New study: Do popular actuarials work?

4-21-2010 National:

From In The News by Karen Franklin:

Newer instruments outperform Static-99 and RRASOR

If you evaluate sex offenders, you may be overwhelmed by the dizzying array of actuarial risk assessment instruments vying for your vote: Static-99, RM 2000, RRASOR, Static-2002, SORAG, MnSOST-R. The list of weird-looking acronyms grows ever longer, and the validity studies more complex.

For help figuring out which instruments do what, and how well, I recommend a study by two Canadians, Jan Looman and Jeffrey Abracen, just published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence. The study compared the ability of four leading instruments to predict recidivism among a sample of 419 high-risk Canadian sex offenders. Overall, about 15% of the released offenders were convicted of a new sex offense when the follow-up time period was held at a constant of seven years.

Among the interesting findings:

•When rapists and child molesters were examined separately, none of the instruments were able to predict sexual recidivism (defined as a new conviction) for child molesters.

•The RRASOR (Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism) bombed completely as a predictive tool. The Static-99, a descendant of the RRASOR and the most widely used actuarial for assessing sex offender risk, did not do much better. As the authors note, since their sample was similar to U.S. offenders subject to civil commitment as Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs), the lack of predictive validity of these instruments raises concerns about their use in SVP proceedings.

•Two newer instruments -- the Static-2002 and the Risk Matrix 2000, developed in England -- did somewhat better. Especially interesting is how the Static-2002 performed. Overall, only two of the instrument's five subscales predicted sexual recidivism. Not surprisingly, these were Age at Release and Persistence of Sexual Offending. This is rather common sensical, in that sex offending declines dramatically with age, and a high score on the Persistence scale indicates an entrenched pattern of sex offending, with an early onset, a high rate, and multiple convictions. When rapists and child molesters were separated out, instead of being lumped together as generic “sex offenders” as they often are, only the Deviant Sexual Interests scale predicted sexual recidivism for the child molesters.

•Finally, age matters. It really does. The few who continue to deny this obvious fact are just being stubborn. Similar to other studies, only about 2% of offenders over 50 reoffended (one child molester and one rapist, in this case), compared with 20% of those ages 25 to 35.

Of course, this is just one study. Other studies comparing the accuracy of instruments for assessing sex offender risk have come to various and contradictory conclusions. For example, contrast the present findings with those of the Austrian study that I blogged about last month, testing German versions of the RRASOR, Static-99, SORAG, and SVR-20. The publisher of the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology has just made that study available for free, by the way. Keeping up with this burgeoning literature is a full-time job, unfortunately necessary for practice in this area.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

A Multisite Comparison of Actuarial Risk Instruments for Sex Offenders

2003

Introduction:
Four actuarial instruments for the prediction of violent and sexual reoffending (the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide [VRAG], Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide [SORAG], Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offender Recidivism [RRASOR], and Static-99) were evaluated in 4 samples of sex offenders (N = 396). Although all 4 instruments predicted violent (including sexual) recidivism and recidivism known to be sexually motivated, areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) were consistently higher for the VRAG and the SORAG. The instruments performed better when there were fewer missing items and follow-up time was fixed, with an ROC area up to .84 for the VRAG, for example, under such favorable conditions. Predictive accuracy was higher for child molesters than for rapists, especially for the Static-99 and the RRASOR. Consistent with past research, survival analyses revealed that those offenders high in both psychopathy and sexual deviance were an especially high-risk group. ..Rest of Study.. by Grant T. Harris -and- Marnie E. Rice -and- Vernon L. Quinsey -and- Martin L. Lalumiere -and- Douglas Boer -and- Carol Lang

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MA- Defense attorney: Few factors reveal who will offend again

What they fail to say is, that the Static-99 does not predict anything if not used on offenders who have already committed multiple offenses. The Static-99 factors have been brought into question in court and held unreliable.
3-3-2008 Massachusetts:

There is scant scientific evidence available that can predict whether a sex offender will attack again, said a defense attorney who has helped free dozens of men who were civilly committed to the Massachusetts Treament Center in Bridgewater.

