Intellectual Ability and Sexual Recidivism Risk Assessment: Comparing Predictive Accuracy in an Incarcerated U.S. Sample

Abstract

While studies indicate that individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) and borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) are overrepresented among those incarcerated for sexual offenses, there is a paucity of research with respect to risk assessment for this population, particularly among incarcerated U.S. samples. This gap is concerning given that individuals perceived as high risk may be denied bail, given harsher sentences, or subject to civil confinement. The present study examined the predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99R, which rely on historical predictors, and the MnSOST-R, which includes a dynamic subscale. Archival records were used to compare individuals with (n = 459) and without (n = 459) ID/BIF released from New Jersey state prisons between 1996 and 2007, with an average follow-up period of 5.7 years. All three instruments demonstrated good predictive validity for those without ID/BIF, while only the MnSOST-R produced a significant AUC value for those with ID/BIF. Reincarceration rates for those with ID/BIF within high-risk groups ranged from 0% to 8%, similar to the overall recidivism base rate of 4%. Results highlight the need for additional research to determine which risk factors should be considered for those with ID/BIF.

Keywords

sexual offending intellectual disability recidivism risk assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akoglu

(2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(3), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001

Alper

(2019). Recidivism of sex ofenders released from state prison: A 9-year follow-up (2005-14). Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice.

American Psychiatric Association . (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (5th ed., Text Revision, pp. 37).

Ashman

Duggan

(2008). Interventions for learning disabled sex offenders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2008(1), CD003682. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003682.pub2

Baldwin

(2015). Sex offender risk assessment. In Sex offender management assessment and planning initiative. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.

Beech

A. R.

Craig

L. A.

(2012). The current status of static and dynamic factors in sexual offender risk assessment. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4(4), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/17596591211270671

Blacker

Beech

Wilcox

Boer

(2011). The assessment of dynamic risk and recidivism in a sample of special needs sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime and Law, 17(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903392376

Blanchard

Watson

M. S.

Choy

Dickey

Klassen

Kuban

Ferren

D. J.

(1999). Pedophiles: Mental retardation, maternal age, and sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018754004962

Blasingame

G. D.

Boer

D. P.

Guidry

Haaven

Wilson

R. J.

(2014). Assessment, treatment, and supervision of individuals with intellectual disabilities and problematic sexual behaviors. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

10.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Rice

A. K.

Helmus

L. M.

Murrie

D. C.

Harris

P. B.

(2017). Field validity of Static-99/R scores in a statewide sample of 34,687 convicted sexual offenders. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000377

11.

Boer

D. P.

Tough

Haaven

(2004). Assessment of risk manageability of intellectually disabled sex offenders. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17(4), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00214.x

12.

Brankley

A. E.

Babchishin

K. M.

Hanson

R. 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

13.

Callahan

P. A.

Jeglic

E. L.

Calkins

(2024). Sexual offenders with intellectual disabilities: An exploratory comparison study in an incarcerated U.S. sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 68(10–11), 1052–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211066825

14.

Cantor

Blanchard

Robichaud

Christensen

(2005). Quantitative reanalysis of aggregate data on IQ in sexual offenders. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.555

15.

Cohen

Jeglic

E. L.

(2007). Sex offender legislation in the United States: What do we know? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X06296235

16.

Delforterie

van den Berg

J. W.

Bolt

van den Hazel

Craig

Didden

(2019). Comparing STATIC-99R and STABLE-2007 between persons with and without intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour, 10(3), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-01-2019-0003

17.

Delforterie

M. J.

Hesper

B. L.

Nijman

H. L. I.

Korzilius

H. P. L. M.

Turhan

Didden

(2023). The predictive value of the dynamic risk outcome scales (DROS) for recidivism in (forensic) clients with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(4), 750–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.13090

18.

Drieschner

K. H.

Hesper

B. L.

(2008). Dynamic risk outcome scales. Trajectum.

19.

Duwe

(2019). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417718608

20.

Eckhouse

Lum

Conti-Cook

Ciccolini

(2019). Layers of bias: A unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(2), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818811379

21.

