Research has identified meaningful subtypes among the heterogeneous population of juveniles who sexually offended (JSO). However, studies that test the validity of risk assessment tools with JSO subtypes are limited. This study compared JSO who offended against a child victim (JSO-C) and JSO who offended against an adolescent/adult victim (JSO-A) with regard to rates of recidivism and the predictive validity of two risk assessment tools (Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism [ERASOR] and Juvenile Sexual Offender Assessment Protocol-II [J-SOAP-II]). Data were analyzed from case files of 185 JSO-C and 297 JSO-A aged 12 to 18 years (M = 14.11, SD = 1.44) from a consecutive sample of JSO with contact sexual offenses. A total of 34 (7.1%) juveniles reoffended sexually, with no significant difference between the subtypes. The present results suggest that the ERASOR, particularly the structured professional judgment, and to a lesser degree the J-SOAP-II are better suited to predicting sexual recidivism in JSO-A than in JSO-C.
AebiM.PlattnerB.SteinhausenH.-C.BesslerC. (2011). Predicting sexual and nonsexual recidivism in a consecutive sample of juveniles convicted of sexual offences. Sexual Abuse, 23(4), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210384634
3.
AebiM.VogtG.PlattnerB.SteinhausenH.-C.BesslerC. (2012). Offender types and criminality dimensions in male juveniles convicted of sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse, 24(3), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211420449
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362
5.
BarraS.BesslerC.LandoltM. A.AebiM. (2017). Patterns of adverse childhood experiences in juveniles who sexually offended. Sexual Abuse, 30(7), 803–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217697135
6.
BarraS.BesslerC.LandoltM. A.AebiM. (2018). Testing the validity of criminal risk assessment tools in sexually abusive youth. Psychological Assessment, 30(11), 1430–1443. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000590
7.
BrownJ.SinghJ. P. (2014). Forensic risk assessment: A beginner’s guide. Archives of Forensic Psychology, 1(1), 49–59.
8.
BullS. B.MakC.GreenwoodC. M. (2002). A modified score function estimator for multinomial logistic regression in small samples. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 39(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(01)00048-2
9.
CaldwellM. F. (2016). Quantifying the decline in juvenile sexual recidivism rates. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000094
DeLongE. R.DeLongD. M.Clarke-PearsonD. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44(3), 837–845. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531595
FanniffA. M.LetourneauE. J. (2012). Another piece of the puzzle: Psychometric properties of the J-SOAP-II. Sexual Abuse, 24(4), 378–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211431842
14.
FanniffA. M.LetourneauE. J. (2014). Keep testing the waters: Fanniff and Letourneau reply. Sexual Abuse, 26(5), 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214531049
15.
FirthD. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80(1), 27–38.
16.
GlowaczF.BornM. (2013). Do adolescent child abusers, peer abusers, and non-sex offenders have different personality profiles?European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 22(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-012-0333-2
17.
GunbyC.WoodhamsJ. (2010). Sexually deviant juveniles: Comparisons between the offender and offence characteristics of “child abusers” and “peer abusers.”Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(1–2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802621966
18.
HarrisG. T.RiceM. E. (2013). Bayes and base rates: What is an informative prior for actuarial violence risk assessment?Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(1), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2048
HeinzeG.SchemperM. (2002). A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 21(16), 2409–2419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1047
22.
HosmerD. W.LemeshowS. (2000). Applied logistic regression. John Wiley.
23.
HunterJ. A.FigueredoA. J.MalamuthN. M.BeckerJ. V. (2003). Juvenile sex offenders: Toward the development of a typology. Sexual Abuse, 15(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320301500103
24.
International Labour Organization. (2012). International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (ISCO-08): Structure, group definitions and correspondence tables.
25.
JoyalC. C.CarpentierJ.MartinC. (2016). Discriminant factors for adolescent sexual offending: On the usefulness of considering both victim age and sibling incest. Child Abuse & Neglect, 54, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.01.006
26.
KeelanC. M.FremouwW. J. (2013). Child versus peer/adult offenders: A critical review of the juvenile sex offender literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(6), 732–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.026
27.
KilliasM. (2009). Paradise lost? New trends in crime and migration in Switzerland. In McDonaldW. F. (Ed.), Immigration, crime and justice (pp. 33–45). Emerald Group.
28.
LeitgöbH. (2013, July15–19). The problem of modelling rare events in ML-based logistic regression. Paper presented at the 5th conference of the European Survey Research Association, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
29.
LerouxE. J.PullmanL. E.MotayneG.SetoM. C. (2016). Victim age and the generalist versus specialist distinction in adolescent sexual offending. Sexual Abuse, 28(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214535814
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(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.07.004
31.
MaierT.Mohler-KuoM.LandoltM. A.SchnyderU.JudA. (2013). The tip of the iceberg. Incidence of disclosed cases of child sexual abuse in Switzerland: Results from a nationwide agency survey. International Journal of Public Health, 58(6), 875–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-013-0498-6
32.
MalinH. M.SalehF. M.GrudzinskasA. J. (2014). Recent research related to juvenile sex offending: Findings and directions for further research. Current Psychiatry Reports, 16(4), 440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-014-0440-5
33.
MossmanD. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.783
NemesS.JonassonJ. M.GenellA.SteineckG. (2009). Bias in odds ratios by logistic regression modelling and sample size. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1), Article 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-56
36.
