缺失项目数据对矫正风险评估工具相对预测准确性的影响。

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Assessment Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-07 DOI:10.1177/10731911231225191
Bronwen Perley-Robertson, Kelly M Babchishin, L Maaike Helmus
{"title":"缺失项目数据对矫正风险评估工具相对预测准确性的影响。","authors":"Bronwen Perley-Robertson, Kelly M Babchishin, L Maaike Helmus","doi":"10.1177/10731911231225191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Missing data are pervasive in risk assessment but their impact on predictive accuracy has largely been unexplored. Common techniques for handling missing risk data include summing available items or proration; however, multiple imputation is a more defensible approach that has not been methodically tested against these simpler techniques. We compared the validity of these three missing data techniques across six conditions using STABLE-2007 (<i>N</i> = 4,286) and SARA-V2 (<i>N</i> = 455) assessments from men on community supervision in Canada. Condition 1 was the observed data (low missingness), and Conditions 2 to 6 were generated missing data conditions, whereby 1% to 50% of items per case were randomly deleted in 10% increments. Relative predictive accuracy was unaffected by missing data, and simpler techniques performed just as well as multiple imputation, but summed totals underestimated absolute risk. The current study therefore provides empirical justification for using proration when data are missing within a sample.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1643-1657"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11490059/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Missing Item Data on the Relative Predictive Accuracy of Correctional Risk Assessment Tools.\",\"authors\":\"Bronwen Perley-Robertson, Kelly M Babchishin, L Maaike Helmus\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911231225191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Missing data are pervasive in risk assessment but their impact on predictive accuracy has largely been unexplored. Common techniques for handling missing risk data include summing available items or proration; however, multiple imputation is a more defensible approach that has not been methodically tested against these simpler techniques. We compared the validity of these three missing data techniques across six conditions using STABLE-2007 (<i>N</i> = 4,286) and SARA-V2 (<i>N</i> = 455) assessments from men on community supervision in Canada. Condition 1 was the observed data (low missingness), and Conditions 2 to 6 were generated missing data conditions, whereby 1% to 50% of items per case were randomly deleted in 10% increments. Relative predictive accuracy was unaffected by missing data, and simpler techniques performed just as well as multiple imputation, but summed totals underestimated absolute risk. The current study therefore provides empirical justification for using proration when data are missing within a sample.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1643-1657\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11490059/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231225191\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231225191","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

缺失数据在风险评估中十分普遍,但其对预测准确性的影响却大多未得到研究。处理缺失风险数据的常用技术包括对可用项目求和或按比例估算;然而,多重估算是一种更站得住脚的方法,但尚未与这些更简单的技术进行过方法测试。我们使用 STABLE-2007(样本数 = 4286)和 SARA-V2(样本数 = 455)对加拿大接受社区监督的男性进行评估,比较了这三种缺失数据技术在六种情况下的有效性。条件 1 是观察到的数据(低缺失率),条件 2 至 6 是生成缺失数据的条件,即每个案例中 1%至 50%的项目以 10%的递增率随机删除。相对预测准确性不受缺失数据的影响,更简单的技术与多重估算的效果一样好,但总和低估了绝对风险。因此,当前的研究为在样本数据缺失时使用估算法提供了经验上的依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Effect of Missing Item Data on the Relative Predictive Accuracy of Correctional Risk Assessment Tools.

Missing data are pervasive in risk assessment but their impact on predictive accuracy has largely been unexplored. Common techniques for handling missing risk data include summing available items or proration; however, multiple imputation is a more defensible approach that has not been methodically tested against these simpler techniques. We compared the validity of these three missing data techniques across six conditions using STABLE-2007 (N = 4,286) and SARA-V2 (N = 455) assessments from men on community supervision in Canada. Condition 1 was the observed data (low missingness), and Conditions 2 to 6 were generated missing data conditions, whereby 1% to 50% of items per case were randomly deleted in 10% increments. Relative predictive accuracy was unaffected by missing data, and simpler techniques performed just as well as multiple imputation, but summed totals underestimated absolute risk. The current study therefore provides empirical justification for using proration when data are missing within a sample.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
The Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory: Psychometric Properties and Symptom Comparisons in Women With and Without Brain Injuries Due to Intimate Partner Violence. Measuring Process Factors of Fluid Reasoning Using Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Testing. A Network Analysis of Digital Clock Drawing for Command and Copy Conditions. Assessing Between- and Within-Person Reliabilities of Items and Scale for Daily Procrastination: A Multilevel and Dynamic Approach. Development and Initial Validation of a Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale Within a Homogeneous Sample of U.S. Emerging Adults.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1