ICFS Instituto de Ciencias Forenses y de la Seguridad Universidad

Transcription

ICFS
Instituto de Ciencias Forenses y de la Seguridad
(Institute of Forensic and Security Sciences)
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
w w w. i c f s . u a m . e s
ICFS
Instituto de
Ciencias Forenses y de la Seguridad
U n i v e r s i d a d
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
In collaboration with:
Risk assessment and risk
evolution of gender violence
Manuel de Juan Espinosa
Director of ICFS
Full Professor (Criminal Psychology)
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
GESI
Colaborative entities
UNIVERSIDAD DE BACELONA
(GEAV)
Grupo de Estudios Avanzados en
Violencia
UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID
INSTITUTO ANDALUZ DE
CRIMINOLOGÍA
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
Research team
•
•
•
•
•
Manuel de Juan Espinosa
José Luís González Álvarez
Ana Mª Muñoz Rodríguez
Luís Fco. García Rodríguez
Andrea Giménez-Salinas
Framis
•
•
•
•
•
•
Álvaro Ortigosa
Laura Requena Espada
María José Garrido
Rufina Pena Carreras
Catalina Polán
Meritxell Pérez Ramírez
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
Objective:
MAXIMUM EFICIENCY IN VICTIMS PROTECTION
THT IS
a) PROTECTION ADAPTED TO RISK LEVEL, IN b) THE SHOTEST PERIOD OF
TIME
RISK POLICE ASSESSMENT
(VPR)
VICTIM PROTECTION MEASURES
RISK EVOLUTION ASSESSMENT
(VPER)
(VRIP)
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
DYNAMIC OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT
DENOUNCE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk Level
RL2
RL3
RLn
VPR
Protection measures
P.M.
VPER1
P.M.
VRIP
P.M.
VPERn
ASSESSMENT OF RISK EVOLUTION
Immediate Protection
Response
R i s k ’s m o d i f i e r e v e n t s
AFTER DENOUNCE
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
RISK ASSESSMENT
Validation of VPR Protocol
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
RISK ASSESSMENT
VPR protocol Validation
ARE WE ABLE TO REPLICATE THE KNOWLEDGE OF AN EXPERT IN
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN?
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
First study
Cases analyzed by experts: N= 52
Predicted Risk Level
Severity (2 groups)
Low
Medium
High
TOTAL
Case number
Low
20
High
9
Total
29
%
83,3%
32,1%
55,8%
Case number
3
12
15
%
12,5%
42,9%
28,8%
Case number
1
7
8
%
4,2%
25,0%
15,4%
Case number
24
28
52
%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
The 83.3% of cases correctly classified by two discriminating functions
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
Second study
Predicted membership group
Percentage %
Case
Number
Risk
Severity
No detected
risk
Low
Medium
High
Total
No detected
risk
5
1
0
0
6
Low
4
42
2
0
48
Medium
0
2
12
0
14
High
0
0
1
9
10
83,3
16,7
,0
0
100
8,3
87,5
4,2
0
100
0
14,3
85,7
0
100
0
0
10,0
90,0
100
No detected
risk
Low
Medium
High
The 87,2% of cases of cases correctly classified by two discriminating functions
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR Structure
(Construct Validity)
• How many factors can be identified?
• Does a Risk General Factor exist underlying such
factors?
• Is the unique “Risk Score” justified?
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
N= 32.457
Method: Principal Axes
Rotation: Promax
P. Explained Variance: 67,3%
GENERAL
RISK
FACTOR
Eigenvalues
.753
.765
.640
FACTOR I
.779
FACTOR II
Explicit threats
Violence Increment
Psychological violence
Jealousy and Obsession
Mating problems
FACTOR III
Unfulfilled legal measures
Breaking Law punishment
Defiance behavior
Criminal record
Substance abuse
Job problems
Suicidal trends
.882
Correlations
.797
FACTOR IV
.552
.467
VPR
SCORE
Physical violence
Sexual violence
Arm use
.477
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR Reliability
¿Can we truts in VPR?
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR Reliability
(Internal Consistency)
Total case analyzed = 119.486
VPR First version (N= 15.601):
Alpha Coefficient= 0.802
VPR Second version (N= 83.061):
Alpha Coefficient = 0.814
VPR Third version (N= 20.824):
Alpha Coefficient = 0.821
The VPR protocol is highly reliable
