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 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials 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":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"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\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"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\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231225191\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231225191","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","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。
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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信