OBJECTIVE Cross-cultural research into risk assessment instruments has often identified comparable levels of discrimination. However, cross-cultural fairness is rarely addressed. Therefore, this study explored the discrimination and fairness of the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) within a sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males. HYPOTHESES We hypothesized that discrimination would not be significantly different for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals. We further hypothesized that some fairness definitions would be unsatisfied. METHOD The study included 380 males (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, n = 180) from Australia. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) and cross AUC (xAUC). To determine fairness, error rate balance, calibration, predictive parity, and statistical parity were used. RESULTS The discrimination of the LS/RNR was not statistically different (p = .61) between groups. The xAUC identified disparities (p < .001), with the LS/RNR being unable to discriminate between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nonreoffenders and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reoffenders (xAUC = .46, 95% CI [.35, .57]). Disparities among certain fairness definitions were identified, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals scoring higher on the LS/RNR (d = 0.52) and nonreoffenders being classified as high risk more often. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that the LS/RNR may not be a cross-culturally fair risk assessment instrument for Australian individuals, and standard discrimination indices with comparable levels do not imply that a risk assessment instrument is cross-culturally fair. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

LS/RNR 的跨文化公平：澳大利亚分析。

目标 对风险评估工具的跨文化研究通常确定了可比较的歧视水平。然而，跨文化公平却很少被提及。因此，本研究探讨了土著和托雷斯海峡岛民以及非土著和托雷斯海峡岛民男性样本中服务水平/风险、需求、响应度 (LS/RNR) 的歧视和公平性。假设我们假设土著和托雷斯海峡岛民个人与非土著和托雷斯海峡岛民个人的歧视没有显着差异。我们进一步假设某些公平定义将不被满足。方法 该研究包括来自澳大利亚的 380 名男性（原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民，n = 180）。用曲线下面积 (AUC) 和交叉 AUC (xAUC) 评估歧视。为了确定公平性，使用了错误率平衡、校准、预测奇偶校验和统计奇偶校验。结果 LS/RNR 的区分在组间没有统计学差异 (p = .61)。xAUC 确定了差异 (p < .001)，LS/RNR 无法区分原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民非重犯者以及非原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民重犯者 (xAUC = .46, 95% CI [.35, . 57]）。确定了某些公平定义之间的差异，原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民个人在 LS/RNR 上得分较高（d = 0.52），非重犯者更常被归类为高风险。结论 研究结果表明，LS/RNR 可能不是澳大利亚个人的跨文化公平风险评估工具，具有可比水平的标准歧视指数并不意味着风险评估工具是跨文化公平的。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。