Sex offenders (N = 468) were released from custody and recidivism outcome recorded. The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) were scored for each offender. Results indicated that, for the majority of actuarial items contained in the VRAG and SORAG and for VRAG and SORAG bin scores, offenders with lower actuarial scores were released from custody at a significantly older age. Actuarial scores were regressed on age-at-release and residuals saved as age-corrected actuarial scores. Using ROC analysis, predictive accuracy was evaluated comparing original actuarial scores with age-corrected scores. For most item scores and both bin scores, the ability to predict recidivism was significantly reduced after the effects of age-at-release had been removed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association. 1980. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, , 3rd ed.Washington, D.C.: Author..
2.
American Psychological Association. 2002. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.Washington, D.C.: Author..
3.
BarbareeH.E.BlanchardR. “Sexual deviance over the lifespan: Reductions in deviant sexual behavior in the aging sex offender.”. In Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment and treatment, , 2nd ed. Edited by: LawsD.R.O'DonohueW.New York: Guilford.. (in press)
4.
BarbareeH.E.BlanchardR.LangtonC.M.2003. “The development of sexual aggression through the life span: The effect of age on sexual arousal and recidivism among sex offenders.”. In Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management Edited by: PrentkyR.A.JanusE.S.SetoM.C.Vol. 989, 59–71. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences..
5.
BarbareeH.E.LangtonC.M.PeacockE.J.2006a. The factor structure of actuarial items: Its relation to prediction. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18: 207–226.
6.
BarbareeH.E.LangtonC.M.PeacockE.J.2006b. Different actuarial risk measures produce different risk rankings for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18: 423–440.
7.
BarbareeH.E.SetoM.C.LangtonC.M.PeacockE.J.2001. Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28: 490–521.
8.
DorenD.M.2002. Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil commitments and beyond.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage..
9.
EppersonD.L.KaulJ.D.HuotS.J.HesseltonD.AlexanderW.GoldmanR.1998. Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool – Revised (MnSOST-R).St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections..
10.
FazelS.SjöstedtG.LångströmN.GrannM.2006. Risk factors for criminal recidivism in older sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18: 159–167.
11.
HanleyJ.A.McNeilB.J.1982. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143: 29–36.
12.
HanleyJ.A.McNeilB.J.1983. A method of comparing the area under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148: 839–843.
13.
HansonR.K.1997. The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivismOttawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.. (User report 1997–04)
14.
HansonR.K.1998. What do we know about sex offender risk assessment?. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4: 50–72.
15.
HansonR.K.2002. Recidivism and age: Follow-up data on 4,673 sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17: 1046–1062.
16.
HansonR.K.2006. Does Static-99 predict recidivism among older sexual offenders?. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18: 343–355.
17.
HansonR.K.BussièreM.T.1998. Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies
18.
HansonR.K.Morton-BourgonK.2004. Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis. Public Works and Government Services Canada. Cat. No.: PS3–1/2004–2E-PDF. ISBN: 0–662-36397–3. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66: 348–362.
19.
HansonR.K.MortonK.E.HarrisA.J. R.2003. “Sex offender recidivism risk: What we know and what we need to know.”. In Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management Edited by: PrentkyR.A.JanusE.S.SetoM.C.Vol. 989, 154–166. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences..
20.
HansonR.K.ThorntonD.1999. Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offendersOttawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.. (User report 1999–02)
21.
HansonR.K.ThorntonD.2003. Notes on the development of Static-2002.Canada: Department of the Solicitor General.. User report number 2002–01
22.
HareR.D.1991. The Revised Psychopathy Checklist.Toronto, Ontario, , Canada: Multi-Health Systems..
23.
HarrisG.T.RiceM.E.2003. “Actuarial assessment of risk among sex offenders.”. In Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management Edited by: PrentkyR.A.JanusE.S.SetoM.C.Vol. 989, 198–210. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences..
24.
HarrisG.T.RiceM.E.2007. Adjusting actuarial violence risk assessments based on aging or the passage of time. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34: 297–313.
25.
HarrisG.T.RiceM.E.QuinseyV.L.1993. Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20: 315–335.
26.
HarrisG.T.RiceM.E.QuinseyV.L.LalumièreM.L.BoerD.LangC.2003. A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15: 413–425.
27.
HarrisG.T.SkillingT.A.RiceM.E.2001. “The construct of psychopathy.”. In Crime and Justice: An annual review of research Edited by: TonryM.MorrisN.197–264. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..
28.
HirschiT.GottfredsonM.1983. Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89: 552–584.
29.
LangtonC.M.BarbareeH.E.HansenK.T.HarkinsL.PeacockE.J.2007a. Reliability and validity of the Static-2002 among adult sexual offenders with reference to treatment status. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34: 616–640.
30.
LangtonC.M.BarbareeH.E.SetoM.C.PeacockE.J.HarkinsL.HansenK.T.2007b. Actuarial assessment of risk for re-offence among adult sex offenders: Evaluating the predictive accuracy of the Static-2002 and five other instruments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34: 37–59.
31.
PrentkyR.A.JanusE.BarbareeH.E.SchwartzB.K.KafkaM.P.2006. Sexually violent predators in the courtroom: Science on trial. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12: 357–393.
32.
PrentkyR.A.LeeA.F. S.2007. Effect of age-at-release on long term sexual re-offense rates in civilly committed sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19: 43–59.
33.
QuinseyV.L.HarrisG.T.RiceM.E.CormierC.A.1998. Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association..
34.
RiceM.E.HarrisG.T.1995. Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63: 737–748.
35.
RiceM.E.HarrisG.T.1997. Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21: 231–241.
36.
SampsonR.J.LaubJ.H.2003. Life course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41: 301–339.
37.
SetoM.C.2005. Is more better? Combining actuarial risk scales to predict recidivism among adult sex offenders. Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17: 156–167.
38.
SwetsJ.A.1986. Forms of empirical ROCs in discrimination and diagnostic tasks: Implications for theory and measurement performance. Psychological Bulletin, 99: 181–198.
39.
SwetsJ.A.DawesR.M.MonahanJ.2000. Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 1: 1–26.
40.
ThorntonD.2006. Age and sexual recidivism: A variable connection. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18: 123–135.
41.
WollertR.2006. Low base rates limit expert certainty when current actuarials are used to identify sexually-violent predators: An application of Bayes's Theorem. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12: 56–85.
