Several meta-analyses have examined the Central Eight risk factors for reoffending in the general forensic population. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to focus exclusively on the predictive validity of risk factors for recidivism in forensic outpatients. A multilevel meta-analysis was conducted of studies in which static and dynamic risk factors were investigated as predictors of violent and/or general recidivism in forensic outpatients. Twenty-seven studies were included, with 543 effect sizes in a unique population of 116,982 adult offenders. The Central Eight risk domains were found to be predictive of violent and general recidivism; however, these factors predicted recidivism with small-to-moderate effects. Overall, in the same domain, the dynamic risk factors were more strongly related to recidivism than the static risk factors. This knowledge may be used to guide future outpatient treatment.
*AbramsL. S.TerryD.FrankeT. M. (2011). Community-based juvenile reentry services: The effects of service dosage on juvenile and adult recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 492-510. doi:10.1080/10509674.2011.596919
2.
AndersenS. N.SkardhamarT. (2017). Pick a number: Mapping recidivism measures and their consequences. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 613-635. doi:10.1177/0011128715570629
3.
AssinkM.WibbelinkC. J. M. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12, 154-174. doi:10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154
4.
BabchishinK. M.HelmusL.-M. (2016). The influence of base rates on correlations: An evaluation of proposed alternative effect sizes with real-world data. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1021-1031. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0627-7
5.
BalesW. D.BurkesK. J.ScaggsS. J. A.ClarkC. L. (2015). Recidivism. In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 20, pp. 31-36). doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.45079-8
6.
BontaJ. L.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BontaJ. L.BlaisJ.WilsonH. A. (2014). A theoretically informed meta-analysis of the risk for general and violent recidivism for mentally disordered offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 278-287. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.014
8.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
9.
*BoumanY. H. A.ScheneA. H.De RuiterC. (2009). Subjective well-being and recidivism in forensic psychiatric outpatients. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 8, 225-234. doi:10.1080/14999011003635647
10.
*CanalesD. D.CampbellM. A.WeiR.TottenA. E. (2014). Prediction of general and violent recidivism among mentally disordered adult offenders: Test of the level of service/risk–need–responsivity (LS/RNR) instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 971-991. doi:10.1177/0093854814523003
11.
CheungM. W. L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19, 211-229. doi:10.1037/a0032968
12.
CollinsR. E. (2010). The effect of gender on violent and nonviolent recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 675-684. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.041
13.
*DegiorgioL.DiDonatoM. (2014). Predicting probationer rates of reincarceration using dynamic factors from the Substance Abuse Questionnaire-Adult Probation III (SAQ-Adult Probation III). American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 94-108. doi:10.1007/s12103-013-9198-2
14.
De Vries RobbéM.De VogelV.DouglasK. S.NijmanH. L. I. (2015). Changes in dynamic risk and protective factors for violence during inpatient forensic psychiatric treatment: Predicting reductions in postdischarge community recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 53-61. doi:10.1037/lhb0000089
15.
DouglasK. S.SkeemJ. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11, 347-383.
16.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics Journal of the International Biometric Society, 56, 455-463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
17.
*FisherW. H.HartwellS. W.DengX.PinalsD. A.FulwilerC.Roy-BujnowskiK. (2014). Recidivism among released state prison inmates who received mental health treatment while incarcerated. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 811-832. doi:10.1177/0011128714541204
18.
*GordonH.KeltyS. F.JulianR. (2015). An evaluation of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory in an Australian community corrections environment. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22, 247-258. doi:10.1080/13218719.2014.941090
19.
GreinerL. E.LawM. A.BrownS. L. (2015). Using dynamic factors to predict recidivism among women: A four-wave prospective study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 457-480. doi:10.1177/0093854814553222
20.
GriegerL.HosserD. (2014). Which risk factors are really predictive? An analysis of Andrews and Bonta’s “Central Eight” risk factors for recidivism in German youth correctional facility inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 613-634.
21.
GutierrezL.WilsonH. A.RuggeT.BontaJ. (2013). The prediction of recidivism with aboriginal offenders: A theoretically informed meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55, 55-99. doi:10.3138/cjccj.2011.E.51
22.
HansonR. K.HelmusL.-M.HarrisA. J. R. (2015). Assessing the risk and needs of supervised sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 1205-1224. doi:10.1177/0093854815602094
23.
*HansonR. K.Wallace-CaprettaS. (2004). Predictors of criminal recidivism among male batterers. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 413-427. doi:10.1080/10683160310001629283
24.
