Most sexual recidivism risk assessment tools focus primarily on risk factors and deficits without consideration for strengths or protective factors which might mitigate reoffense risk. The current study is the first in a research program designed to develop and validate the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk—Sexual Offence version (SAPROF-SO), a measure of protective factors against sexual reoffending. The study aimed to test interrater reliability and construct validity of the SAPROF-SO with a high-risk (n = 40) and routine (n = 40) sample. Interrater reliability between three independent raters was generally good to excellent for the SAPROF-SO domain and Total scores across both samples and compared favorably with validated measures of dynamic risk. Moreover, the SAPROF-SO demonstrated construct validity and was moderately independent of existing measures of risk. Findings open the door for a more balanced, strengths-based, and accurate approach to recidivism risk assessment.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Anderson Publishing.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithS. J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756
BeggsS. M.GraceR. C. (2010). Assessment of dynamic risk factors: An independent validation study of the Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender version. Sexual Abuse, 22, 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210369014
5.
BeggsS. M.GraceR. C. (2011). Treatment gain for sexual offenders against children predicts reduced recidivism: A comparative validity study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022900
6.
de VogelV.de RuiterC.BoumanY.de Vries RobbéM. (2012). SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk (2nd ed.). Van der Hoeven Stichting.
7.
de Vries RobbéM.de VogelV.de SpaE. (2011). Protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatric patients: A retrospective validation study of the SAPROF. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2011.600232
8.
de Vries RobbéM.de VogelV.KosterK.BogaertsS. (2015). Assessing protective factors for sexually violent offending with the SAPROF. Sexual Abuse, 27, 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214550168
9.
de Vries RobbéM.GeersM.StapelM.HiltermanE.de VogelV. (2015). SAPROF youth version. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk in juveniles. Van der Hoeven Stichting.
10.
de Vries RobbéM.MannR. E.MarunaS.ThorntonD. (2015). An exploration of protective factors supporting desistance from sexual offending. Sexual Abuse, 27, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214547582
11.
EherR.OlverM. E.HeurixI.SchillingF.RettenbergerM. (2015). Predicting reoffense in pedophilic child molesters by clinical diagnoses and risk assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000144
12.
ElwoodR. W. (2019). Agreement between courts and SVP evaluators in the state of Wisconsin. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46, 853–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819839746
13.
FernandezY. M.HarrisA. J. R.HansonR. K.SparksJ. (2014). Stable-2007 coding manual–revised 2014 [Unpublished report]. Public Safety Canada.
14.
GiordanoP. C.CernkovichS. A.RudolphJ. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990–1064. https://doi.org/10.1086/343191
15.
GöbbelsS.WardT.WillisG. M. (2012). An integrative theory of desistance from sex offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.003
HansonR. K.BabchishinK. M.HelmusL. M.ThorntonD.PhenixA. (2017). Communicating the results of criterion referenced prediction measures: Risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Psychological Assessment, 29, 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000371
18.
HansonR. K.Morton-BourgonK. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421
19.
HelmusL. M. (2018). Sex offender risk assessment: Where are we and where are we going?Current Psychiatry Reports, 20(6), 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0909-8
20.
HelmusL.HansonR. K.ThorntonD.BabchishinK. M.HarrisA. J. R. (2012). Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1148–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812443648
21.
HelmusL. M.ThorntonD.HansonR. K.BabchishinK. M. (2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse, 24, 64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951
22.
KelleyS. M.AmbroziakG.ThorntonD.BarahalR. M. (2018). How do professionals assess sexual recidivism risk? An updated survey of practices. Sexual Abuse, 32, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218800474
23.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
24.
LaubJ. H.SampsonR. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press.
25.
LawsD. R.WardT. (2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. Guilford Press.
26.
MannR. E.HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse, 22, 191–217. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/1079063210366039
27.
MarshallW. L.MarshallL. E.OlverM. E. (2017). An evaluation of strength-based approaches to the treatment of sex offenders: A review. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 7, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-04-2017-0021
28.
MillerH. A. (2006). A dynamic assessment of offender risk, needs, and strengths in a sample of pre-release general offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24, 767–782. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.728
29.
MurrieD. C.BoccacciniM. T.TurnerD. B.MeeksM.WoodsC.TusseyC. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897
30.
OlverM. E.Beggs ChristoffersonS. M.WongS. C. P. (2015). Evaluation and applications of the clinically significant change method with the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender Version: Implications for risk-change communication. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33, 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2159
31.
OlverM. E.KelleyS. M.JohnsonL.WongS. C. P. (2019). Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense Version (VRS-SO): User’s workbook. https://psynergy.ca/vrs-so
32.
OlverM. E.MundtJ. C.ThorntonD.Beggs ChristoffersonS. M.KingstonD. A.SowdenJ. N.NicholaichukT. P.GordonA.WongS. C. P. (2018). Using the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version in sexual violence risk assessments: Updated risk categories and recidivism estimates from a multisite sample of treated sexual offenders. Psychological Assessment, 30, 941–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000538
33.
OlverM. E.NicholaichukT. P.KingstonD. A.WongS. C. (2014). A multisite examination of sexual violence risk and therapeutic change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035340
34.
OlverM. E.WongS. C. P.NicholaichukT.GordonA. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version: Assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychological Assessment, 19, 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.318
35.
PhenixA.EppersonD. L. (2016). Overview of the development, reliability, validity, scoring, and uses of the Static-99, Static-99R, Static-2002, and Static-2002R. In PhenixA.HobermanH. M. (Eds.), Sexual offending: Predisposing conditions, assessment and management (pp. 437–455). Springer.
36.
RegierD. A.NarrowW. E.ClarkeD. E.KraemerH. C.KuramotoS. J.KuhlE. A.KupferD. J. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: Test-retest reliability of selected categorical diagnoses. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999
37.
SerinR. C. (2007, 2017). The Dynamic Risk Assessment Scale for Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR) [Unpublished scale]. Carleton University.
38.
SkeltonA.RileyD.WalesD.VessJ. (2006). Assessing risk for sexual offenders in New Zealand: Development and validation of a computer-scored risk measure. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12, 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600601100326
39.
SowdenJ. N.OlverM. E. (2017). Use of the Violence Risk Scale–Sexual Offender Version and the Stable 2007 to assess dynamic sexual violence risk in a sample of treated sexual offenders. Psychological Assessment, 29, 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000345
40.
ThorntonD.KelleyS. M.NelliganK. E. (2017). Protective factors and mental illness in men with a history of sexual offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.003
41.
TurnerD.RettenbergerM.YoonD.KleinV.EherR.BrikenP. (2016). Risk assessment in child sexual abusers working with children. Sexual Abuse, 28, 572–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214564390
42.
WardT.StewartC. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353
43.
WillisG. M.GraceR. C. (2008). The quality of community reintegration planning for child molesters: Effects on sexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse, 20, 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208318005
44.
WillisG. M.ThorntonD. T.KelleyS. M.de Vries RobbéM. (2017–2019). The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk–Sexual Offence version (SAPROF-SO) pilot manual [Unpublished scale].
45.
WillisG. M.YatesP. M.GannonT. A.WardT. (2013). How to integrate the good lives model into treatment programs for sexual offending: An introduction and overview. Sexual Abuse, 25, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212452618
46.
WongS.OlverM. E.NicholaichukT. P.GordonA. (2003–2017). The Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offense version (VRS-SO). Regional Psychiatric Centre; University of Saskatchewan.
YesbergJ. A.PolaschekD. L. L. (2015). Assessing dynamic risk and protective factors in the community: Examining the validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.935775
49.
YoonD.TurnerD.KleinV.RettenbergerM.EherR.BrikenP. (2016). Factors predicting desistance from reoffending: A validation study of the SAPROF in sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x16664379
50.
ZengG.ChuC. M.LeeY. (2015). Assessing protective factors of youth who sexually offended in Singapore: Preliminary evidence on the utility of the DASH-13 and the SAPROF. Sexual Abuse, 27, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214561684
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.