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR predictive validity
• Which is the agreement level between the Expert System
and Police Agent (expert criterion)?
• With which accuracy our Expert System is able to predict
the victim`s risk level (combined data criterion)?
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR expert criterion
Case analyzed N= 20.824
100
95,3
POLICE AGENT (EXPERT CRITERION)
Disagreement
No
Detected
Low
Medium
High
Extreme
No detected
8338
0
428
83
1
0
Low
6577
25
0
229
21
0
Medium
3312
4
40
3
51
0
High
1127
2
6
37
1
4
Extreme
488
3
4
10
20
2
19850
34
478
362
94
6
95,3
0,2
2,3
1,7
0,5
0,03
Total
% AGREEMENT=
60
Percentage
VPR Risk Level
Agreement
80
40
20
4,7
0
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR accuracy
Case analyzed N= 25.276
(Combined data criterion)
Predicted membership group (under combined data criterion)
No detected
Percentage (%)
Case Number
risk
Low
Medium
high
Extreme
Total
No detected
996
0
0
0
0
996
Low
2722
11655
11
0
0
14388
Medium
0
180
5753
329
0
6262
High
0
0
16
2391
0
2407
Extreme
0
0
0
106
1117
1223
No detected
100
0
0
0
0
100
Low
18.9
81,0
0,1
0
0
100
Medium
0
2.9
91.9
5.3
0
100
High
0
0
0.7
99.3
0
100
Extreme
0
0
0
8,7
91,3
100
The 87,7% of cases of cases correctly classified by the Discriminating Functions
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR robustness
Are the VPR’s technical warranties stable against
potential variation sources?
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR Robustness
VPR Structure (Structure similarity)
CRITERIA: rcc> 0.90 = Highly similar; rcc> 0.95 = Nearly identical
• Among subsamples: rcc= 0.976 (Mean Congruence Coefficient)
• Among police forces: rcc= 0.959 (Mean Congruence Coefficient)
• Among factor analysis methods: rcc= 0.981 (Mean Congruence Coefficient)
VPR Reliability (Differences)
• Among subsamples: Non Significant differences
• Among Police Forces: N.S. Differences
• Among State Communities: N.S. Differences
Predictive capacity (Differences)
• Among subsamples: N.S. Differences
• Among State Communities: N.S. Differences
The VPR is highly Robust
and Stable
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPER Validity
(Police Assessment of Risk Evolution)
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPER Structure
(Construct Validity)
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPER STRUCTURE
-.116
FACTOR II
Risk Increasing
FACTOR I
Security Increasing
.819
.788
.707
-.323
.759
FACTOR 1
Voluntarily distancing from victim
Peaceful attitude
Fulfill dismissal regulations
Civic and respectful attitude
Job situation stability
Show remorse
Time pass without conflicts
FACTOR 2
Victim behaves against in own
security
V. Begins new relationship
Victim substance abuse
People around victim consent
violence
FACTOR 3
Aggressor Escaped
Social and economic
difficulties
Aggressor alarming traits
FACTOR 4
Aggressor in jail
Victim in distance and secure place
Victim have a secure environment
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPER Reliability
• Reliability: Internal Consistency (Alpha Coefficient):
• Are all the VPER’ indicators measuring the same concept?
•
Because 2 general factors were obtained, we expected Internal consistency will be
different for each of such factors.
• Does such a concept measure the same matter every time that
it is applied?
•
We expected no change in internal consistency from time to time VPER’s is applied.
• Reliability: Time Stability:
• Does the individual’s behavior change along time?
•
Because VPER is designed to measure change, we expected a decreasing in
stability of individual’s behaviors
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
Dynamics of the Reliability (Internal consistency): Total VPER vs Factor I
N= 34,320
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,726
0,67
0,554
0,741
0,762
0,766
0,771
0,738
0,728
0,72
0,734
0,736
0,633
0,591
0,478
0,5
0,75
0,546
0,563
0,455
0,457
0,54
0,525
0,435
0,424
0,501
0,509
0,53
0,17
0,182
0,556
0,4
0,287
0,3
0,2
0,189
0,1
0,1
0
VPER 1
VPER 2
VPER 4
VPER 6
Alpha Total
VPER 8
VPER 10
Alpha Factor I
VPER 12
VPER 14
VPER 16
Alpha Factor II
VPER 18
VPER 20
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
Dynamics of the Reliability (Time Stability):
N= 34,320
1
0,9
0,8
0,782
0,712
0,7
0,654
0,625
0,6
0,589 0,575 0,57
0,542
0,5
0,497
0,441
0,4
0,353 0,345 0,33
0,262
0,3
0,193
0,2
0,188
0,164
0,921
0,94
0,866
0,86
0,953
0,834
0,937
0,9
0,806
0,904
0,878
0,905
0,906
0,878
0,868
0,846
0,81
0,74
0
0,782
0,1
0,292 0,27
VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER VPER
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Correlación 2 a 2 entre VPER
Correlación entre VPER 1 con el resto
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPER Accuracy
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPER Accuracy
(combined data criterion)
Total
% Percentage Case number
Original
Risk Level increase/decrease
-2
-2
500
-1
9
0
0
+1
0
1346
-1
64
1336
2
0
565
0
0
21
1763
23
1807
+1
0
0
81
724
805
-2
98.2
1.8
.0
.0
100.0
-1
4.6
95.3
.1
.0
100.0
0
.0
1.2
97.6
1.3
100.0
+1
.0
.0
10.1
89.9
100.0
93,6% of cases correctly classified by the Discriminating Functions
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPER Accuracy
(Expert criterion)
% Agreement Police Agent / VPER Expert System
100
95
93,2
90,8
Percentage
90,4
93,9
96,2
95,2
94,5 94,1 94,2 94,2
93,6
93 92,9
91,8
93,3
91,6
92,2
89,2
90
91,9
89,2
85
80
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Times VPER protocol is applied
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPER robustness
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VPR Robustness
VPER Structure (Structure similarity)
CRITERIA: rcc> 0.90 = Highly similar; rcc> 0.95 = Nearly identical
• Among time periods: rcc= 0.927 (Mean Congruence Coefficient)
• Among police forces: rcc= 0.942 (Mean Congruence Coefficient)
• Among factor analysis methods: rcc= 0.958 (Mean Congruence Coefficient)
VPER Reliability : Internal consistency (Differences)
• Among time periods: Non Significant differences
VPER Reliability: Time stability (Differences)
• Among time periods: N.S. Differences
The VPER is Robust and Stable
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
VRIP Validity
(Penitentiary Assessment of Risk Evolution)
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
Risk Level
Case Number
Percentage
Non
detected
Risk
Low
Medium
High
Extreme
No detected Risk
13
4
0
0
0
Low
3
35
1
0
0
Medium RELIABILITY (Alpha
0 Coefficient
3
4 0,721 0
of24
17 items)=
High
0
0
6
17
1
Extreme
0
0
1
1
12
No Detected R
76,5
23,5
,0
,0
,0
Low
7,7
89,6
2,7
,0
,0
Medium
,0
9,7
77,4
12,9
,0
High
,0
,0
25,0
70,8
4,2
Extreme
,0
,0
7,1
7,1
85,8
TOTAL
17
39
31
24
14
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
80,8% of cases correctly classified by the discriminating function
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
SYSTEM EFICIENCY
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
System eficiency
(N= 20.824)
30
100
95,4
92,6
98,2
99
88,5
24,5
No detected
59,8
15
9,4
8,6
Medium
60
High
50
Extreme
40
Inactive
30
6
5
5,1
80
70
Low
20
Percentage
99,5
90
80,7
10
99,3
20
4,9
4,1
3
3
2
1,6
0,4
0
vper 1
0,8
0,1
vper2
0,5
0
vper3
2,6
1,3
0,4
1,71,6
0
vper4
1,1
0,3 0
vper5
10
0,9 1 0,8
0,2
vper6
0,40,60,60,2
vper7
0,20,30,50,1
0,10,20,40,1
vper8
vper9
0 0,10,30,1
vper10
0
Inactive Percentage
25
97,1
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
System eficiency by VPR Risk Level
VPR Risk Level= No detected
VPR Risk Level= Low
VPR Risk Level= Medium
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
System eficiency by VPR Risk Level
VPR Risk Level= High
VPR Risk Level= Extreme
ICFS
Instituto de
A u t ó n o m a
d e
M a d r i d
www.icfs.uam.es
Thanks for your attention

ICFS Instituto de Ciencias Forenses y de la Seguridad Universidad

Transcription

Similar documents

Guía para la realización de pericias psiquiátricas o psicológicas

Diagnóstico Prenatal de Anomalías Cromosómicas Nuevos

Workshop Report Spain July 2015

Lecture of Suderow at Cytef 2012

Exámenes medicolegales por presunto delito sexual, Colombia, 2013

Taller de Seguridad SAP ERP

licenciatura en agronomía

Rutinas de la infancia urbana mediadas por la tecnología: Un

Guía del Usuario de - Palisade Corporation

estrategias sociales de prevención y adaptación