PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 22, 2019Criminal Justice and Behavior9 citations

Predictive Power of Dynamic (vs. Static) Risk Factors in the Finnish Risk and Needs Assessment Form

View Full Paper
BSBenny SaloÅbo Akademi UniversityTLToni LaaksonenUniversity of TurkuPSPekka SanttilaEast China Normal University

Key Points

  • The aim is to compare the predictive power of dynamic and static items in the Finnish Risk and Needs Assessment Form for recidivism.
  • Compared dynamic items with static predictors among 746 men who reoffended and 746 who did not.
  • Utilized machine learning methods: elastic net and random forest, alongside logistic regression.
  • Follow-up periods ranged from 0.5 to 5.8 years.
  • The area under the curve (AUC) for both RITA items and static predictors ranged from 0.74 to 0.78 for general and violent recidivism.
  • Combining RITA items with static predictors yielded a marginal discrimination increase (ΔAUC = 0.01-0.03).
  • Good calibration was observed for all models.

Abstract

We estimated the predictive power of the dynamic items in the Finnish Risk and Needs Assessment Form ( Riski- ja tarvearvio RITA), assessed by caseworkers, for predicting recidivism. These 52 items were compared to static predictors including crime(s) committed, prison history, and age. We used two machine learning methods (elastic net and random forest) for this purpose and compared them with logistic regression. Participants were 746 men who had and 746 who had not reoffended during matched follow-up periods from 0.5 to 5.8 years. Both RITA items and static predictors predicted general and violent recidivism well (area under the curve AUC = .74-.78), but to combine them increased discrimination only slightly over static predictors alone (ΔAUC = .01-.03). Calibration was good for all models. We argue that the results show strong potential for the RITA items, but that development is best focused on improving usability for identifying treatment targets and for updating risk assessments.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Salo et al. (2019) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a11e7c79ffe35dda08e113chttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819848793
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Dynamic risk as a predictor of treatment non‐completion in sexual offenders: An evaluation of the static‐ <scp>99R</scp> , Stable‐2007 and <scp>URICA</scp>2026
  2. 2Within-treatment changes in dynamic risk factors for sexual recidivism2026
  3. 3Most items in structured risk assessment instruments do not predict violence2011 · 99 citations
  4. 4Risk Tools Predict Recidivism for Men With Low Intellectual Ability and a History of Sexual Offending2026
  5. 5Predicting Violent and Any Recidivism Among Individuals With a Sexual Offence History: A Comparison of Nine Risk Assessment Scales2026