Quinsey argues early in his response that a probabilistic term describing risk, such as high, is meaningless without associating a probability estimate with it. The VRAG-R violent recidivism probability estimates lack sufficient fit to the mo case net sex offenders in Clearwater defined likely threshold and an individual being assessed for civil confinement as an SVP would not be considered fungible with the VRAG-R standardization sample.
Upon further reflection, Quinsey's ad hominem response reveals how he employs the very tactic of which he accuses me i.
Mo case net sex offenders in Clearwater example illustrates this point. Quinsey provides no authority in his mo case net sex offenders in Clearwater that SVP laws require the prediction of risk over the lifetime of the offender.
It is intuitively apparent that a forensic evaluator ultimately arrives at a binary decision about whether the individual meets the likely threshold. Conspicuously absent from Quinsey's contention is any reference to statistical or legal authorities where a probabilistic threshold of risk can be answered in a binary fashion; not to mention such an argument is illogical statistically and inconsistent with his prior assertion about the fit of probability estimates when assessing probabilistic statements of risk.
Based on this false premise, Quinsey repeatedly references information from the state of Washington in an attempt to rebut or criticize my conclusions.
Interested readers are referred to section 3. The recomputed results were not substantially different except at risk bins 2 and 3. The data for risk bin 9 indicates that the results from the VRAG-R standardization sample overestimated violent recidivism in the Clearwater sample at a magnitude of 1.
Risk bin 4 is the only score at which the sexual-only and violent reoffense rates match.