Are Juveniles Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses the Same Everywhere? Psychometric Properties of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II in a Portuguese Youth Sample
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2020
Are Juveniles Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses the Same Everywhere? Psychometric Properties of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II in a Portuguese Youth Sample
Over the last decade, we have witnessed consistent advances in risk assessment procedures, namely the validation of those used with juveniles who have committed sexual offenses. The adaptation of these instruments into other languages requires research examining the conceptual and metric equivalence of the instruments, not just translation equivalence. Informed by data from 141 boys, aged 13 to 18, the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II), regarding reliability and construct validation, are presented and discussed. Factor structure, internal consistency, and interrater reliability were examined, and a reliable factorial structure that was consistent with the original validation of the J-SOAP was found. Scales 2 and 3 had good internal consistency, and Scale 1 had acceptable internal consistency. Results regarding concurrent validity revealed mostly statistically significant correlations. The implications of this research for juvenile sex offender risk assessments are discussed.
AebiM.PlattnerB.SteinhausenH. C.BesslerC. (2011). Predicting sexual and nonsexual recidivism in a consecutive sample of juveniles convicted of sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 456-473. doi:10.1177/1079063210384634
2.
AwadG. A.SaundersE. B. (1991). Male adolescent sexual assaulters: Clinical observations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 446-460. doi:10.1177/088626091006004004
3.
BarrosoR.PhamT.GrecoA.ThibautF. (2019). Challenges in the Treatment of Sex Offenders. In VollmB.BraunP. (Edt.) Long-Term Forensic Psychiatric Care: Clinical, Ethical and Legal Challenges (pp. 169-180). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
4.
BarrosoR.PechorroP.ManitaC.NobreP.GonçalvesR. A. (2017). Protocolo de Avaliação de Jovens Agressores Sexuais (J-SOAP-II) [Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II)]. In SimõesM. R.AlmeidaL. S.GonçalvesM. M. (Eds.), Psicologia Forense: Instrumentos de Avaliação (pp. 165-178). Lisboa, Portugal: Pactor.
5.
BarrosoR.RamiãoE.FigueiredoP.PechorroP. (2018). Processos neurobiológicos na etiologia dos interesses sexuais pedófilos [Neurobiological processes on the etiology of pedophilic sexual interest]. In PaulinoM.AlhoL. (Eds.), Comportamento Criminal e Avaliação Forense (pp. 145-155). Lisboa, Portugal: Pactor.
6.
BoltD.HareR. D.VitaleJ.NewmanJ. P. (2004). A multigroup item response theory analysis of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Psychological Assessment, 16, 155-168. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.155
7.
BrislinR. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301
8.
BryantF. B.YarnoldP. R. (1995). Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In GrimmL. G.YarnoldR. R. (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99-136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9.
CaldwellM. F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex offender recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 197-212. doi:10.1177/0306624X08330016
10.
CaldwellM. F. (2016). Quantifying the decline in juvenile sexual recidivism rates. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 414-426. doi:10.1037/law0000094
11.
CaldwellM. F.DickinsonC. (2009). Sex offender registration and recidivism risk in juvenile sexual offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 941-956. doi:10.1002/bsl.907
12.
CaldwellM. F.ZiemkeM. H.VitaccoM. J. (2008). An examination of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act as applied to juveniles: Evaluating the ability to predict sexual recidivism. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 89-114. doi:10.1037/a0013241
13.
ChuC. M.NgK.FongJ.TeohJ. (2012). Assessing youth who sexually offended: Predictive validity of the ERASOR, J-SOAP-II, and the YLS/CMI in nonwestern context. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 153-174. doi:10.1177/1079063211404250
EppsK. (2000). Adolescent sex offenders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, UK.
16.
FanniffA. M.LetourneauE. J. (2012). Another piece of the puzzle: Psychometric properties of the J-SOAP-II. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 378-408. doi:10.1177/1079063211431842
17.
FanniffA. M.LetourneauE. J. (2014). Keep testing the waters: Fanniff and Letourneau reply. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26, 401-405. doi:10.1177/1079063214531049
18.
ForthA. E.KossonD.HareR. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. New York, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
19.
HansonR. K. (2014). Sexual offenders. In WebsterC.HaqueQ.HuckerS. (Eds.), Violence risk-assessment and management (pp. 148-158). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
20.
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. doi:10.1037/a0014421
21.
HeckerJ. E. (2014). Baby with the bath water: Response to Fanniff and Letourneau. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26, 395-400. doi:10.1177/1079063214525644
22.
