Literature DB >> 25810478

What Sexual Recidivism Rates Are Associated With Static-99R and Static-2002R Scores?

R Karl Hanson1, David Thornton2, Leslie-Maaike Helmus3, Kelly M Babchishin3.   

Abstract

Empirical actuarial risk tools are routinely used to assess the recidivism risk of adult sexual offenders. Compared with other forms of risk assessment, one advantage of actuarial risk tools is that they provide recidivism rate estimates. Previous research, however, suggests that there is considerable variability in the recidivism rates associated with the most commonly used sexual offender risk assessment tools (Static-99/R, Static-2002/R). The current study examined the extent to which the variability in the recidivism rates across 21 Static-99R studies (N = 8,805) corresponded to the normative groups proposed by the STATIC development group (routine, treatment, high risk/high need). We found strong evidence that routine (i.e., complete) samples were, on average, less likely to reoffend with a sexual offense than offenders in the high-risk/high-need samples (i.e., those explicitly preselected on risk-relevant variables external to STATIC scales). The differences between routine/complete and high-risk/high-need samples, however, were only consistently observed for offenders with low or moderate scores; for offenders with high STATIC scores, the 5-year sexual recidivism rates for these two groups were not meaningfully different. There was only limited evidence to support treatment samples as a distinct sample type; consequently, the use of separate normative tables for treatment samples is not recommended. The current results reinforce the value of regularly updating the norms for empirical actuarial risk tools. Options are discussed on how STATIC scores could be used to inform recidivism rates estimates in applied assessments.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Keywords:  Static-2002R; Static-99R; prediction; recidivism; sexual offenders

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25810478     DOI: 10.1177/1079063215574710

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sex Abuse        ISSN: 1079-0632


  7 in total

Review 1.  Sex Offender Risk Assessment: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Authors:  L Maaike Helmus
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2018-05-19       Impact factor: 5.285

Review 2.  Sex Offender Management Policies and Evidence-Based Recommendations for Registry Reform.

Authors:  Jill S Levenson
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 5.285

3.  Predicting Sexual Assault Perpetration in the U.S. Army Using Administrative Data.

Authors:  Anthony J Rosellini; John Monahan; Amy E Street; Maria V Petukhova; Nancy A Sampson; David M Benedek; Paul Bliese; Murray B Stein; Robert J Ursano; Ronald C Kessler
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  A Static-99R Validation Study on Individuals With Mental Disorders: 5 to 20 Years of Fixed Follow-Up After Sexual Offenses.

Authors:  Christian Baudin; Thomas Nilsson; Joakim Sturup; Märta Wallinius; Peter Andiné
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-02-02

5.  Risk Factors for Sexual Offending in Self-Referred Men With Pedophilic Disorder: A Swedish Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Felix Wittström; Niklas Långström; Valdemar Landgren; Christoffer Rahm
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-11-26

6.  Improving Our Risk Communication: Standardized Risk Levels for Brief Assessment of Recidivism Risk-2002R.

Authors:  Julie Blais; Kelly M Babchishin; R Karl Hanson
Journal:  Sex Abuse       Date:  2021-10-20

7.  The Predictive Properties of Psychiatric Diagnoses, Dynamic Risk and Dynamic Risk Change Assessed by the VRS-SO in Forensically Admitted and Released Sexual Offenders.

Authors:  Reinhard Eher; Sandra Hofer; Anna Buchgeher; Stefan Domany; Daniel Turner; Mark E Olver
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 4.157

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.