The Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version (VRS:SO) is a rating scale designed to assess risk among sexual offenders and the degree of change achieved in treatment. The scale consists of 7 static and 17 dynamic risk items, with protocols for measuring treatment change based on the Transtheoretical Change Model. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the VRS:SO on an independent sample of 218 child molesters who received treatment at a prison-based program in New Zealand and who were followed up for an average of 12.2 years. Supporting the initial validation of the VRS:SO, the results indicated good interrater reliability, concurrent validity, and predictive validity of the measure—VRS:SO scores were predictive of sexual recidivism (for Dynamic and Total scores, area under the curve value ~ .80), and the dynamic scale made significant incremental contributions after controlling for static risk. The authors also analyzed the validity of the factor structure of the VRS:SO dynamic scale and compared the measure with an alternative measure of dynamic risk based on a self-report psychometric battery.
Allan, M., Grace, R.C., Rutherford, B., & Hudson, S.M. ( 2007). Psychometric assessment of dynamic risk factors for child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment , 19, 347-367.
2.
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. ( 2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis /Anderson.
3.
Beggs, S.M., & Grace, R.C. ( 2010). Measuring treatment outcome for child molesters: A comparative validity study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
4.
Bickley, J.A., & Beech, A.R. ( 2003). Implications for treatment of sexual offenders of the Ward and Hudson model of relapse. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 121-134.
5.
Brown, M.W., & Cudeck, R. ( 1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445-455). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Craissati, J., & Beech, A.R. ( 2003). A review of dynamic variables and their relationship to risk prediction in sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression , 9, 41-55.
7.
Doren, D.M. ( 2006). Recidivism risk assessments: Making sense of controversies . In W. L. Marshall, Y. M. Fernandez, L. E. Marshall , & G. A. Serran (Eds.), Sexual offender treatment: Controversial issues (pp. 3-15). Chichester , England: Wiley.
8.
Grove, W.M., & Meehl, P.E. ( 1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
9.
Hanley, J.A., & McNeil, B.J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839-843.
10.
Hanson, R.K., & Bussière, M.T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
11.
Hanson, R.K., & Harris, A.J.R. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual assault recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6-35.
12.
Harris, A., Phenix, A., Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. ( 2003). STATIC-99 coding rules revised-2003. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
13.
Hanson, R.K., & Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.
14.
Hanson, R.K., & Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies . Psychological Assessment, 21, 1-21.
15.
Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. ( 1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders (User Rep. 1999-02). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
16.
Kingston, D.A. ( 2003). Violence Risk Scale: Sex Offender Version: A re-validation of a scale to assess re-offence risk among sexual offenders (Unpublished Honours Project), Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
17.
Looman, J., Dickie, I., & Abracen, J. ( 2005). Responsivity issues in the treatment of sexual offenders . Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 330-353.
18.
Olver, M.E. ( 2003). The development and validation of the Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version (VRS:SO) and its relationship to psychopathy and treatment attrition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
19.
Olver, M.E., Wong, S.C.P., Nicholaichuk, T.P., & Gordon, A.E. ( 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.
20.
Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist , 47, 1102-1114.
21.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (Eds.). (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
22.
Thornton, D. ( 2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment , 14, 139-153.
23.
Ward, T., & Hudson, S.M. ( 1998). A model of the relapse process in sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 700-725.
24.
Wong, S.C.P., & Gordon, A. ( 2006). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale: A treatment-friendly violence risk assessment tool. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 279-309.
25.
Wong, S., Olver, M., Nicholaichuk, T., & Gordon, A. ( 2003). Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version (Manual provided by authors).
26.
Yates, P.M., & Kingston, D.A. (2006). The self-regulation model of sexual offending: The relationship between offence pathways and static and dynamic sexual offence risk. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 259-270.