“I disagree with the notion that you should be able to put someone away, segregate them from the public for something that you think they are going to do if for no other reason than that we are not very good at prediction,” said attorney John Swomley. “We are putting lots of innocent people away for life without any basis for doing so.”

A Bay State Superior Court judge, Richard T. Moses, has faced withering criticism over the release of three sexual criminals accused of re-offending in recent weeks. Swomley said all but one of his clients have not re-offended, and that judges, juries and others have few truly reliable tools for anticipating recidivism.

The most credible tool for predicting whether a sex offender will attack again is an actuary instrument called the Static-99. The scale, developed by Canadian researcher R. Karl Hanson, takes into account prior sex offenses, sentencing dates, convictions for non-sexual violence, whether the victims were strangers, male, non-family members and other factors.

Offenders are scored on a numerical scale, with people scoring a 1 being the least likely to re-offend. People at 6 or higher on the test re-offend at a rate of 52.1 percent after 15 years in the community, according to the scale.

“This is really the only way you can pin prediction to anything that is scientific. Otherwise it is just tea-leaf reading, flipping coins and total clinical judgment, which has been determined to have no prediciative value at all,” Swomley said. ..more.. by Laura Crimaldi


Chart: The Static 99 table | The scoring system

Consider the following from a prior court case:

§ 9:42 Actuarial procedures—Cross-examining the static-99

1. The Static-99 is a 10-item actuarial instrument designed for assessing the recidivism risk of previously convicted sexual offenders — Correct?

2. The Static-99 combines an actuarial procedure previously developed in Great Britain, the Structured Anchored Clinical Judgment (SACJ), with the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism (the RRASOR) — Correct?

3. The developers of the Static-99, Hanson and Thornton, characterize it as "… this year's version of a work in progress" — Correct?

4. "… this year's version of a work in progress" indicates there are various revisions anticipated for the Static-99 — Correct?

5. And if future revisions of the Static-99 are inevitable, then the Static-99 amounts to an experimental procedure — Correct?

6. And if the Static-99 is an experimental procedure - subject to future revisions - it cannot to be generally accepted by your professional community — Correct?

7. The developers of the Static-99, Hanson and Thornton, also report:
[ read ]

"Static-99 does not claim to be comprehensive, for it neglects whole categories of potentially relevant variables (e.g., dynamic factors)."— Correct?

8. If the Static-99 does not claim to be comprehensive, because of the variables it neglects, this consideration further demonstrates that the Static-99 is an experimental procedure — Correct?

9. Static-99 scores are translated as falling into one of four risk categories:
(1) Low, (2) Medium-Low, (3) Medium-High, and (4) High. — Correct?

10. Commenting on these risk levels, Hanson and Thornton report:
[ read ]

Although Static-99 can meaningfully differentiate between sex offenders with higher or lower probabilities of recidivism, the labels used to describe the various risk levels (low, medium-low, medium-high, high) do not reflect any absolute standard of risk.

Now my question: If the Static-99 risk level labels do not reflect any absolute standard of risk, your using those labels could mislead and misinform this court — Correct?

11. Validity data for the Static-99 were obtained from Canadian and United Kingdom populations — Correct?

12. And because the validity data for the Static-99 were obtained from Canadian and UK populations, we do not know to what extent those data are applicable my client in this particular case — Correct?

13. The validity data reported for the Static-99 are expressed in terms of "Receiver Operating Characteristic" (ROC) values —Correct?

14. Can you define for this court - in understandable terms - what a "Receiver Operating Characteristic" is?

[Surprising as it may seem, most professionals will be unable to answer this question]

15. Would you agree with the following explanation of the "Receiver Operating Characteristic" ?
[ read ]

In the instance of two randomly selected offenders (one a recidivist and the other a non-recidivist), ROC values indicate the probability that the recidivist scores higher on the Static-99 than the non-recidivist.

