tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post1106118732812757209..comments2024-03-20T19:17:02.285-07:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: Static redux: Sandgropers jumping off rickety shipKaren Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-77643270792064805252010-10-19T08:06:11.238-07:002010-10-19T08:06:11.238-07:00http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/1-2009_02...http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/1-2009_02.html<br /><br />is good follow-up, online article to these sticky issues, imo.Jeffrey C. Singer, PhD.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17672177092040765517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-49624399845072330662010-10-02T17:40:31.892-07:002010-10-02T17:40:31.892-07:00Anonymous from Australia,
I think you are spot-on...Anonymous from Australia,<br /><br />I think you are spot-on about the use of the Static-99 by courts, politicians, bureaucrats, etc. to avoid responsibility. I've seen that here in California, where its use is institutionalized.Karen Franklin, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-56668521097585808462010-10-02T17:38:42.602-07:002010-10-02T17:38:42.602-07:00Andrew,
The ethics piece is problematic on a numb...Andrew,<br /><br />The ethics piece is problematic on a number of levels. I hope to post a reaction soon.Karen Franklin, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-38883624389519636262010-10-02T14:42:43.731-07:002010-10-02T14:42:43.731-07:00After reading the comments, I went and read the et...After reading the comments, I went and read the ethics piece and...wow. I was just reading along, finding their "normative ethics" versus "consequentialist ethics" a somewhat interesting approach to things, though the description of the arguments was rather clearly biased in favor of pro-SVP laws. And then I got to the end of the section on normative ethics:<br /><i>This discussion demonstrates that there is no one conclusive normative ethic that can simply guide our understanding of the suitability of SVP/SDP statutes and their proper application to a given individual. Once it is accepted that there will not be a simple<br />correct and absolute answer that settles the SVP/SDP debate, the most ethically appropriate position is that of a consequential model</i>.<br />Okay, I thought, you've now argued against deciding whether or not we should have SVP laws with "normativist ethics" so now you're going to consider them in terms of "consequentialist ethics" and consider arguments for and against them from the perspective of whether they represent good public policy, whether they are a financially effective way of reducing sexual violence, etc. Instead what I get is this:<br /><i>namely, to consider the ethical application of SVP/SDP statutes to an individual on a case-by-case basis.</i><br />They presuppose a positive answer to the question "Should we have SVP laws?" Right after they just said that the arguments they had just considered <i>didn't answer that question one way or the other</i>. I mean, like, wow...Andrew Hhttp://asexystuff.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-30198732043583844232010-10-02T14:19:51.875-07:002010-10-02T14:19:51.875-07:00The authors laid out a few of the difficulties of ...The authors laid out a few of the difficulties of over-relying on the Static. The practice of forecasting an indidivual's risk based only on a recent table from an instrument with "moderate" predictive power is short sighted. Some sort of internal process must occur. Call it "clinial Judgement" or "interpreting risk data." <br /><br />Of course elements considered must have a scienfific foundation. Analyzing multiple data sets from scientifically derived sources is where the rubber hits the road.Jim Manley, Ph.D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-14805595292957451752010-10-02T00:39:18.612-07:002010-10-02T00:39:18.612-07:00As an Australian and an academic, this article sur...As an Australian and an academic, this article surprises me for a few reasons. Firstly, our political leaders often try to push things which have little utility (or sense!) into practice (internet filter, banning small breasts in pornography, etc.) and sadly, it surprises me that it got to the point in one state at least, that a judge stepped on this foolish tool's use. I would have expected it to become policy without much scrutiny at all.<br /><br />Secondly, the fact that this tool was largely created based on the unpublished papers of students, which weren't peer-reviewed, is very disturbing. I suspect the STATIC tools really appeal to those in power for their perceived ability to quantify recidivism down to a number, and absolve them of political liability when things go wrong ("hey, we relied on the STATIC-99 tool, it's not our fault!"). Who cares whether the data used in its development were right? <br /><br />Finally, the most troubling thing, although perhaps not surprising, is that a little industry seems to have been set up around STATIC-99, one example of which is certifying people as "STATIC-99 Trainers" (see http://www.static99.atsa.com/pdfdocs/certified_trainers.pdf). Still less surprising is the fact that my state is listed in there, complete with the mug shot of the proud trainer. I have little faith in my state seeing reason and getting rid of it.<br /><br />I wonder how hard those with vested interests will fight to keep STATIC-99 around.<br /><br />Another great article, Karen. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-24411269232191576922010-10-01T16:12:11.547-07:002010-10-01T16:12:11.547-07:00Brian,
Thanks for your insightful comment. Now tha...Brian,<br />Thanks for your insightful comment. Now that I have had a chance to review the authors' accompanying paper on ethics, I fear you are right: Their criticism of the Static instruments is part of a larger effort to legitimize an even more unscientific approach that will enable evaluators to inflate sex offenders' risk to numbers far higher than what the science supports. Scary!Karen Franklin, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-38552264475221719662010-10-01T15:39:01.358-07:002010-10-01T15:39:01.358-07:00In reading the Sreenivasan and colleagues’ paper i...In reading the Sreenivasan and colleagues’ paper it became apparent to me that this is a bold attempt to legitimize the combination of clinical judgment with actuarial science. They support their opinions by using straw man arguments about the Static-99/99R. The same critical analysis they used with the Statics, despite misrepresenting many points, lacked in their analysis of combining actuarial science with clinical judgment. They provide no references to support this position and in fact the prevailing literature is solidly against such a method, which they neglect to point out (c.f., Grove and Meehl, 1996 among others). They essentially argued through their case example that by considering two additional risk factors above the Static-99R. namely strangulation and a diagnosis of sexual sadism, warrants boosting the respondent’s risk estimate by at least 30 percentage points, assuming the likely standard is set at 50% or greater. How preposterous! There is no information in the literature what would support increasing the actuarially derived risk assessment by 2.5 times its rate using other risk factors in general or the two that Sreenivasan et al. apply in the case example. One only has to look as far as the recent article by Kingston et al. to understand the fallacy of their logical, as well as to illustrate the dangerousness of the method they propose. Kingston et al. (2010) found that the diagnosis of sexual sadism and violence of acts (possible proxy variable for strangulation) did not add incremental validity beyond the actuarial instrument score (in this research it was the SORAG) in predicting sexual recidivism. <br /><br /> With decreasing sexual recidivism base rates and the fact that actuarial instruments only account for a fraction of the variables associated with the risk of individuals contained in actuarial samples, it is becoming increasingly difficult for actuarial instruments to forecast sexual recidivism rates at the required legal threshold contemplated by SVP laws. The legitimate criticisms Sreenivasan et al. level against the Static-99/99R are insufficient to justify combining actuarial science with clinical judgment. Rather, weaknesses of the actuarial method should guide clinicians in how to interpret the risk data, as well as to communicate information that will assist the trier of fact in assessing the relevancy, admissibility and weight to assign the actuarial findings. The method propounded by Sreenivasan et al. invalidates the actuarial risk estimates, has no known reliability or validity, and lacks the transparency in methods (Janus & Prentky, 2003) that prevents the trier of fact from adequately assessing its relevancy, admissibility, and weight. <br /><br />Brian R. Abbott, Ph.D.<br />brian@dr-abbott.netBrian R. Abbott, Ph.D.http://www.dr-abbott.netnoreply@blogger.com