Sexual abuse during childhood and all-cause mortality into middle adulthood: an Australian cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare mortality from all causes, internal causes (eg, cancers, circulatory and respiratory system diseases), and external causes (eg, suicide, accidents, assault) among people who were sexually abused during childhood with mortality for the general population. DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: 2759 people (2201 women, 79.8%) who had experienced medically assessed contact sexual abuse in Victoria while aged 16 years or younger during 1964-1995, as recorded in Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality rate, based on linked National Death Index data (1980-2020), by five-year age group; sex- and age-standardised mortality ratios; comparison of rates with age- and sex-adjusted rates for the general Victorian population (incident rate ratio [IRR]). RESULTS: We included 115 deaths of people under 50 years of age in our analysis (4.2% of people sexually abused as children; 79 women, 36 men); 56 deaths were attributed to external, 56 to internal causes (cause of death information missing in three cases). In each age group from 15-19 years, the mortality rates for people sexually abused as children were higher than for the general population; age- and sex-standardised all-cause mortality ratios were highest for people aged 25-29 years (men: 16.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.0-22.0; women: 19.2; 95% CI, 14.3-24.2). The age- and sex-adjusted mortality rate for people sexually abused as children was higher than in the general population for all-cause (IRR, 8.25; 95% CI, 5.92-11.5), internal cause (IRR, 5.92; 95% CI, 3.89-9.01), and external cause deaths (IRR, 12.6; 95% CI, 9.61-16.6); the differences in external cause mortality were greater for people who had experienced penetrative (IRR, 14.9; 95% CI, 10.9-20.5) than for those who had experienced non-penetrative sexual abuse as children (IRR, 8.92; 95% CI, 5.35-14.9). CONCLUSIONS: Sexual abuse during childhood is associated with higher mortality rates into mid-adulthood. Preventing child sexual abuse and intervening early to reduce the damage it inflicts is not only essential for the welfare of the child, but could also help reduce avoidable deaths later in life.

Statistical learning methods and cross-cultural fairness: Trade-offs and implications for risk assessment instruments.

The use of statistical learning methods has recently increased within the risk assessment literature. They have primarily been used to increase accuracy and the area under the curve (AUC, i.e., discrimination). Processing approaches applied to statistical learning methods have also emerged to increase cross-cultural fairness. However, these approaches are rarely trialed in the forensic psychology discipline nor have they been trialed as an approach to increase fairness in Australia. The study included 380 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males assessed with the Level of Service/Risk Needs Responsivity (LS/RNR). Discrimination was assessed through the AUC, and fairness was assessed through the cross area under the curve (xAUC), error rate balance, calibration, predictive parity, and statistical parity. Logistic regression, penalized logistic regression, random forest, stochastic gradient boosting, and support vector machine algorithms using the LS/RNR risk factors were used to compare performance against the LS/RNR total risk score. The algorithms were then subjected to pre- and postprocessing approaches to see if fairness could be improved. Statistical learning methods were found to produce comparable or marginally improved AUC values. Processing approaches increased several fairness definitions (namely xAUC, error rate balance, and statistical parity) between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The findings demonstrate that statistical learning methods may be a useful approach to increasing the discrimination and cross-cultural fairness of risk assessment instruments. However, both fairness and the use of statistical learning methods encompass significant trade-offs that need to be considered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Clients' current presentation yields best prediction of criminal recidivism: Jointly modeling repeated assessments of risk and recidivism outcomes in a community sample of paroled New Zealanders.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians often rely on readily observable intermediate outcomes (e.g., symptoms) to assess the likelihood of events that occur outside of treatment (e.g., relapse). Similarly, those monitoring clients with histories of criminal involvement attempt to prevent adverse outcomes considered likely and intervene when symptoms/risk factors fluctuate. Our aim was to develop a stronger understanding of associations between evolving symptoms/risk factors and case outcomes, yielding clearer practice implications. METHOD: We used longitudinal, multiple reassessment risk data from 3,421 individuals paroled in New Zealand. We used joint modeling to test the association between individual trajectories of psychosocial risk factor scores, assessed using Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry, and recidivism (official records of parole violations or criminal charges resulting in reconviction). We examined whether recent clinically relevant features of risk presentation (e.g., current levels, recent rate of change) predicted recidivism better than the entirety of the risk assessment trajectory. RESULTS: Although each model demonstrated similar predictive validity, measures of model fit indicated that models using current trajectory features outperformed those using the entire assessment history to predict recidivism. CONCLUSIONS: Change in dynamic risk factors is consistently associated with recidivism outcomes. When using changeable factors to monitor clients' current risk for recidivism, practitioners should focus on current presentation rather than the entire assessment history, although differences in predictive discrimination are small. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The effects of judicial supervision on recidivism of offenders in Australia and New Zealand: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis compares recidivism reduction in problem-solving courts employing judicial supervision in Australia and New Zealand to traditional processes. Using a four-phased search strategy, 16 studies totalling a treatment sample of 6588 individuals and 32,147 comparison participants were identified from 7161 unique records. Meta-analyses indicate that the problem-solving courts significantly reduced both the odds and incidences of recidivism compared with standard justice processes but that the heterogeneity observed within the latter analysis plus reliance on weak methodologies limits the strength of these conclusions. Studies at risk of bias may have had an undue influence on the odds of recidivism analysis. Additionally, the benefits of treatment on the incidence of recidivism are closely linked to the overlap of measurement and treatment periods. The findings suggest a positive impact from judicial supervision but further rigorous research is needed that closely matches experimental samples, strictly measures participants post-intervention and meticulously reports pertinent information.