16. The ROC value reported for the Static-99 is .71 — Correct?

17. Therefore, the chances are 71 out of a 100, that the Static-99 score of a randomly selected recidivist exceeds the score of an randomly selected non-recidivist — Correct?

18. Can you explain to the judge [or jury] how that information can be used for decision-making in this case?

19. In other words, Receiver Operating Characteristic values are not applied in a simple, straightforward manner to this case — Correct?

20. The title page of the previously cited unpublished paper reporting on the Static-99 contains the following disclaimer:
[ read ]

The risk assessment procedures contained in this report, including Static-99 have been developed by the authors in the course of their duties. Anyone choosing to use or adopt the risk assessment procedures, including Static-99, in any way, does so on the sole basis of their responsibility to judge their suitability for their own specific purposes. The Department of the Solicitor General and Her Majesty's Prison Service, London, their employees, agents, servants, and the authors neither assume nor accept any responsibility or legal liability for any injury or damages whatsoever resulting from the use of the risk assessment procedures and Static-99.

Now my question: This disclaimer is less than a ringing endorsement of the Static-99 — Correct?

21. This disclaimer seems to be advising professionals - You assume an unknown level of professional risk when using the Static-99 — Correct?

22. Despite Testing standard 6.1, there is no commercially available manual for the Static-99 — Correct?

23. And the unavailability of a manual can compromise the inter-rater reliability for an instrument such as the Static-99 — Correct?

24. You cannot cite any inter-rater reliability data for the Static-99 published in a peer-reviewed journal — Correct?

25. You have not published any validity data in a peer-reviewed journal supporting the use of the Static-99 — Correct?

26. You cannot cite any validity data published in a peer-reviewed journal supporting the use of the Static-99 — Correct?

27. You cannot cite any data, identifying the levels of sensitivity for the Static-99, published in a peer-reviewed journal — Correct?

28. You cannot cite any data, identifying the levels of specificity for the Static-99, published in a peer-reviewed journal — Correct?

29. You cannot cite any data, identifying the frequency of false positive errors associated with the Static-99, published in a peer-reviewed journal — Correct?

30. You cannot cite any data, identifying the frequency of false negative errors associated with the Static-99, published in a peer-reviewed journal — Correct?

31. Both Ethical standard 2.05 and Testing standard 7.9 obligate you to acknowledge these many limitations related to Static-99 — Correct?

32. And these many limitations undermining the Static-99 - including its falling short of ethical and practice standards - establish that it cannot claim general acceptance from your professional community — Correct?

Source



Further, questionable -by its author- when used for older offenders:

Abstract:
Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 2000) is the most commonly used actuarial risk tool for estimating sexual offender recidivism risk. Recent research has suggested that its methods of accounting for the offenders’ ages may be insufficient to capture declines in recidivism risk associated with advanced age. Using data from 8 samples (combined size of 3,425 sexual offenders), the present study found that older offenders had lower Static-99 scores than younger offenders and that Static-99 was moderately accurate in estimating relative recidivism risk in all age groups. Older offenders, however, displayed lower sexual recidivism rates than would be expected based on their Static-99 risk categories. Consequently, evaluators using Static-99 should consider advanced age in their overall estimate of risk.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Evaluating and Improving Risk Assessment Schemes for Sexual Recidivism: A Long-Term Follow-Up of Convicted Sexual Offenders

March 2007 217618

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Risk assessment plays a central role in the management of sexual offenders in the criminal justice system, impacting every level of decision-making. The specification of which offenders should be included in state registration or community notification, the distribution of treatment opportunities in prison, the determination of parole eligibility, the allocation of resources in monitoring and supervising offenders in the community, and the ultimate decision to remove the most serious offenders from the community through civil commitment all involve critical choices involving risk. The serious consequences to potential victims, to those offenders who no longer pose a threat to the community, but are denied their civil liberties, and to critical community funds that may be squandered as the result of inaccurate decisions all demand the guidance of the most accurate actuarial algorithms available. Because decisions must be made—even doing nothing constitutes a decision—to choose not to employ the most accurate decision-making algorithms is to choose to pay the costly price of a suboptimal decision.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate and to improve the decision-making algorithms that have been generated to assess risk in sexual offenders. More specifically, it was the task of this research project to evaluate the extant actuarials in a sample of sexual offenders on whom long-term follow up were available. We assessed the comparative accuracy of the major risk instruments over time and over subsamples, explored their underlying factor structure, examined the accuracy of a new assessment protocol (SRA Need Assessment; Thornton, 2002), and explored the potential for generating improved predictive instruments.

