Judicial gatekeeping on scientific validity with risk assessment tools

Risk assessment tools driven by algorithms offer promising advantages in predicting the recidivism risk of defendants. Jurisdictions are increasingly relying upon risk tool outcomes to help judges at sentencing with their decisions on whether to incarcerate or whether to use community-based sanctions. Yet as sentencing has significant consequences for public safety and individual rights, care must be taken that the tools relied upon are appropriate for the task. Judges are encouraged to act as gatekeepers to evaluate whether the forensic risk assessment tool offered has a sufficient level of validity in that it is fit for the purposes of sentencing, provides an acceptable level of accuracy in its predictions, and achieves an adequate standard of reliability with regard to its outcomes.     

AN EXPLORATION OF GENDER-ROLE EXPECTATIONS AND CONFLICT AMONG WOMEN RUGBY PLAYERS

Gender-role conflict theory has suggested that women athletes will experience role conflict because they are attempting to enact both feminine and masculine gender roles, yet research findings have shown mixed support for this notion. The purpose of this study was to explore how women rugby players negotiate gender-role expectations and conflict as women participating in a traditionally masculine sport. Eleven Caucasian women, noncollege rugby players between the ages of 25 and 38 were interviewed. The results indicated that women rugby players perceived numerous discrepant gender-role expectations. In addition, three different types of gender-role conflict emerged; however, similar to previous findings, participants perceived conflicting expectations for their gender-role behavior more than they seemed to experience conflict about those expectations. Participants actively employed various strategies to resolve or avoid experiencing gender-role conflict. The resiliency displayed by the women athletes in coping with discrepant gender-role messages provides new considerations for gender-role conflict theory.     

A Search for the Optimal Stimulus

How do stimulus size and item number relate to the magnitude and direction of error on center estimation and line cancellation tests? How might this relationship inform theories concerning spatial neglect? These questions were addressed by testing twenty patients with right hemisphere lesions, eleven with left hemisphere lesions and eleven normal control subjects on multiple versions of center estimation and line cancellation tests. Patients who made large errors on these tests also demonstrated an optimal or pivotal stimulus value, i.e., a particular size center estimation test or number of lines on cancellation that either minimized error magnitude relative to other size stimuli (optimal) or marked the boundary between normal and abnormal performance (pivotal). Patients with right hemisphere lesions made increasingly greater errors on the center estimation test as stimuli were both larger and smaller than the optimal value, whereas those with left hemisphere lesions made greater errors as stimuli were smaller than a pivotal value. In normal subjects, the direction of errors on center estimation stimuli shifted from the right of true center to the left as stimuli decreased in size (i.e., the crossover effect). Right hemisphere lesions exaggerated this effect, whereas left hemisphere lesions diminished and possibly reversed the direction of crossover. Error direction did not change as a function of stimulus value on cancellation tests. The demonstration of optimal and pivotal stimulus values indicates that performances on center estimation and cancellation tests in neglect are only relative to the stimuli used. In light of other studies, our findings indicate that patients with spatial neglect grossly overestimate the size of small stimuli and underestimate the size of large stimuli, that crossover represents an “apparent” shift in error direction that actually results from normally occurring errors in size perception, and that the left hemisphere is specialized for one aspect of size estimation, whereas the right performs dual roles.