Stadtland C, Hollweg M, Kleindienst N, Dietl J, Reich U, Nedopil N
Abteilung für Forensische Psychiatrie, Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
Nervenarzt. 2006 May;77(5):587-95. doi: 10.1007/s00115-005-1945-2.
In order to evaluate risk assessment instruments for sex offenders in Germany, we compared the predictive validity of the Static-99, HCR-20, SVR-20, and PCL-R scales for 134 sex offenders. The mean follow-up time was 9 years (range 1-340 months), using the first entry into the National Register of Criminal Convictions as endpoint variable. For the estimate of predictive power, the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was calculated. The AUC plots accurately identified violent or sexual recidivists and "false positives" at all scale levels. Comparing the predictive validity of these four instruments, the results favored Static-99. As for the limited sample size, differences between the assessment instruments were, however, not statistically significant. The ROC analysis for Static-99 showed that including treatment dropouts does not improve predictive accuracy (including dropouts: AUC 0.710; excluding dropouts: AUC 0.721). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses yielded highly a significant correlation to recidivism time point for two Static-99 and SVR-20 risk categories. Higher-risk categories were related to earlier recidivism. However, relying on the Static-99 and SVR-20 alone showed false positive results: for up to two out of three sex offenders, they predicted recidivism which did not occur.
为了评估德国性犯罪者的风险评估工具,我们比较了134名性犯罪者的静态-99、HCR-20、SVR-20和PCL-R量表的预测效度。以首次进入国家刑事定罪登记册作为终点变量,平均随访时间为9年(范围1 - 340个月)。为了估计预测能力,计算了接受者操作特征(ROC)分析的曲线下面积(AUC)。AUC图在所有量表水平上都准确地识别出暴力或性再犯者以及“假阳性”。比较这四种工具的预测效度,结果支持静态-99。然而,由于样本量有限,评估工具之间的差异没有统计学意义。静态-99的ROC分析表明,纳入治疗退出者并不能提高预测准确性(纳入退出者:AUC 0.710;排除退出者:AUC 0.721)。卡普兰-迈耶生存分析得出,两个静态-99和SVR-20风险类别与再犯时间点高度显著相关。风险较高的类别与较早的再犯有关。然而,仅依靠静态-99和SVR-20会出现假阳性结果:在三分之二的性犯罪者中,它们预测了未发生的再犯。