In a prior study we (Knight, 1999; Prentky, Knight, & Lee, 1997) had followed 599 offenders who had been referred to the Massachusetts Treatment Center (MTC) for evaluation between 1959 and 1984. Of these 266 (Bridgewater Treatment [BT] sample) had been committed to MTC as “sexually dangerous” and subsequently released, and 333 (Bridgewater Observation [BO] sample) had been determined not to be sexually dangerous and returned to finish their sentences. Of the 333 BO offenders 200 constituted a matched sample (on age at evaluation, marital status, and number of prior crimes) and 200 were randomly sampled from the entire sample BO population evaluated. There was an overlap of 67 offenders selected by both the random and matched process. For all these offenders we had accessed and integrated four outcome record sources, including the Massachusetts Board of Probation records, the Massachusetts Parole Board records, the Massachusetts Treatment Center Authorized Absence Program records, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records.

In the present study we accessed the archival clinical files for these offenders and coded these records both on modern empirically-derived, mechanical actuarials that have been developed since 1997 for predicting sexual recidivism, including the RRASOR (Hanson, 1997), the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 2000), the Static-2002 (Hanson & Thornton, 2003), the SORAG (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998), the MnSOST-R (Epperson, Kaul, Huot, Hesselton, Alexander, & Goldman, 1998), and the Risk Matrix 2000 (Thornton et al., 2003), on two structured clinical guidelines, the SVR-20 (Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997) and the A-SOAP-II (Prentky & Righthand, 2003), and on a new experimental measure, the SRA Needs Assessment (Thornton, 2002). Offenders were also categorized in the Massachusetts Treatment Center Rapist (MTC:R3) and Child Molester (MTC:CM3) typologies and diagnosed according the DSM-IV Antisocial Personality Disorder and Conduct Disorder criteria. All codings and judgments were carried out without any access to or knowledge about the follow-up status of the offenders.

The final report addressed six basic questions. We summarize the findings for each using this framework: ..more.. by Raymond A. Knight, Ph.D. ; David Thornton, Ph.D.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: NOTIFICATION LEVELS AND RECIDIVISM

Apparently -in this study- the risk one presents to the community is ONLY determined based upon that person WHEN they committed their crime, which may have been many years ago. Folks change and prison, therapy and many other factors do affect a person. The risk assessment used herein does not take any of that into consideration. Hence, I would question it. eAdvocate

December 2005

SUMMARY
This report examines the relationship between recidivism and the sex offender notification levels set by Washington State’s End of Sentence Review Committee (ESRC). These notification levels are sent to local law enforcement who make the final determination of the level communicated to the public.

Starting in 1990 the ESRC’s notification risk classification was based upon a review of the offender’s criminal history, institutional behavior, and other relevant information. As a result of 1997 legislation, the ESRC adopted a more consistent approach to classification—the Washington State Sex Offender Risk Level Classification Tool.

The Classification Tool combines two factors: specific notification considerations and an offender’s risk assessment score. The result is three notification levels (I, II, III) that define the degree of risk to the community posed by convicted sex offenders.

Key Findings

• The 1997 statute increased the percentage of sex offenders who received a notification level from 50 percent in 1997 to nearly 90 percent in 1999.

• The notification levels determined by the ESRC do not classify sex offenders into groups that accurately reflect their risk for reoffending. Future reports will address prospects for a more accurate sex offender risk assessment instrument.


The 2004 Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to conduct a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of current sex offender sentencing policies.1 Because this is an extensive topic, we are publishing a series of reports.