HempelI.BuckN.CimaM.MarleH. (2013). Review of risk assessment instruments for juvenile sex offenders: What is next?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 208-228. doi:10.1177/0306624X11428315
23.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A. (2003). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) user’s manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
24.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A. (2011). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0 (YLS/CMI 2.0): User’s manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
25.
HollinC. R.SwafferT. (1993). Social functioning and delinquency: A return to basics. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 205-210.
KleinV.RettenbergerM.YoonD.KohlerN.BrikenP. (2015). Protective factors and recidivism in accused juveniles who sexually offended. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 71-90. doi:10.1177/1079063214554958
28.
LangstromN. (2002). Long-term follow-up of criminal recidivism in young sex offenders: Temporal patterns and risk factors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8, 41-58. doi:10.1080/10683160208401808
29.
LodewijksH. P. B.DoreleijersT. A. H.de RuiterC. (2008). SAVRY risk assessment in violent Dutch adolescents: Relation to sentencing and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 696-709. doi:10.1177/0093854808316146
30.
LussierP.BloklandA. (2014). The adolescence-adulthood transition and Robins’s continuity paradox: Criminal career patterns of juvenile and adult sex offenders in a prospective longitudinal birth cohort study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 153-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.07.004
31.
MartinezR.FloresJ.RosenfeldB. (2007). Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II) in a sample of urban minority youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1284-1295. doi:10.1177/0093854807301791
32.
MurrieD. C. (2012). Assessment instruments for juvenile who sexually offend. In RyanE. J.HunterJ. A.MurrieD. C. (Eds.), Juvenile sex offenders: A guide to evaluation and treatment for mental health professionals (pp. 161-174). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
NisbetI. A.WilsonP. H.SmallboneS. W. (2004). A prospective longitudinal study of sexual recidivism among adolescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 223-234. doi:10.1177/107906320401600304
34.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 329-353. doi:10.1177/0093854809331457
35.
ParksG. A.BardD. E. (2006). Risk factors for adolescent sex offender recidivism: Evaluation of predictive factors and comparison of three groups based upon victim type. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 319-342. doi:10.1177/107906320601800402
36.
PechorroP.BarrosoR.MarocoJ.GonçalvesR. A. (2017). Inventário de Psicopatia de Hare: Versão Jovens (PCL: YV) [Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV)]. In SimõesM. R.AlmeidaL. S.GonçalvesM. M. (Eds.), Psicologia Forense: Instrumentos de Avaliação (pp. 43-54). Lisboa, Portugal: Pactor.
37.
PechorroP.BarrosoR.MarocoJ.VieiraR.GonçalvesR. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version among Portuguese juvenile delinquents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 1322-1337. doi:10.1177/0306624X14535558
38.
PimentelA.QuintasJ.FonsecaE.SerraA. (2015). Estudo normativo da versão Portuguesa do YLS/CMI—Inventário de avaliação do risco de reincidência e de gestão de caso para jovens [Normative study of the Portuguese version of the Youth Level Service/Case Management Inventory]. Análise Psicológica, 33, 5-71. doi:10.14417/ap.883
39.
PiqueroA. R.FarringtonD. P.JenningsW. G.DiamondB.CraigJ. (2012). Sex offenders and sex offending in the Cambridge study in delinquent development: Prevalence, frequency, specialization, recidivism, and (dis)continuity over the life course. Journal of Crime & Justice, 35, 412-426. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2012.688527
40.
Powers-SawyerA. B.MinerM. H. (2009). Actuarial prediction of juvenile recidivism: The static variables of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II). Sexual Offender Treatment, 4(2), 1-11. doi:10.1177/0093854807301791
41.
PrentkyR. A.HarrisB.FrizzellK.RighthandS. (2000). An actuarial procedure for assessing risk with juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 122, 71-93. doi:10.1177/107906320001200201
42.
PrentkyR. A.RighthandS. (2003). Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II) manual. Bridgewater, MA: Justice Resource Institute.
43.
RajlicG.GrettonH. M. (2010). An examination of two sexual recidivism risk measures in adolescent offenders: The moderating effect of offender type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1066-1085. doi:10.1177/0093854810376354
44.
RichP. (2014). Assessment of risk for sexual reoffense in juveniles who commit sexual offenses. In Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) (Eds.), Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI), Juvenile Section. Retrieved from http://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec2/ch4_risk.html
45.
RighthandS.PrentkyR.KnightR.CarpenterE.HeckerJ. E.NangleD. (2005). Factor Structure and Validation of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 113-131. doi:10.1007/s11194-005-1207-7
46.
RyanE. P. (2012). Interviewing, evaluation, and risk assessment of sexually offending youth. In RyanE. P.MurrieD. C.HunterJ. A. (Eds.), Juvenile sex offenders: A guide to evaluation and treatment for mental health professionals (pp. 119-160). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
47.
SchmidtF.SinclairS. M.ThomasdóttirS. (2016). Predictive validity of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory with youth who have committed sexual and non-sexual offenses: The utility of professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 413-430. doi:10.1177/0093854815603389
48.
SchwalbeC. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile offenders: A meta- analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449-462. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9071-7
49.
SetoM.LalumièreM. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 526-575. doi:10.1037/a0019700
50.
ShoukriM. M. (2010). Measures of interobserver agreement and reliability (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
51.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. F. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
52.
SireciS. G.YangY.HarterJ.EhrlichE. J. (2006). Evaluating Guidelines For Test Adaptations: A Methodological Analysis of Translation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 557-567. doi:10.1177/0022022106290478
53.
SpiceA.ViljoenJ. L.LatzmanN. E.ScaloraM. J.UllmanD. (2013). Risk and protective factors for recidivism among juveniles who have offended sexually. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 347-369. doi:10.1177/1079063212459086
54.
TabachnickB.FidellL. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
55.
ThibautF.BradfordJ.BrikenP.BarraF.HäßlerF.CosynsP. & On Behalf of the WFSBP Task Force on Sexual Disorders. (2015). The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the treatment of adolescent sexual offenders with paraphilic disorders. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 17, 2-38, doi:10.3109/15622975.2015.1085598
56.
TruscottD. (1993). Adolescent offenders: Comparison for sexual, violent, and property offences. Psychological Reports, 73, 657-658.
57.
ValliantP. M.BergeronT. (1997). Personality and criminal profile of adolescent sexual offenders, general offenders in comparison to nonoffenders. Psychological Reports, 81, 483-489.
58.
van WijkA. P. H.BloklandA. A. J.DuitsN.VermeirenR.HarkinkJ. (2007). Relating psychiatric disorders, offender and offence characteristics in a sample of adolescent sex offenders and non-sex offenders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 17, 15-30.
59.
van WijkA. P. H.van HornJ.BullensR.BijleveldC.DoreleijersT. (2005). Juvenile sex offenders: A group on its own?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 25-36.
60.
van WijkA. P. H.VreugdenhilC.van HornJ.VermeirenR.DoreleijersT. A. H. (2007). Incarcerated Dutch juvenile sex offenders compared with non-sex offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16, 1-21.
61.
ViljoenJ. L.MordellS.BeneteauJ. L. (2012). Prediction of adolescent sexual reoffending: A meta-analysis of J-SOAP-II, ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II and Static-99. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 423-438. doi:10.1037/h0093938
62.
ViljoenJ. L.ScaloraM.CuadraL.BaderS.ChávezV. N.UllmanD.LawrenceL. (2008). Assessing risk for violence in adolescents who have sexually offended: A comparison of the J-SOAP-II, J-SORRAT-II, and SAVRY. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 5-23. doi:10.1177/0093854807307521
63.
VitaccoM. J.NeumannC. S.CaldwellM. F. (2010). Predicting antisocial behavior in high-risk male adolescents: Contributions of psychopathy and instrumental violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 833-846. doi:10.1177/0093854810371358
64.
WorlingJ. R. (2004). Essentials of a good intervention programme for sexually abusive juveniles. In O’ReillyG.MarshallW. L.BeckettR. C.CarrA. (Eds.), The handbook of clinical intervention with juvenile sexual offenders (pp. 275-296). Hove, England: Taylor & Francis.
65.
WorlingJ. R.LangstromN. (2006). Risk of sexual recidivism in adolescents who offend sexually: Correlates and assessment. In BarbareeH. E.MarshallW. L.2nd (Eds.), The juvenile sexual offender (pp. 219-247). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
66.
ZimringF. E.JenningsW. G.PiqueroA. R.HaysS. (2009). Investigating the continuity of sex offending: Evidence from the Second Philadelphia Birth Cohort. Justice Quarterly, 26, 58-76. doi:10.1080/07418820801989734
67.
ZimringF. E.PiqueroA. R.JenningsW. G. (2007). Sexual delinquency in Racine: Does early sex offending predict later sex offending in youth and young adulthood. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 507-534.
