The Effect of Missing Item Data on the Relative Predictive Accuracy of Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment Tools.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Bronwen Perley-Robertson, Anna T Pham, N Zoe Hilton
{"title":"The Effect of Missing Item Data on the Relative Predictive Accuracy of Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment Tools.","authors":"Bronwen Perley-Robertson, Anna T Pham, N Zoe Hilton","doi":"10.1177/10731911251386519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In an innovative simulation study, Perley-Robertson et al. found that two correctional risk assessment tools were robust to missing data, with summation, proration, and multiple imputation producing nearly identical relative predictive validity results. However, the uniform deletion of items across cases may have preserved their risk rankings and, consequently, relative predictive accuracy. We extend this research by applying identical missing data conditions (1%-50% of items deleted in 10% increments) to one third, two thirds, and three thirds of a high-risk intimate partner violence (IPV) sample assessed on the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) and Spousal Assault Risk Assessment-Version 2 (SARA-V2; <i>N</i> = 267). Neither missing data nor the handling method affected relative predictive accuracy, though summation underestimated absolute risk. These findings support proration or multiple imputation when IPV risk scale items are missing within a research sample, and underscore that proration is preferable to summed totals in practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911251386519"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251386519","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In an innovative simulation study, Perley-Robertson et al. found that two correctional risk assessment tools were robust to missing data, with summation, proration, and multiple imputation producing nearly identical relative predictive validity results. However, the uniform deletion of items across cases may have preserved their risk rankings and, consequently, relative predictive accuracy. We extend this research by applying identical missing data conditions (1%-50% of items deleted in 10% increments) to one third, two thirds, and three thirds of a high-risk intimate partner violence (IPV) sample assessed on the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) and Spousal Assault Risk Assessment-Version 2 (SARA-V2; N = 267). Neither missing data nor the handling method affected relative predictive accuracy, though summation underestimated absolute risk. These findings support proration or multiple imputation when IPV risk scale items are missing within a research sample, and underscore that proration is preferable to summed totals in practice.

缺失项目数据对亲密伴侣暴力风险评估工具相对预测准确性的影响。
在一项创新的模拟研究中,Perley-Robertson等人发现,两种矫正风险评估工具对缺失数据具有鲁棒性,其总和、比例和多重代入产生了几乎相同的相对预测效度结果。然而,跨案例的统一删除项目可能保留了它们的风险排名,从而保持了相对的预测准确性。我们通过将相同的缺失数据条件(1%-50%的项目以10%的增量删除)应用于安大略省家庭攻击风险评估(ODARA)和配偶攻击风险评估-版本2 (SARA-V2; N = 267)中评估的高风险亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)样本的三分之一,三分之二和三分之三来扩展本研究。数据缺失和处理方法都不影响预测的相对准确性,但总和低估了绝对风险。当研究样本中缺失IPV风险量表项目时,这些发现支持比例或多重归算,并强调在实践中比例比总和更可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书