The cross-cultural fairness of the LS/RNR: An Australian analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Cross-cultural research into risk assessment instruments has often identified comparable levels of discrimination. However, cross-cultural fairness is rarely addressed. Therefore, this study explored the discrimination and fairness of the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) within a sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that discrimination would not be significantly different for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals. We further hypothesized that some fairness definitions would be unsatisfied. METHOD: The study included 380 males (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, n = 180) from Australia. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) and cross AUC (xAUC). To determine fairness, error rate balance, calibration, predictive parity, and statistical parity were used. RESULTS: The discrimination of the LS/RNR was not statistically different (p = .61) between groups. The xAUC identified disparities (p < .001), with the LS/RNR being unable to discriminate between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nonreoffenders and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reoffenders (xAUC = .46, 95% CI [.35, .57]). Disparities among certain fairness definitions were identified, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals scoring higher on the LS/RNR (d = 0.52) and nonreoffenders being classified as high risk more often. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the LS/RNR may not be a cross-culturally fair risk assessment instrument for Australian individuals, and standard discrimination indices with comparable levels do not imply that a risk assessment instrument is cross-culturally fair. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Risk Assessment.

A considerable number of papers have been published on the ethics of artificial intelligence for the purposes of violence risk assessment. In this issue of The Journal, Hogan and colleagues argue that artificial intelligence introduces novel concerns for violence risk assessment that require consideration. While the concerns that have been raised are entirely valid and require consideration, we argue that artificial intelligence does not herald a more serious or unique challenge in these areas relative to other forms of violence risk assessment.

Finding Colour in Conformity Part II-Reflections on Structured Professional Judgement and Cross-Cultural Risk Assessment.

There has been an increasing interest in cross-cultural risk assessment over the past 5 years. Much of this has been driven by concerns that particular risk instruments may be biased against, or ill-suited to, non-White offending populations. A growing body of work has asserted that unique cultural-specific risk factors and experiences may not be adequately considered within current risk assessment frameworks which have led to calls to culturally alter/remodel risk instruments. While recognising the importance of generalizable risk instruments, this article outlines a number of realities that cross-cultural risk assessment researchers must contend with before embarking on projects to alter instruments. With specific regard to structured professional judgement risk instruments, the article notes that efforts to culturally amend instruments, could paradoxically reduce accuracy and increase bias.