27086134
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2019 Nov;16(11):687-698
pubmed: 31065045
Lancet Psychiatry. 2015 Oct;2(10):891-900
pubmed: 26342957
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Nov 3;16(1):138
pubmed: 27809908
Assessment. 2010 Sep;17(3):377-95
pubmed: 20124429
Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 29;9(1):841
pubmed: 30696902
Psychol Bull. 1998 Mar;123(2):123-42
pubmed: 9522681
BMJ. 2012 Jul 02;345:e3999
pubmed: 22750423
BMC Med. 2015 Jan 06;13:1
pubmed: 25563062
Eur Psychiatry. 2017 May;42:134-137
pubmed: 28371726
Br J Psychiatry. 2008 Jul;193(1):44-50
pubmed: 18700217
JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;77(4):359-367
pubmed: 31940015
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2013 Jul;26(4):349-54
pubmed: 23722099
BMC Med. 2019 Dec 16;17(1):230
pubmed: 31842878
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 May;206(5):424-30
pubmed: 25657352
Circulation. 2019 Sep 10;140(11):e596-e646
pubmed: 30879355
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Feb;5(2):e99-e106
pubmed: 32032564