In 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed the Community Protection Act, an omnibus bill that included the requirement for sex offenders to register with the sheriff in their county of residence.2 Public officials, for the first time in U.S. laws, were also authorized to release “necessary and relevant” information about sexual predators to the public. In 1990, the multi-disciplinary End of Sentence Review Committee (ESRC) within the Department of Corrections began issuing three types of notifications to law enforcement: Special Bulletins (highest risk), Law Enforcement Alerts, and Teletype.3 The ESRC’s notification decision was based upon a review of the offender’s criminal history, institutional behavior, and other relevant information.

In 1997, the Legislature directed a more consistent statewide approach to notifications.4 The extent of disclosure was to be rationally related to: (a) the level of risk posed by the offender to the community; (b) the locations where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found; and (c) the needs of the affected community members for information to enhance their
individual and collective safety.

The ESRC then adopted the Washington State Sex Offender Risk Level Classification Tool5 to determine a sex offender’s risk to the community. The ESRC notification levels are sent to local law enforcement who determine the level communicated to the public. In a previous report, the Institute analyzed the relationship between recidivism and Washington’s passage of sex offender registration and community notification statutes.6 The report concluded that recidivism rates for sex offenders have decreased since the enactment of these statutes.

This report examines how well the ESRC’s notification levels predict recidivism. A future report will examine the notification levels issued by law enforcement. ..more..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY STUDY OF THE STATIC-99/RRASOR SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS

January, 2003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In late 1999, the Sex Offender Assessment Board (SOAB), for its work assessing sexual offenders, both for court ordered and PBPP cases, began use of the RRASOR, Static 99, and MNSOST-R. The PBPP, upon recommendation of the SOAB, adopted the Static 99 as its objective risk assessment instrument to assist in determining the static level of risk to re-offend sexually posed by sex offenders. The Static-99 was first developed by Canadian researchers and includes ten items that take into account the offender’s prior criminal history, incidence of violence, relationship to the victim, and personal characteristics that may influence the decision of the PBPP. These variables have been shown to be statistically associated with recidivism in other jurisdictions. Within the Static- 99, there are four items that compose a condensed risk assessment instrument known as the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR).

Summary of Research Design and Methodology
In order to measure the reliability of Static-99/RRASOR, two reliability tests were completed. The first consisted of a pilot test of 41 cases that were coded by independent scorers using case file data. A second test was conducted on a larger sample of 220 cases that were drawn for the validation study.

The validation sample consisted of 550 cases that reflected prisoners convicted of sex crimes and were released either between 1994 and 1995 (N=356) or in 2000 (N=194). The characteristics of the 550 cases were compared to the total universe of all released sex offenders. This analysis found the sample to be representative of all sex releases for the two time periods.

Reliability Findings
Two reliability tests were conducted to ascertain the reliability of three sex offender risk assessment instruments. In addition to the Static-99/RRASOR, the reliability of the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) was also assessed. The first test was a limited pilot study that consisted 41 cases, each scored twice on the three instruments. In order for the scoring of the items to be judged reliable, the two raters needed to assign the same score for at least 80 - 90 percent of the cases.

The pilot study revealed that the level of inter-rater reliability was unacceptably low for the MnSOST-R, based in large part on the information collected in the records of both the DOC and PBPP. While, the Static 99/RRASOR had higher levels of reliability, significant staff training and item refinement/clarification was required to improve the scoring of the Static 99/RRASOR; DOC and PBPP records are not a factor for RRASOR/Static 99. ..more.. by James Austin, Ph.D., Johnette Peyton, M.S., Kelly Dedel Johnson, Ph.D.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

DOES THE PRISON TREATMENT PROGRAM REDUCE RECIDIVISM?

I find the results of this recidivism study statistically invalid due to the selection process used which only allows high risk offenders into treatment. The state, in 2006, concluded that therapy does not reduce recidivism.

Explanation:
Initially the researchers chose everyone who was willing to participate in therapy. Then they divided that into two groups: A) Those who DID NOT participate in therapy; and, b) Those who DID particpate in therapy. No matter which group the person fell into each had to have a prior sex offense conviction.

