The data produced by the two by two contingency table advocated by Quinsey can be used to compute selection accuracy statistics such as sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, the VRAG-R violent recidivism rates are likely to inflate the probability of sexual recidivism and this would result in an unknown magnitude of false positive conclusions that individuals meet the likely threshold.
Quinsey argues early in his response that a mo case net sex offenders in Clearwater term describing risk, such as high, is meaningless mo case net sex offenders in Clearwater associating a probability estimate with it. To make a fair comparison to the VRAG-R five-year violent recidivism rate, I simply divided the reported base rate from Milloy by 6 and then multiplied the product by 5 to obtain an estimated five-year sexual recidivism base rate of But, Quinsey reverses his position when arguing against the point I made regarding the importance of calibration, in general, and, in particular, how calibration studies lacked for the VRAG-R.
It is reasonable to conclude that the higher base rate observed in the Mo case net sex offenders in Clearwater standardization sample when compared to the sexual recidivism base rates from SVP samples would lead to a high rate of false positive conclusions that individuals meet the likely threshold.
Copyright - All Rights Reserved. Since the publication of Abbottthe study by Olver and Sewall presents data that illustrates this issue. For example, assume a forensic evaluator assesses an individual who is a member of a sexual offender group with an 8.
Further assume, that five-year violent recidivism rate reported in the VRAG-R standardization sample reliably evaluates the commission of predatory acts of sexual violence under Washington law. It is noteworthy that Quinsey omitted mention of the sexual recidivism base rate observed in the study when making his contention.
It is interesting that Quinsey finds fault that the abstract of the article does not reference a citation as to declining base rates of sexual recidivism and how this mo case net sex offenders in Clearwater it increasingly difficult to substantiate the likely threshold.
I relied upon the current bin-wise proportions of violent recidivists over five years from the VRAG-R standardization sample Harris et al. In my view, forensic evaluators should take this potential source of error into account when rendering risk assessment conclusions and qualify opinions as necessary.
It is intuitively apparent that a forensic evaluator ultimately arrives at a binary decision about whether the individual meets the likely threshold. What Quinsey fails to recognize is that the rate of trials per year is driven by available human resources in prosecutor and defense attorney offices and availability of courts to conduct mo case net sex offenders in Clearwater rather than representing some unique features causing the sexual recidivism base rate for Washington SVPs to exceed the violent recidivism base rate from the VRAG-R standardization sample.
Quinsey's response offers no substantive information or data that would lead me to alter my analysis, findings, conclusions, or recommendations Abbott, I appreciate Quinsey clarifying the make-up of the standardization sample; however, this information by no means makes the VRAG-R standardization sample a good fit for individuals being considered for civil confinement as SVPs.
It is reasonable to conclude that the higher base rate observed in the VRAG-R standardization sample when compared to the sexual recidivism base rates from SVP samples would lead to a high rate of false positive conclusions that individuals meet the likely threshold.