Forensic evaluators may be assisted by comparing their use of instruments with that of their peers. This article reports the results of a 2017 survey of instrument use by forensic evaluators carrying out sexual recidivism risk assessments. Results are compared with a similar survey carried out in 2013. Analysis focuses primarily on adoption of more recently developed instruments and norms, and on assessment of criminogenic needs and protective factors, and secondarily, on exploring factors related to differences in evaluator practice. Findings indicate that most evaluators have now adopted modern actuarial instruments, with the Static-99R and Static-2002R being the most commonly used. Assessment of criminogenic needs is now common, with the STABLE-2007 being the most frequently used instrument. Evaluators are also increasingly likely to consider protective factors. While a majority of evaluators uses actuarial instruments, a substantial minority employs Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) instruments. Few factors discriminated patterns of instrument use.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. L.WormithJ. S. (2004). User’s manual for the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI): An offender management system. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
BlaisJ.ForthA. E. (2014). Prosecution-retained versus court-appointed experts: Comparing and contrasting risk assessment reports in preventative detention hearings. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 531-543. doi:10.1037/lhb0000082
4.
BlasingameG. D.BoerD. P.GuidryL.HaavenJ.WilsonR. J. (2014). Assessment, treatment, and supervision of individuals with intellectual disabilities and problematic sexual behaviors. Retrieved from http://www.atsa.com/pdfs/ATSA_IDPSB_packet.pdf
5.
BoerD. P.HartS. D.KroppP. R.WebsterC. D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20: Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Vancouver, Canada: British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.
6.
BoerD. P.ToughS.HaavenJ. (2004). Assessment of risk manageability of intellectual disabled sex offenders. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17, 275-283. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00214.x
7.
ChevalierC. C.BoccacciniM. T.MurrieD. C.VarelaJ. G. (2014). Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance?Law and Human Behavior, 39, 209-218. doi:10.1037/lhb0000114
8.
DavignonD. (2000). Sexual Adjustment Inventory: Sex offender assessment. Unpublished manuscript.
de VogelV.de RuiterC.BoumanY.de Vries RobbéM. (2012). SAPROF: Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Van der Hoeven.
11.
DoyleD. J.OgloffJ. R. P.ThomasS. D. M. (2011). An analysis of dangerous sexual offender assessment reports: Recommendations for best practice. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18, 537-556. doi:10.1080/13218719.2010.499159
12.
DuweG. (2017). Better practices in the development and validation of recidivism risk assessments: The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–4. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(4), 538-564. doi:10.1177/0887403417718608
13.
DuweG.FreskeP. J. (2012). Using logistic regression modeling to predict sexual recidivism: The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–3 (MnSOST-3). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 350-377. doi:10.1177/1079063211429470
14.
ElwoodR. W.KelleyS. M.MundtJ. C. (2017). The 2015 Static-99R: Alternative recidivism tables for high-risk offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61, 1593-1605. doi:10.1177/0306624X15623803
HansonR. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism (User Report 1997-04). Ottawa, Ontario: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
17.
HansonR. K.HarrisA. J. R.LetourneauE.HelmusL. M.ThorntonD. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 48-63. doi:10.1037/law0000135
18.
HansonR. K.HarrisA. J. R.ScottT.HelmusL. (2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-05). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
19.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136. doi:10.1023/A:1005482921333
20.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2003). Notes on the development of Static-2002 (User Report 2003-01). Ottawa, Ontario: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
21.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD.HelmusL. M.BabchishinK. M. (2016). What sexual recidivism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores?Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 218-252. doi:10.1177/1079063215574710
22.
HareR. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R): 2nd edition (Technical manual). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
23.
HartS. D.KroppP. R.LawsD. R.KlaverJ.LoganC.WattK. A. (2003). The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP): Structured professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
24.
HelmusL.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: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 64-101. doi:10.1177/1079063211409951
25.
KelleyS. M. (2017, October). How do professionals assess risk? An updated survey of practices. In KelleyS. M. (Chair), Evaluator Struggles: Risk Aversion, Impotence, and Decision Making. Symposium conducted at the 36th Annual ATSA Research and Treatment Conference, Kansas City, MO.
26.
KelleyS. M.BarahalR. M.ThorntonD.AmbroziakG. (2017). How do professionals assess sexual recidivism risk? An international survey of practices. The ATSA Forum, 29, 1-13.
