The importance of cross-validation in actuarial test construction: Shrinkage in the risk estimates for the minnesota sex offender screening tool-revised

Journal of Threat Assessment

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 87-102

  Wollert, Richard ^a  

^a Institute for the Study of Mandated Treatment   (United States)

Author keywords

Actuarial tests; Civil commitment; Minnesota sex offender screening tool revised (mnsost r); Sexually violent predators

Indexed keywords

EID: 3543064695     PISSN: 15332608     EISSN: 15332616     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J177v02n01_06     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
3. American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
4. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan.
5. Campbell, T. W. (2000). Sexual predator evaluations and phrenology: Considering issues of evidentiary reliability. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 111-130.
6. Campbell, T. W. (2001, February/March). Actuarial scales and evidentiary reliability. Sex Offender Law Report, 19.
7. Covington, J. R. (1997, October). Preventive detention for sex offenders. Illinois Bar Journal, 166-175.
8. Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper&Row.
9. Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1669-1674.
10. Donaldson, T. S. (2000). Accuracy of the Static-99. Unpublished manuscript.
11. Epperson, D. (2000). Description of the MnSOST-R cross-validation sample. Retrieved from (http://psych-server.iastate.edu/faculty/epperson/crossvalidationupdate.html).
12. Epperson, D., Kaul, J., & Hesselton, D. (1999). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R): Development, performance, and recommended risk level cut scores. Unpublished manuscript, Iowa State University.
13. Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J.,&Huot, S. (1995). Predicting risk of recidivism for incarcerated sex offenders. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Treatment of Sex Abusers, New Orleans, LA.
14. Epperson, D., Kaul, J., Huot, S., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Gilman, M. (2000). Cross-validation of the MnSOST-R. Paper presented as the annual conference of the Association for Treatment of Sex Abusers, San Diego, CA.
15. Gottfredson, S. D. (1987). Prediction: An overview of selected methodological issues. In D. Gottfredson & M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision-making (pp. 21-51). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Grove, W. M., Zald, D., Lebow, B., Snitz, B.,&Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.
17. Hanson, R. K. (1998). What do we know about sex offender risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 50-72.
18. Hanson, R. K.&Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
19. Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 1992.
20. Janus, E. S.&Meehl, P. (1997). Assessing the legal standard for predictions of dangerousness in sex offender commitment proceedings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 33-64.
21. LaFond, J. Q.&Winick, R. (1999). Sex offenders and the law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 3-24.
22. Ohlin, L. (1951). Selection for parole. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
23. Otto, R. K., Borum, R.,&Hart, S. (2001). Professional issues concerning the use of actuarial tests in sexually violent predator evaluations. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida.
24. Otto, R. K. & Petrila, J. (in press). Admissibility of testimony based on actuarial scales in sex offender commitments. Sex Offender Law Report.
25. Petrila, J. & Otto, R. (in press). Admissibility of expert testimony in sexually violent predator proceedings. In A. Schlank (Ed.), The sexual predator. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.
26. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. (1982).
27. Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G., Rice, M.&Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
28. Rice, M. R. & Harris, G. (1997). Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 231-241.
29. Rogers, R. (2000). The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 595-605.
30. Simon, F. H. (1971). Prediction methods in criminology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
31. Thorndike, R. L. (1982). Applied psychometrics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
32. Wilkins, L. T. (1969). Evaluation of penal measures. New York: Random House.
33. Wollert, R. W. (2000). The value of archiving actuarial data from commitment cases for analyzing test validity, expert judgment, and average sexual recidivism risk. Unpublished manuscript.