Sexual recidivism risk assessment tools focus almost exclusively on risk factors associated with increased rates of recidivism and do not attend to protective factors that might mitigate reoffense risk. The present study investigated the predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors - Sexual Offence version (SAPROF-SO), developed to assess hypothesised protective factors against sexual recidivism in adult males. The SAPROF-SO pilot version contains 24 items across two domains: Personal and Professionally Provided Support. SAPROF-SO scores were rated retrospectively from a review of archived case files of 210 men with convictions for child sexual offenses, using the SAPROF-SO pilot manual and a supplementary retrospective scoring guide developed for the current study. SAPROF-SO Total and Personal domain scores were significantly predictive of sexual recidivism after an average follow-up period of 12.24 years (AUC = .81), and to a lesser extent, violent and general recidivism. SAPROF-SO Total and Personal scores additionally provided significant incremental validity over Static-99R scores in the prediction of sexual recidivism. Results support the predictive validity of protective factors for reduced sexual recidivism and invite future research examining how to integrate the SAPROF-SO alongside contemporary sexual recidivism risk assessment tools.
AbbiatiM.AzzolaA.PalixJ.GasserJ.MoulinV. (2017). Validity and predictive accuracy of the structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk in criminal forensic evaluations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(4), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816677565
2.
BeggsS. M.GraceR. C. (2010). Assessment of dynamic risk factors: An independent validation study of the violence risk scale: Sexual offender version. Sexual Abuse, 22(2), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210369014
3.
BeggsS. M.GraceR. C. (2011). Treatment gain for sexual offenders against children predicts reduced recidivism: A comparative validity study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022900
4.
BrankleyA. E.BabchishinK. M.HansonR. K. (2021). STABLE-2007 demonstrates predictive and incremental validity in assessing risk-relevant propensities for sexual offending: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse, 33(1), 34–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219871572
5.
CordingJ. R.Beggs ChristoffersonS. M. (2017). Theoretical and practical issues for the measurement of protective factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32(January-February 2017), 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.007.
6.
CouplandR. B. A.OlverM. E. (2020). Assessing protective factors in treated violent offenders: Associations with recidivism reduction and positive community outcomes. Psychological Assessment, 32(5), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000807
7.
Daubert, v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993). 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469.
8.
de VogelV.de RuiterC.BoumanY.de Vries RobbéM. (2012). SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk (2nd ed.). Van der Hoeven Stichting.
9.
de Vries RobbéM.de VogelV.de SpaE. (2011). Protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatric patients: A retrospective validation study of the SAPROF. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10(3), 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2011.600232.
10.
De Vries RobbéMde VogelV.DouglasK. S.NijmanH. L. I. (2015). Changes in dynamic risk and protective factors for violence during inpatient forensic psychiatric treatment: Predicting reductions in postdischarge community recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 39(1), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000089.
11.
de Vries RobbéM.de VogelV.KosterK.BogaertsS. (2015). Assessing protective factors for sexually violent offending with the SAPROF. Sexual Abuse, 27(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214550168
12.
de Vries RobbéM.MannR. E.MarunaS.ThorntonD. (2015). An exploration of protective factors supporting desistance from sexual offending. Sexual Abuse, 27(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214547582
13.
de Vries RobbéM.Vivienne deV.AgnesV. (2020). The structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk (SAPROF). In DouglasK. S.OttoR. K. (Eds), Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 410–437). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315518374-21
14.
de Vries RobbéM.WillisG. M. (2017). Assessment of protective factors in clinical practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32(January-February 2017), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.006.
15.
Frye v. United States (1923). 293 F. 1013, 34 A.L.R. 145. D.C.Cir.
16.
HansonR. K.BabchishinK. M.HelmusL. M.ThorntonD.PhenixA. (2017). Communicating the results of criterion referenced prediction measures: Risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Psychological Assessment, 29(5), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000371
17.
HareR. D. (1991). The psychopathy checklist-revised. Multi-Health Systems.
HelmusL. M.HansonR. K.ThorntonD.BabchishinK. M.HarrisA. J. R. (2012). Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1148–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812443648
21.
HelmusL. M.KelleyS. M.FrazierA.FernandezY. M.LeeS. C.RettenbergerM.BoccacciniM. T. (in press). Static-99R: Strengths, limitations, predictive accuracy meta-analysis, and legal admissibility review. Psychology, Public Policy and Law. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000351.
22.
HelmusL. M.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, 24(1), 64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951
23.
KelleyS. M.AmbroziakG.ThorntonD.BarahalR. M. (2020). How do professionals assess sexual recidivism risk? An updated survey of practices. Sexual Abuse, 32(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218800474
24.
KelleyS. M.WillisG. M.ThorntonD. (2022). Clinical applications of the structured assessment of protective factors against sexual offending (SAPROF-SO), Version 1. Journal of Sexual Aggression, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2021.2020345.
25.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
26.
MallionJ. S.WoodJ. L.MallionA. (2020). Systematic review of ‘Good Lives’ assumptions and interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 55(November-December 2020), 101510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101510.
27.
MannR. E.WebsterS. D.SchofieldC.MarshallW. L. (2004). Approach versus avoidance goals in relapse prevention with sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 16(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320401600105
28.
OlverM. E.MundtJ. C.ThorntonD.Beggs ChristoffersonS. M.KingstonD. A.SowdenJ. N.NicholaichukT. P.GordonA.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(7), 941–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000538
29.
OlverM. E.ThorntonD.ChristoffersonS. M. B. (2021). Understanding the latent structure of dynamic risk: Seeking empirical constraints on theory development using the VRS-SO and the theory of dynamic risk. Sexual Abuse, 34(2), 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632211002858
30.
RogersR. (2000). The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24(5), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005575113507
31.
SpielbergerC. D. (1983). State trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists.
32.
SpielbergerC. D. (1988). State-trait anger expression inventory (STAXI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
33.
ThorntonD. (2016). Structured risk assessment. In PhenixA.HobermanH. M. (Eds.), Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management (pp. 503–520). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2416-5_23
34.
ThorntonD.HansonR. K.KelleyS. M.MundtJ. C. (2021). Estimating lifetime and residual risk for individuals who remain sexual offense free in the community: Practical applications. Sexual Abuse, 33(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219871573
35.
ThorntonD.KelleyS. M. (2020) Developing protective factors responsive to different criminogenic need profiles. In Association for the Treatment Of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) Annual Research And Treatment Conference, 26–29 October 2020. https://www.atsa.com/Public/Conference/2020/ATSA_2020_Conference_Program.pdf
36.
TurnerD.RettenbergerM.YoonD.KleinV.EherR.BrikenP. (2016). Risk assessment in child sexual abusers working with children. Sexual Abuse, 28(6), 572–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214564390
WardT.MarunaS. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk assessment paradigm. Routledge.
39.
WardT.StewartC. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353
40.
WillisG. M.KelleyS. M.ThorntonD. (2020). Are protective factors valid constructs? Inter-rater reliability and construct validity of proposed protective factors against sexual reoffending. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(11), 1448–1467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820941039
41.
WillisG. M.ThorntonD. T.KelleyS. M.de Vries RobbéM. (2017). The structured assessment of protective factors - sexual offence version (SAPROF-SO) pilot manual. [Unpublished manual].
42.
YoonD.TurnerD.KleinV.RettenbergerM.EherR.BrikenP. (2018). Factors predicting desistance from reoffending: A validation study of the SAPROF in sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(3), 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x16664379
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.