LofthouseR. E.LindsayW. R.TotsikaV.HastingsR. P.BoerD. P.HaavenJ. L. (2013). Prospective dynamic assessment of risk of sexual reoffending in individuals with an intellectual disability and a history of sexual offending behavior. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 26, 394-403. doi:10.1111/jar.12029
29.
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. doi:10.1177/1079063210366039
30.
McGrathR. J.CummingG. F.BurchardB. L.ZeoliS.EllerbyE. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
31.
McGrathR. J.LasherM. P.CummingG. F. (2012). The Sexual Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS): Psychometric properties and incremental predictive validity with Static-99R. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 431-458. doi:10.1177/1079063211432475
32.
MillerH. A. (2006). Manual of the Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
33.
MilloyC. (2007). Six-year follow-up of 135 released sex offenders recommended for commitment under Washington’s Sexually Violent Predator Law, where no petition was filed (Document No. 07-06-1101). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
The Multidimensional Inventory of Development, Sex, and Aggression. (2011). MIDSA clinical manual. Bend, OR: Augur Enterprises. Available from http://www.midsa.us
36.
NealT. M. S.GrissoT. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1406-1421. doi:10.1177/0093854814548449
37.
OlverM. E.MundtJ. C.ThorntonD.Beggs ChristoffersonS. M.KingstonD. A.SowdenJ. N.. . . 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.
38.
OlverM. E.WongS. C. P. (2011). A comparison of static and dynamic assessment of sexual offender risk and need in a treatment context. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 113-126.
39.
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. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.318
40.
PadillaJ. (2006). Response to court order by the Honorable Robert A. Barclay (Memorandum). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Mental Health.
41.
PhamT.DucroC.DesmaraisS. L.HurducasC.Arbach-LucioniK.CondemarinC.. . . SinghJ. P. (2016). International survey of violence risk assessment practices: Presentation of Belgian data. Annales Médico-psychologiques, 174, 539-543. doi:10.1016/j.amp.2015.10.018
SchneiderJ. E.JacksonR.AmbroziakG.D’OrazioD.FreemanN.HebertJ. (2017, October). SOCCPN Annual survey of sex offender civil commitment programs 2017. Paper presented at the meeting of the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Programs Network, Kansas City, MO.
47.
SetoM. C.EkeA. W. (2015). Predicting recidivism among adult male child pornography offenders: Development of the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT). Law and Human Behavior, 39, 416-429. doi:10.1037/lhb0000128
48.
SinghJ. P.DesmaraisS. L.HurducasC.Arbach-LucioniK.CondemarinC.DeanK.. . . OttoR. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 193-206. doi:10.1080/14999013.2014.922141
49.
SinghJ. P.GrannM.FazelS. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 499-513. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009
ThorntonD.KnightR. A. (2015). Construction and validation of SRA-FV need assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 360-375. doi:10.1177/1079063213511120
52.
ThorntonD.MannR.WebsterS.BludL.TraversR.FriendshipC.EriksonM. (2003). Distinguishing and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. In PrentkyR. A.JanusE. S.SetoM. C. (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 989. Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (pp. 225-235). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
53.
WebsterC. D.NichollsT. L.MartinM. L.DesmaraisS. L.BrinkJ. (2006). Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): The case for a new violence risk structured professional judgment scheme. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 747-766. doi:10.1002/bsl.737
54.
WebsterS.MannR.CarterA.LongJ.MilnerR. J.O’BrienM. D.. . . RayN. L. (2006). Inter-rater reliability of dynamic risk assessment in sexual offenders. Psychology Crime and Law, 12, 439-352. doi:10.1080/10683160500036889
55.
WollertR.CramerE.WaggonerJ.SkeltonA.VessJ. (2010). Recent research (N = 9,305) underscores the importance of using age-stratified actuarial tables in sex offender risk assessments. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 471-490. doi:10.1177/1079063210384633
56.
WorlingJ. R.CurwenT. (2001). Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (Version 2.0: The “ERASOR”). In ColderM. C. (Ed.), Juveniles and children who sexually abuse: Frameworks for assessment (pp. 372-397). Lyme Regis, UK: Russell House.
57.
ZapfP. A.DrorI. E. (2017). Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: Lessons from forensic science. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 16, 227-238. doi:10.1080/14999013.2017.1317302
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.