Now the catch, in order to particpate in therapy a prescreening process was applied. i.e. risk assessment tools MnSORT-R, RRASOR, and Static 99 were used to chose who could go into therapy. ONLY those who "had a high likelihood to reoffend" were permitted in therapy.

Anyone who DID NOT fit that requirement was pushed into the group of those who DID NOT participate in therapy group. In other words the DID NOT participate group was a mixed group of offenders. It contained folks who were willing to take therapy but did not, and those who fell out of the prescreening process.

Now a review of Exhibit 2 (pg-3) shows the study was not interested in just new sex offenses, instead recidivism means any kind of offense. i.e., the definition of recidivism meant more than just sex offenses. It appears ridiculous to assume that sex offender treatment program (SOTP) is designed to reduce recidivism of all kinds of offenses.

Exhibit 2 shows of those who went through therapy, 12 committed a new sex offense, and only 6 of those in the opposing group committed a new sex offense. Based upon that outcome researchers concluded, that therapy did not reduce recidivism.

What? Remember, the deck is stacked, only high risk of reoffense folks went to therapy, and low or medium risk did not. The outcome was predictible based on the prescreening process.

This is why I feel the study is statistically invalid. Additionally I see a few other things but what I mentioned above was more than enough to go no further.

eAdvocate

With that said, the study:

SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: DOES THE PRISON TREATMENT PROGRAM REDUCE RECIDIVISM?

The 2004 Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of current sex offender sentencing policies.1 Because this is an extensive topic, we are publishing a series of reports.

The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) has operated a prison-based Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) at the Twin Rivers Corrections Center since 1988. The program has undergone a series of changes since its inception. Since 1996, the program has used a combination of treatment techniques including group therapy, psycho-educational classes, behavioral treatment, and family involvement. The length of treatment has decreased from two years in 1996 to approximately one year currently. Since 2000, sex offenders assessed as having a high likelihood to reoffend, based on their criminal history, are prioritized for program entry.2 (FN2: The SOTP uses three risk for sexual reoffense
assessments: MnSOST-R, RRASOR, and Static 99.)

Offenders selected for the treatment program must meet the following five requirements:
• Sex offense conviction
• Voluntary participation
• Admission of guilt
• One year minimum remaining in prison
• Medium or lower custody classification
This report estimates whether SOTP reduces recidivism by comparing the recidivism rates of sex offenders who were willing but did not participate in SOTP with those who did participate in the program. ..more.. by Washington State Institute for Public Policy

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offender Risk Assessment

June 30, 2006

Prepared for: Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission

Executive Summary
Compared to clinical methods, actuarial risk instruments are a preferred method to discern sex offenders risk for sexual as well as violent recidivism because, unlike clinical practices, they are considered inexpensive, objective and modestly accurate. Scientists argue that risk instruments that employ only static, or historic measures of offender characteristics, rather than dynamic, are certainly sufficient for the purposes of gauging individuals’ likelihood of recidivism. In fact, Harris and Rice (2003:207) contend that dynamic constructs are “unnecessary for anticipating who will recidivate in a given time period”; furthermore they state that “very accurate statements about the likelihood of another…offense can be based upon knowledge of an individual’s lifetime conduct.” In their view, offender risk scales that incorporate only static information are essentially capturing factors that refl ect a person’s underlying antisocial propensity.

Although there are a considerable number of risk instruments available for corrections officials to utilize, far fewer have been rigorously evaluated. Of those that have, Harris and Rice (2003) recommend that the MnSOST-R and the Static-99 are two of the most “promising” scales for predicting sexual recidivism. An emerging body of work also suggests that the SORAG is quite effectual in terms of its predictive accuracy. Additional empirical research is likely to surface which will provide further evidence of the statistical accuracy of sex offender risk instruments.

For the remainder of this paper: by Dr. Beth Huebner (Prepared by: Institute of Public Policy, Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri – Columbia)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...