Emerson

Malam

Davies

(2005). Adults with learning difficulties in England 2003/4. Health and Social Care Information Centre.

22.

Epperson

D. L.

Kaul

J. D.

Hout

Hesselton

Alexander

(2003). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST-R) technical paper: Development, validation, and recommended risk level cut scores. Minnesota Department of Corrections.

23.

Epperson

D. L.

Kaul

J. D.

Huot

Hesselton

Alexander

(2000). Minnesota sex offender screening tool-revised (MnSOST-R). Minnesota Department of Corrections.

24.

Fazel

Singh

J. P.

Doll

Grann

(2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 345, Article e4692. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4692

25.

Fedoroff

J. P.

Richards

Ranger

Curry

(2016). The predictive validity of common risk assessment tools in men with intellectual disabilities and problematic sexual behaviors. Research in Developmental Disability, 57, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.06.011

26.

Fernandez

Harris

A. J. R.

Hanson

R. K.

Sparks

(2012). STABLE-2007 coding manual: Revised. Public Safety Canada.

27.

Fleminger

(1997). Number needed to detain. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 171(3), 287. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.171.3.287a

28.

Fogden

B. C.

Thomas

S. D. M.

Daffern

Ogloff

J. R. P.

(2016). Crime and victimisation in people with intellectual disability: A case linkage study. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0869-7

29.

Hanson

R. K.

(1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism (User Report 97-04). Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

30.

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), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421

31.

Hanson

R. K.

Sheahan

C. L.

VanZuylen

(2013). STATIC-99 and RRASOR predict recidivism among developmentally delayed sexual offenders: A cumulative meta-analysis. Sexual Offender Treatment, 8(1), 1–14. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273946539_STATIC-99_and_RRASOR_Predict_Recidivism_among_Developmentally_Delayed_Sexual_Offenders_A_Cumulative_Meta-Analysis

32.

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

(1999). STATIC-99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. Ottawa Department of the Solicitor General of Canada 1999.

33.

Harris

Phenix

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

D. T.

(2003). Static-99 coding rules revised-2003. Research Division, Public Safety Canada. https://sgc.gc.ca

34.

Harris

A. J. R.

Tough

(2004). Should actuarial risk assessments be used with sex offenders who are intellectually disabled? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17(4), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00211.x

35.

Helmus

Thornton

Hanson

R. K.

Babchishin

K. 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(1), 64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951

36.

Helmus

L. M.

Babchishin

(2017). Primer on risk assessment and the statistics used to evaluate its accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816678898

37.

Helmus

L. M.

Kelley

S. M.

Frazier

Fernandez

Y. M.

Lee

S. C.

Rettenberger

Boccaccini

M. T.

(2022). Static-99R: Strengths, limitations, predictive accuracy meta-analysis, and legal admissibility review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000351 (Advance online publication).

38.

IBM SPSS Statistics 28 Documentation . (2022). Statistics algorithms (p. 1132). https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/SSLVMB_28.0.0/pdf/IBM_SPSS_Statistics_Algorithms.pdf

39.

Johnson

S. L.

Blume

J. H.

Hritz

A. C.

(2018). Convictions of innocent people with intellectual disability, (Vol. 82, p. 1031). Albany Law Review.

40.

Kelley

S. M.

Ambroziak

Thornton

Barahal

R. 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

41.

Levenson

J. S.

Morin

J. W.

(2006). Factors predicting selection of sexually violent predators for civil commitment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(6), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X06287644

42.

Lindsay

W. R.

(2002). Research and literature on sex offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46(Suppl 1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2002.00006.x

43.

Lindsay

W. R.

Hogue

T. E.

Taylor

J. L.

Steptoe

Mooney

O’Brien

Johnston

Smith

A. H. W.

(2008). Risk assessment in offenders with intellectual disability: A comparison across three levels of security. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(1), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07308111

44.

Lofthouse

Lindsay

Totsika

Hastings

Boer

Haaven

(2013). Prospective dynamic assessment of risk of sexual reoffending in individuals with an intellectual disability and a history of sexual offending behaviour. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 26(5), 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12029

45.