*HendersonH.MillerH. A. (2013). The (twice) failure of the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment in a sample of probationers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 199-221. doi:10.1177/0887403411422410
25.
HenrichsJ.BogaertsS.SijtsemaJ.Klerx-van MierloF. (2015). Intimate partner violence perpetrators in a forensic psychiatric outpatient setting: Criminal history, psychopathology, and victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2109-2128. doi:10.1177/0886260514552272
26.
HowardP. D.DixonL. (2013). Identifying change in the likelihood of violent recidivism: Causal dynamic risk, factors in the OASys violence predictor. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 163-174. doi:10.1037/lhb0000012
27.
*HsuC.-I.CaputiP.ByrneK. (2009). The Level of Service Inventory–revised (LSI-r): A useful risk assessment measure for Australian offenders?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 728-740. doi:10.1177/0093854809335409
28.
*HuebnerB. M.BergM. T. (2011). Examining the sources of variation in risk for recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28, 146-173. doi:10.1080/07418820903365213
29.
*HuebnerB. M.DeJongC.CobbinaJ. (2010). Women coming home: Long-term patterns of recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 27, 225-254. doi:10.1080/07418820902870486
30.
KraanenF. L.ScholingA.EmmelkampP. M. G. (2012). Substance use disorders in forensic psychiatry: Differences among different types of offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1201-1219. doi:10.1177/0306624X11420252
31.
KraemerH. C.KazdinA. E.OffordD. R.KesslerR. C.JensenP. S.KupferD. J. (1997). Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 337-343.
32.
*KroppP. R.HartS. D. (2000). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 101-118. doi:10.1023/A:1005430904495
33.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. doi:10.2307/25293102529310843571
34.
LawrenceA.LyonsD. (2011). Principles of effective state sentencing and corrections policy. A report of the NCSL sentencing and corrections work group. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. Available from http://www.ncsl.org
35.
LewisK.OlverM. E.WongS. C. P. (2012). The Violence Risk Scale: Predictive validity and linking changes in risk with violent recidivism in a sample of high-risk offenders with psychopathic traits. Assessment, 22, 150-164. doi:10.1177/1073191112441242
36.
MannR. E.HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 191-217. doi:10.1177/1079063210366039
37.
MearsD. P.CochranJ. C.BalesW. D. (2012). Gender differences in the effects of prison on recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 370-378. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.009
38.
*MillerH.MillerJ. M. (2010). Community in-reach through jail reentry: Findings from a quasi-experimental design. Justice Quarterly, 27, 893-910. doi:10.1080/07418825.2010.482537
39.
Ministery of Security and Justice. (2017). Forensische zorg in getal 2012-2016 [Forensic Care in number 2012-2016]. Retrieved from https://www.tbsnederland.nl
40.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
41.
NaginD. S.CullenF. T.JonsonC. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115-200. doi:10.1086/599202
42.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2014). Thirty years of research on the Level of Service Scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26, 156-176. doi:10.1037/a0035080
43.
OstermannM. (2015). How do former inmates perform in the community? A survival analysis of rearrests, reconvictions, and technical parole violations. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 163-187. doi:10.1177/0011128710396425
44.
PatenaudeA. L. (2013). Intermediate sanctions and community-based corrections. In WinterdykJ.WeinrathM. (Eds.), Adult corrections in Canada: A comprehensive overview (pp. 225-248). Whitby, Ontario, Canada: de Sitter Publications.
45.
PelissierB.JonesN.CadiganT. (2007). Drug treatment aftercare in the criminal justice system: A systematic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 311-320. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.09.007
46.
PloegG. (2008). Norway. In KalmthoutA.DurnescuI. (Eds.), Probation in Europe (pp. 503-512). Oisterwijk, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers. Available from http://www.cep-probation.org
47.
*PrendergastM. L.MessinaN. P.HallE. A.WardaU. S. (2011). The relative effectiveness of women-only and mixed-gender treatment for substance-abusing women. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 40, 336-348. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2010.12.001
48.
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
49.
*ReingleJ. M.StrileyC. W.SmallE.CreceliusR.O’LearyC. C.CottlerL. B. (2013). Can courtroom behavior predict recidivism? An assessment of the courtroom behavior check list for women presenting in drug court. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 520-534. doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9190-2
50.
*RettingerL. J.AndrewsD. A. (2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 29-46. doi:10.1177/0093854809349438
51.
RhodesW.DyousC.KlingR.HuntD.LuallenJ. (2013). Recidivism of offenders on federal community supervision. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available from https://www.ncjrs.gov
52.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
53.
RosenthalR. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York, NY: SAGE.
54.
RothsteinH.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
55.
RuscioJ. (2008). A probability-based measure of effect size: Robustness to base rates and other factors. Psychological Methods, 13, 19-30. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.19
56.
*SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP. (2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 541-566. doi:10.1177/0093854809334076
57.
*SpjeldnesS.JungH.MaguireL.YamataniH. (2012). Positive family social support: Counteracting negative effects of mental illness and substance abuse to reduce jail ex-inmate recidivism rates. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22, 130-147. doi:10.1080/10911359.2012.646846
58.
SpruitA.Van der PutC. E.GubbelsJ.BindelsA. (2017). Age differences in the severity, impact and relative importance of dynamic risk factors for recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 50, 69-77.
59.
*StalansL. J.LurigioA. J. (2015). Parenting and intimate relationship effects on women offenders’ recidivism and noncompliance with probation. Women & Criminal Justice, 25, 152-168. doi:10.1080/08974454.2014.909764
60.
*SteinerB.MakariosM. D.TravisL. F.IIIMeadeB. (2012). Examining the effects of community-based sanctions on offender recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29, 229-257. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.555413
61.
SubramanianR.ShamesA. (2013). Sentencing and prison practices in Germany and the Netherlands: Implications for the United States. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
62.
TabachnikB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
63.
ThorntonA.LeeP. (2000). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 207-216.
64.
*TillyerM. S.VoseB. (2011). Social ecology, individual risk, and recidivism: A multilevel examination of main and moderating influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 452-459. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.08.003
65.
van den BergJ. W.SmidW.SchepersK.WeverE.van BeekD.JanssenE.GijsL. (2018). The predictive properties of dynamic sex offender risk assessment instruments: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 30, 179-191. doi:10.1037/pas0000454
66.
van der PutC. E.DekovićM.StamsG. J. J. M.HoeveM.van der LaanP. H. (2012). Het belang van vroegtijdig ingrijpen bij jeugdcriminaliteit [The importance of early intervening in youth crime]. Kind en Adolescent, 33(1), 2-20.
67.
van HornJ. E.EisenbergM.SouvereinF. A.KraanenF. (2018). The predictive value of the Central Eight criminogenic risk factors: A multi-group comparison of dually diagnosed violent offenders with other subgroups of violent offenders. HSOA Journal of Addiction & Addictive Disorders, 5, Article 014. doi:10.24966/AAD-7276/100014
68.
*VanVoorhisP.SpiropoulosG.RitchieP. N.SeabrookR.SpruanceL. (2013). Identifying areas of specific responsivity in cognitive–behavioral treatment outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 1250-1279. doi:10.1177/0093854813494182
69.
*Van VoorhisP.WrightE. M.SalisburyE.BaumanA. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 261-288. doi:10.1177/0093854809357442
70.
VedelE.EmmelkampP. M. G.SchippersG. M. (2008). Individual cognitive-behavioral therapy and behavioral couples therapy in alcohol use disorder: A comparative evaluation in community-based addiction treatment centers. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 77, 280-288. doi:10.1159/000140087
71.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48.
72.
WikoffN.LinhorstD. M.MoraniN. (2012). Recidivism among participants of a reentry program for prisoners released without supervision. Social Work Research, 36, 289-299. doi:10.1093/swr/svs021
73.
WilpertJ.van HornJ. E.BoonmannC. (2018). Comparing the Central Eight risk factors: Do they differ across age groups of sex offenders?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 4278-4294. doi:10.1177/0306624X18758899
74.
WilsonH. A.GutierrezL. (2014). Does one size fit all? A meta-analysis examining the predictive ability of the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) with Aboriginal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 196-219. doi:10.1177/0093854813500958
75.
WooditchA.TangL. L.TaxmanF. S. (2014). Which criminogenic need changes are most important in promoting desistance from crime and substance use?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 276-299. doi:10.1177/0093854813503543
76.
*WormithJ. S.HoggS.GuzzoL. (2012). The predictive validity of a general risk/needs assessment inventory on sexual offender recidivism and an exploration of the professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1511-1538. doi:10.1177/0093854812455741
77.
*WormithJ. S.HoggS. M.GuzzoL. (2015). The predictive validity of the LS/CMI with Aboriginal offenders in Canada. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 481-508. doi:10.1177/0093854814552843
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
