Judicial gatekeeping on scientific validity with risk assessment tools

Hamilton, Melissa

doi:10.1002/bsl.2456

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Use of the AUC for total scores may be more appropriate than for risk levels when severe range restriction occurs and researchers are interested in overall discrimination. However, practitioners and other legal scholars are increasingly interested in other metrics such as the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV; Hamilton, 2020). PPVs in particular may be distorted by the detention of high-risk individuals, which may affect observed rates of misconduct in this group, whereas AUC values may be less affected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pretrial risk assessment validation research: Range restriction and attenuation of predictive validity estimates.

Lowder¹,

Wilson²

2021

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: A growing number of studies have examined the predictive validity of pretrial risk assessments. Overwhelmingly, these validation studies are conducted in the context of routine practice, where not all individuals who are assessed receive pretrial release. Despite evidence of range restriction in pretrial validation research, no study to date has corrected for range restriction in predictive validity estimates. To address this limitation, we examined the effects of range restriction on predictive validity estimates under varying conditions. Method: We ran simulations based on data from a local validation of 1,030 pretrial defendants to demonstrate the effects of range restriction on predictive validity estimates under different degrees of range restriction, various population correlations, and with and without the influence of a third variable, z, representing discretionary decision making. We examined the effect of range restriction on correlation coefficient (r) and nonparametric Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistics. Results: Under a realistic population correlation (q = .40), attenuation of r ranged from 1-29% for total scores and 8-39% for risk levels across conditions. Under similar conditions, attenuation for AUC estimates ranged from 1-13% for total scores and 1-20% for risk levels. Attenuation was greater with the influence of a secondary selection variable modeling discretionary decision making above and beyond the risk assessment tool. Conclusion: Range restriction may meaningfully reduce predictive validity estimates when greater than 40% of moderate risk and 60% of high risk defendants are detained. Public Significance StatementIncreasingly, jurisdictions are looking to validate pretrial risk assessments used in practice. Risk assessments may be less accurate in predicting outcomes when a substantial proportion of moderateand high-risk defendants are detained pending trial. Future studies should report on the proportion of assessed defendants detained pretrial and correct findings for potential loss of observations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pretrial risk assessment validation research: Range restriction and attenuation of predictive validity estimates.

Lowder¹,

Wilson²

2021

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hamilton cautions, “The guise of science does not deserve uncritical deference in the law” (2020, p. 226). Courts have to know, for example, that IPV risk assessments presented to them are reliable and valid.…”

Section: The Potential Use Of Ipv Risk Assessments In Family Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Courts, Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Illness: The Case of Dwight Lamon Jones

Websdale

2020

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through the lens of the high‐profile spree killing perpetrated by Dwight Lamon Jones in 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona, this article examines the way the criminal and civil courts grappled with assessing the significance, extent, and outcome of the IPV and abuse directed at Dr. Connie Jones, Dwight Jones’s former wife. The case is unusual, not least because Dr. Jones had an upper middle‐class income and numerous resources IPV victims do not normally enjoy. Nevertheless, she felt the courts let her family down. Journalists, victim advocates, and others also criticized the Arizona courts. The article outlines the spree killing and the criticisms of the courts, narrates Jones over a period of nine years including the IPV and mental illness, and, through the work of the Study Committee convened by Arizona Chief Justice Bales, explores the potential use of IPV risk assessments in the courts, particularly the family court, and related matters. It concludes with recommendations regarding possible preventive interventions in IPV cases, including those addressing mental illness.

show abstract

Introduction to the Special Issue on implementing Post‐Conviction Risk Assessment

Slobogin

2020

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial gatekeeping on scientific validity with risk assessment tools

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Pretrial risk assessment validation research: Range restriction and attenuation of predictive validity estimates.

Pretrial risk assessment validation research: Range restriction and attenuation of predictive validity estimates.

The Courts, Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Illness: The Case of Dwight Lamon Jones

Introduction to the Special Issue on implementing Post‐Conviction Risk Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About