Lussier

McCuish

Jeglic

E. L.

(2023). Against all odds: The unexplained sexual recidivism drop in the United States and Canada. Crime and Justice, 52(1), 125–196. https://doi.org/10.1086/727028

46.

Marotta

P. L.

(2017). A systematic review of behavioral health interventions for sex offenders with intellectual disabilities. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(2), 148–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215569546

47.

McGrath

R. J.

Lasher

M. P.

Cumming

G. F.

(2012). [Static-99R scores of 14 developmentally delayed sexual offenders from Vermont who were either recidivists or non-recidivists]. Unpublished raw data.

48.

McMahon

Bowring

D. L.

Hatton

(2019). Not such an ordinary life: A comparison of employment, marital status and housing profiles of adults with and without intellectual disabilities. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 24(4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLDR-03-2019-0014

49.

Mercado

Jeglic

Markus

Hanson

Levenson

(2013). Sex offender management, treatment, and civil commitment: An evidence based analysis aimed at reducing sexual violence. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243551.pdf

50.

Miller

C. S.

Kimonis

E. R.

Otto

R. K.

Kline

S. M.

Wasserman

A. L.

(2012). Reliability of risk assessment measures used in sexually violent predator proceedings. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028411

51.

Neal

T. M. S.

Grisso

(2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1406–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449

52.

Pouls

Jeandarme

(2022). Reliability and validity of the Static-99R in sex offenders with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour, 13(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-08-2021-0013

53.

Pouls

Jeandarme

(2023). Reliability and validity of the ARMIDILO-S in sex offenders with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315864.2022.2148790

54.

Quinsey

V. L.

(2004). Risk assessment and management in community settings. In Lindsay

W. R.

Taylor

J. L.

Sturmey

(Eds.), Offenders with developmental disabilities (pp. 131–142). John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Quinsey

V. L.

Harris

G. T.

Rice

M. E.

Cormier

C. A.

(2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association.

56.

Rice

Harris

Lang

Chaplin

(2008). Sexual preferences and recidivism of sex offenders with mental retardation. Sexual Abuse, 20(4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063208324662

57.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. 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

58.

Salekin

K. L.

Olley

J. G.

Hedge

K. A.

(2010). Offenders with intellectual disability: Characteristics, prevalence, and issues in forensic assessment. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 3(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315861003695769

59.

Singh

J. 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

60.

Siperstein

G. N.

Parker

R. C.

Drascher

(2013). National snapshot of adults with intellectual disabilities in the labor force. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39(3), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-130658

61.

Stephens

Newman

Cantor

Seto

(2018). The Static-99R predicts sexual and violent recidivism for individuals with low intellectual functioning. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 24(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2017.1372936

62.

Thornton

Mann

Webster

Blud

Travers

Friendship

Erikson

(2003). Distinguishing and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07308.x

63.

Tully

R. J.

Chou

Browne

K. D.

(2013). A systematic review on the effectiveness of sex offender risk assessment tools in predicting sexual recidivism of adult male sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(2), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.12.002

64.

van den Berg

J. W.

Smid

Schepers

Wever

van Beek

Janssen

Gijs

(2018). The predictive properties of dynamic sex offender risk assessment instruments: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000454

65.

Verdonschot

M. M. L.

De Witte

L. P.

Reichrath

Buntinx

W. H. E.

Curfs

L. M. G.

(2009). Community participation of people with an intellectual disability: A review of empirical findings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53(4), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01144.x

66.

Vincent

G. M.

Viljoen

J. L.

(2020). Racist algorithms or systemic problems? Risk assessments and racial disparities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(12), 1576–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820954501

67.

Walmsley

(2015). World prison population list (11th ed.). Institute for Criminal Policy Research.

68.

Wieland

Zitman

(2016). It is time to bring borderline intellectual functioning back into the main fold of classification systems. BJPsych Bulletin, 40(4), 204–206. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.051490

69.

Wilcox

Beech

Markall

H. F.

Blacker

(2009). Actuarial risk assessment and recidivism in a sample of UK intellectually disabled sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600802578577

70.

Zinger

(2004). Actuarial risk assessment and human rights: A commentary. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46(5), 607–620. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.46.5.607

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.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB