Literature DB >> 31696355

Can Machine Learning Improve Screening for Targeted Delinquency Prevention Programs?

William E Pelham1, Hanno Petras2, Dustin A Pardini3.   

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of targeted delinquency prevention programs for children depends on the accuracy of the screening process. Screening accuracy is often poor, resulting in wasted resources and missed opportunities to avert negative outcomes. This study examined whether screening approaches based on logistic regression or machine learning algorithms could improve accuracy relative to traditional sum-score approaches when identifying boys in the 5th grade (N = 1012) who would be repeatedly arrested for violent and serious crimes from ages 13 to 30. Screening algorithms were developed that incorporated facets of teacher-reported externalizing problems and other known risk factors (e.g., peer rejection). The predictive performance of these algorithms was evaluated and compared in holdout (i.e., test) data using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and Brier score. Both the logistic and machine learning methods yielded AUROC superior to traditional sum-score screening approaches when a broad set of risk factors for future delinquency was considered. However, this improvement was modest and was not present when using item-level information from a composite scale assessing externalizing problems. Contrary to expectations, machine learning algorithms performed no better than simple logistic models. There was a large apparent advantage of machine learning that disappeared after appropriate cross-validation, underscoring the importance of careful evaluation of these methods. Results suggest that screening using logistic regression could improve the cost-effectiveness of targeted delinquency prevention programs in some cases, but screening using machine learning would confer no marginal benefit under currently realistic conditions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Delinquency; Machine learning; Prevention; Violence

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31696355      PMCID: PMC7041896          DOI: 10.1007/s11121-019-01040-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Sci        ISSN: 1389-4986


  19 in total

1.  What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models.

Authors:  Michael A Babyak
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.312

2.  The prediction of violence and homicide in young men.

Authors:  Rolf Loeber; Dustin Pardini; D Lynn Homish; Evelyn H Wei; Anne M Crawford; David P Farrington; Magda Stouthamer-Loeber; Judith Creemers; Steven A Koehler; Richard Rosenfeld
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2005-12

3.  Effectiveness of early screening for externalizing problems: issues of screening accuracy and utility.

Authors:  Laura G Hill; John D Coie; John E Lochman; Mark T Greenberg
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2004-10

4.  A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis.

Authors:  P Peduzzi; J Concato; E Kemper; T R Holford; A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Construction of longitudinal prediction targets using semisupervised learning.

Authors:  Booil Jo; Robert L Findling; Trevor J Hastie; Eric A Youngstrom; Chen-Pin Wang; L Eugene Arnold; Mary A Fristad; Thomas W Frazier; Boris Birmaher; Mary K Gill; Sarah McCue Horwitz
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-01-08       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 6.  Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning.

Authors:  Tal Yarkoni; Jacob Westfall
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-08-25

7.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 8.  Machine Learning Approaches for Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry.

Authors:  Dominic B Dwyer; Peter Falkai; Nikolaos Koutsouleris
Journal:  Annu Rev Clin Psychol       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 18.561

9.  Modern modeling techniques had limited external validity in predicting mortality from traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Tjeerd van der Ploeg; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  HUMAN DECISIONS AND MACHINE PREDICTIONS.

Authors:  Jon Kleinberg; Himabindu Lakkaraju; Jure Leskovec; Jens Ludwig; Sendhil Mullainathan
Journal:  Q J Econ       Date:  2017-08-26
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Leveraging data science to enhance suicide prevention research: a literature review.

Authors:  Avital Rachelle Wulz; Royal Law; Jing Wang; Amy Funk Wolkin
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 3.770

2.  Improving Mental Health Services: A 50-Year Journey from Randomized Experiments to Artificial Intelligence and Precision Mental Health.

Authors:  Leonard Bickman
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2020-09
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.