NisbetI. A.WilsonP. H.SmallboneS. W. (2004). A prospective longitudinal study of sexual recidivism among adolescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 16(3), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320401600304
37.
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, 18(4), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320601800402
38.
PrentkyR.RighthandS. (2003). Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) manual. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
39.
QuenzerC.DahleK. (2010). Standardisierte Prognoseinstrumente für junge Sexualstraftäter [Standardized risk assessment instruments for young sexual offenders]. In BrikenP.RomerG.BernerW. (Eds.), Sexuell grenzverletzende Kinder und Jugendliche (pp. 329–341). Pabst Science Publishers.
40.
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(10), 1066–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810376354
41.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
42.
RettenbergerM.KleinV.MartinR.BrikenP. (2014). Die Einschätzung des Rückfallrisikos bei sexuell auffälligen Kindern und Jugendlichen anhand standardisierter Prognoseinstrumente [Estimating the risk of recidivism among children and adolescents with sexualized behaviors using standardized risk assessment instruments]. Kindheit und Entwicklung, 23(4), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1026/0942-5403/a000146
43.
RettenbergerM.RiceM. E.HarrisG. T.EherR. (2017). Actuarial risk assessment of sexual offenders: The psychometric properties of the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 624–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000390
44.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
45.
RighthandS.WelchC. (2004). Characteristics of youth who sexually offend. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(3–4), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v13n03_02
46.
RobertielloG.TerryK. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(5), 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2007.02.010
47.
Salas-EljatibC.Fuentes-RamirezA.GregoireT. G.AltamiranoA.YaitulV. (2018). A study on the effects of unbalanced data when fitting logistic regression models in ecology. Ecological Indicators, 85, 502–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.030
48.
SchmelzleM. (2003). Skala zur Einschätzung des Rückfallrisikos bei jugendlichen Sexualstraftätern—Deutsche Übersetzung Version 0.0/2003 des ERASOR: Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism Version 2.0 2001 [Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism in juveniles sexual offenders—German translation version 0.0/2003 of the ERASOR: Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism Version 2.0 2001]. https://www.forio.ch/service/erasor/
49.
SchmelzleM. (2004). Juvenile sex offender assessment protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) manual Deutsche Übersetzung [Juvenile sex offender assessment protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) manual German translation]. https://www.forio.ch/service/j-soap/
50.
Schwartz-MetteR. A.RighthandS.HeckerJ.DoreG.HuffR. (2019). Long-term predictive validity of the juvenile sex offender assessment protocol–II: Research and practice implications. Sexual Abuse. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219825871
51.
SetoM. C.LalumiereM. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019700
52.
SinghJ. P. (2013). Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: A methodological primer. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2052
53.
Skubic KemperT.KistnerJ. A. (2007). Offense history and recidivism in three victim-age-based groups of juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 19(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320701900406
54.
Skubic KemperT.KistnerJ. A. (2010). An evaluation of classification criteria for juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 22(2), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210366270
55.
StevensP.HutchinK.FrenchL.CraissatiJ. (2013). Developmental and offence-related characteristics of different types of adolescent sex offender: A community sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19(2), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2011.645889
56.
‘t Hart-KerkhoffsL. A.BoonmannC.DoreleijersT. A.JansenL. M.van WijkA. P.VermeirenR. R. (2015). Mental disorders and criminal re-referrals in juveniles who sexually offended. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 9, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-015-0035-x
57.
‘t Hart-KerkhoffsL. A.DoreleijersT. A.JansenL. M.van WijkA. P.BullensR. A. (2009). Offense related characteristics and psychosexual development of juvenile sex offenders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 3(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-3-19
58.
TjurT. (2009). Coefficients of determination in logistic regression models—A new proposal: The coefficient of discrimination. The American Statistician, 63(4), 366–372. https://doi.org/10.1198/tast.2009.08210
59.
UedaM. (2017). Developmental risk factors of juvenile sex offenders by victim age: An implication for specialized treatment programs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.09.006
60.
VenezianoC.VenezianoL. (2002). Adolescent sex offenders: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3(4), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838002237329
61.
ViljoenJ. L.ElkovitchN.ScaloraM.UllmanD. (2009). Assessment of reoffense risk in adolescents who have committed sexual offenses: Predictive validity of the ERASOR, PCL: YV, YLS/CMI, and Static-99. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(10), 981–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809340991
62.
ViljoenJ. L.MordellS.BeneteauJ. L. (2012). Prediction of adolescent sexual reoffending: A meta-analysis of the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II, and Static-99. Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093938
63.
WorlingJ. R. (2004). The estimate of risk of adolescent sexual offense recidivism (ERASOR): Preliminary psychometric data. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320401600305
64.
WorlingJ. R.BookalamD.LitteljohnA. (2012). Prospective validity of the estimate of risk of adolescent sexual offense recidivism (ERASOR). Sexual Abuse, 24(3), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211407080
65.
WorlingJ. R.CurwenT. (2001). Estimate of risk of adolescent sexual offense recidivism (Version 2.0: The “ERASOR”). In CalderM. C. (Ed.), Juveniles and children who sexually abuse: Frameworks for assessment (pp. 372–397). Russell House Publishing.
66.
ZengG.ChuC. M.KohL. L.TeohJ. (2015). Risk and criminogenic needs of youth who sexually offended in Singapore: An examination of two typologies. Sexual Abuse, 27(5), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063213520044
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.
