UC Department of Psychiatry, 260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200, Cincinnati, Ohio 45219-0559, USA.
Behav Sci Law. 2013 Jan-Feb;31(1):23-39. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2050. Epub 2013 Jan 21.
The last two decades have witnessed major changes in the way that mental health professionals assess, describe, and think about persons' risk for future violence. Psychiatrists and psychologists have gone from believing that they could not predict violence to feeling certain they can assess violence risk with well-above-chance accuracy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis has played a central role in changing this view. This article reviews the key concepts underlying ROC methods, the meaning of the area under the ROC curve (AUC), the relationship between AUC and effect size d, and what these two indices tell us about evaluations of violence risk. The area under the ROC curve and d provide succinct but incomplete descriptions of discrimination capacity. These indices do not provide details about sensitivity-specificity trade-offs; they do not tell us how to balance false-positive and false-negative errors; and they do not determine whether a diagnostic system is accurate enough to make practically useful distinctions between violent and non-violent subject groups. Justifying choices or clinical practices requires a contextual investigation of outcomes, a process that takes us beyond simply knowing global indices of accuracy.
在过去的二十年中,心理健康专业人员评估、描述和思考人们未来暴力风险的方式发生了重大变化。精神科医生和心理学家已经从认为他们无法预测暴力转变为确信他们可以以远高于机会的准确性评估暴力风险。接收者操作特征(ROC)分析在改变这种观点方面发挥了核心作用。本文回顾了 ROC 方法的关键概念、ROC 曲线下面积(AUC)的含义、AUC 与效应量 d 之间的关系,以及这两个指标告诉我们有关暴力风险评估的信息。ROC 曲线下面积和 d 提供了简洁但不完整的歧视能力描述。这些指标没有提供关于敏感性特异性权衡的详细信息;它们没有告诉我们如何平衡假阳性和假阴性错误;并且它们不能确定诊断系统是否足够准确,以便在暴力和非暴力受试者群体之间做出实际有用的区分。要证明选择或临床实践的合理性,需要对结果进行背景调查,这一过程使我们超越了仅仅了解全球准确性指标。