Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Cross-Cultural Fairness of the LS/RNR: An Australian Analysis

The Cross-Cultural Fairness of the LS/RNR: An Australian Analysis Objective: Cross-cultural research into risk assessment instruments has often identified comparable levels of discrimination. However, cross-cultural fairness is rarely addressed. Therefore, this study explored the discrimination and fairness of the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) within a sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that discrimination would not be significantly different for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals. We further hypothesized that some fairness definitions would be unsatisfied. Method: The study included 380 males (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, n = 180) from Australia. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) and cross AUC (xAUC). To determine fairness, error rate balance, calibration, predictive parity, and statistical parity were used. Results: The discrimination of the LS/RNR was not statistically different (p = .61) between groups. The xAUC identified disparities (p < .001), with the LS/RNR being unable to discriminate between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nonreoffenders and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reoffenders (xAUC = .46, 95% CI [.35, .57]). Disparities among certain fairness definitions were identified, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals scoring higher on the LS/RNR (d = 0.52) and nonreoffenders being classified as high risk more often. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the LS/RNR may not be a cross-culturally fair risk assessment instrument for Australian individuals, and standard discrimination indices with comparable levels do not imply that a risk assessment instrument is cross-culturally fair. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

The Cross-Cultural Fairness of the LS/RNR: An Australian Analysis

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/the-cross-cultural-fairness-of-the-ls-rnr-an-australian-analysis-VwulUfLyUN

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
© 2022 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1037/lhb0000486
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Objective: Cross-cultural research into risk assessment instruments has often identified comparable levels of discrimination. However, cross-cultural fairness is rarely addressed. Therefore, this study explored the discrimination and fairness of the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) within a sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that discrimination would not be significantly different for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals. We further hypothesized that some fairness definitions would be unsatisfied. Method: The study included 380 males (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, n = 180) from Australia. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) and cross AUC (xAUC). To determine fairness, error rate balance, calibration, predictive parity, and statistical parity were used. Results: The discrimination of the LS/RNR was not statistically different (p = .61) between groups. The xAUC identified disparities (p < .001), with the LS/RNR being unable to discriminate between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nonreoffenders and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reoffenders (xAUC = .46, 95% CI [.35, .57]). Disparities among certain fairness definitions were identified, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals scoring higher on the LS/RNR (d = 0.52) and nonreoffenders being classified as high risk more often. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the LS/RNR may not be a cross-culturally fair risk assessment instrument for Australian individuals, and standard discrimination indices with comparable levels do not imply that a risk assessment instrument is cross-culturally fair.

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Jun 1, 2022

There are no references for this article.