Evaluating Fairness of Algorithmic Risk Assessment Instruments: The Problem With Forcing Dichotomies

Researchers and stakeholders have developed many definitions to evaluate whether algorithmic pretrial risk assessment instruments are fair in terms of their error and accuracy. Error and accuracy are often operationalized using three sets of indicators: false-positive and false-negative percentages,...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Authors: Zottola, Samantha A. (Author) ; Desmarais, Sarah L. (Author) ; Lowder, Evan Marie (Author) ; Duhart Clarke, Sarah E. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: 2022
In: Criminal justice and behavior
Year: 2022, Volume: 49, Issue: 3, Pages: 389-410
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Keywords:

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1795543094
003 DE-627
005 20220316135036.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220315s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1177/00938548211040544  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1795543094 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1795543094 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Zottola, Samantha A.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
109 |a Zottola, Samantha A. 
245 1 0 |a Evaluating Fairness of Algorithmic Risk Assessment Instruments: The Problem With Forcing Dichotomies 
264 1 |c 2022 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Researchers and stakeholders have developed many definitions to evaluate whether algorithmic pretrial risk assessment instruments are fair in terms of their error and accuracy. Error and accuracy are often operationalized using three sets of indicators: false-positive and false-negative percentages, false-positive and false-negative rates, and positive and negative predictive value. To calculate these indicators, a threshold must be set, and continuous risk scores must be dichotomized. We provide a data-driven examination of these three sets of indicators using data from three studies on the most widely used algorithmic pretrial risk assessment instruments: the Public Safety Assessment, the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument, and the Federal Pretrial Risk Assessment. Overall, our findings highlight how conclusions regarding fairness are affected by the limitations of these indicators. Future work should move toward examining whether there are biases in how the risk assessment scores are used to inform decision-making. 
650 4 |a Federal Pretrial Risk Assessment 
650 4 |a Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument 
650 4 |a Public Safety Assessment 
650 4 |a Algorithmic fairness 
650 4 |a Bias 
650 4 |a Pretrial 
650 4 |a Risk Assessment 
700 1 |a Desmarais, Sarah L.  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)117612806X  |0 (DE-627)1047266520  |0 (DE-576)516520113  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Lowder, Evan Marie  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)1216722390  |0 (DE-627)1727975383  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Duhart Clarke, Sarah E.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Criminal justice and behavior  |d Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.] : Sage Publications, 1974  |g 49(2022), 3, Seite 389-410  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)306656345  |w (DE-600)1500128-3  |w (DE-576)081985487  |x 1552-3594  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:49  |g year:2022  |g number:3  |g pages:389-410 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211040544  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
936 u w |d 49  |j 2022  |e 3  |h 389-410 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 408900652X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1795543094 
LOK |0 005 20220315051544 
LOK |0 008 220315||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)KrimDok#2022-03-12#8ECF5DE2D115DBEB2CB459E304AEF383D9A07CAE 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw