Objective: This study compares sex offender risk classification using two popular actuarial risk assessment instruments—the Static-99 and the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R). Despite their extensive use, the two scales assess different types of risk factors and research has yet to compare them. Method: Static-99 and LSI-R risk assessments were compared for 30 adult male sex offenders attending a community-based treatment program. Results: A paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a significant difference (Z = –3.962,p < .001) between the instruments, with 63.3% of the sample classified as higher risk for reoffending by the Static-99 than by the LSI-R. Conclusions: The Static-99 may be a more conservative risk assessment tool. Yet because the LSI-R provides useful information about an offender’s current needs not included on the Static-99, treatment providers should use both instruments. This more comprehensive assessment of criminogenic risk and need will better inform supervision and intervention decisions.
Abracen, J., & Looman, J. (2005). Developments in the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders: Looking backward with a view to the future. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 12-19.
2.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (1995). LSI-R: The Level Of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
3.
Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001).Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 490-521.
4.
Bartosh, D. L., Garby, T., Lewis, D., & Gray, S. (2003). Differences in the predictive validity of actuarial risk assessments in relation to sex offender type. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 422-438.
5.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T.Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 355-379.
7.
de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., van Beek, D., & Mead, G. (2004). Predictive validity of the SVR-20 and Static-99 in a Dutch sample of treated sex offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 235-251.
8.
Doren, D. M. (1998). Recidivism base rates, predictions of sex offender recidivism, and the “sexual predator” commitment laws. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 97-114.
9.
Doren, D. M. (2004). Stability of the interpretative risk percentages for the RRASOR and Static-99. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 25-36.
10.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the “unparalleled” measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426.
11.
Grimm, L. G. (1993). Statistical applications for the behavioral sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
Grubin, D. (1998). Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk. Police Research Series Paper 99. London: Home Office.
13.
Hanson, R. K., Steffy, R. A., & Gauthier, R. (1993). Long-term recidivism of child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 646-652.
14.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism. (User Report 97-04). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
15.
Hanson, R. K. (2000). Will they do it again? Predicting sex-offense recidivism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 106-109.
16.
Hanson, R. K. (2005). Twenty years of progress in violence risk assessment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 212-217.
17.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
18.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15, 413-425.
19.
Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2003). Level of Service Inventory-Revised profiles of violent and nonviolent prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1075-1086.
20.
Hollin, C. R., Palmer, E. J., & Clark, D. (2003). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised profile of English prisoners: A needs analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 422-440.
21.
Langstrom, N. (2004). Accuracy of actuarial procedures for assessment of sexual offender recidivism risk may vary across ethnicity. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 107-120.
22.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Risk/ need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 543-563.
23.
McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G., Livingston, J. A., & Hoke, S. E. (2003). Outcome of a treatment program form adult sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 3-17.
24.
Seager, J. A., Jellicoe, D., & Dhaliwal, G. K. (2004). Refusers, dropouts, and completers: Measuring sex offender treatment efficacy.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 600-612.
25.
Simourd, D. J. (2004). Use of dynamic risk/need assessment instruments among long-term incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 306-323.
26.
Simourd, D. J., & Malcolm, P. B. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised among federally incarcerated sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 261-274.
27.
Sjostedt, G., & Langstrom, N. (2001). Actuarial assessment of sex offender recidivism risk: A cross-validation of the RRASOR and the Static-99 in Sweden. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 629-645.
28.
Sjostedt, G., & Langstrom, N. (2002). Assessment of risk of criminal recidivism among rapists: A comparison of four different measures. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8, 25-40.
29.
Weiss, N. A. (2002). Introductory statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Addison Wesley.
