A multisite examination of sexual violence risk and therapeutic change.

Abstract

The results are consistent with the dynamic nature of sexual violence risk and suggest that risk-relevant changes associated with participation in sexual offender treatment are linked to reductions in sexual offender recidivism.

Violent Offenders’ Within-Treatment Change in Anger, Criminal Attitudes, and Violence Risk: Associations with Violent Recidivism

“…However, it has been noted that anger is not necessarily a criminogenic need for all violent offenders, and particularly among those who demonstrate psychopathic traits (Howells, 2004). Even if anger is functionally related to violent behavior, it is also possible that other unmeasured indicators of risk (e.g., psychopathy) differentially impacted CSC change profiles, such that the extent of CSC in T-Ang and AX/O remained quite small (Olver, Nicholaichuk, Kingston, & Wong, 2014).…”

“…Using the same change variables, a total of 10 Cox regression analyses were then performed. In these analyses, pre-treatment scores on each construct were controlled, as it has been argued that the amount to which an offender can change on a dynamic measure is restricted by his pre-treatment score (Olver et al, 2014). Nevertheless, the question of linking relevant treatment gains to reduced violent recidivism was not supported (Kroner & Yessine, 2013).…”

Does reassessment of risk improve predictions? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.

“…In contrast, a number of studies with adult samples have found changes in risk total scores to predict reoffending (Beggs & Grace, 2011;Blanchard, 2013;Cohen, Lowenkamp, & VanBenschoten, 2016;de Vries Robbé et al, 2015;Hogan & Olver, 2016;Labrecque, Smith, Lovins, & Latessa, 2014;Lewis, Olver, & Wong, 2013;Michel et al, 2013;Olver, Christofferson, Grace, & Wong, 2014;Olver, Nicholaichuk, Kingston, & Wong, 2014;Olver et al, 2007;Raynor, 2007;Vose, Smith, & Cullen, 2013;Wilson, Desmarais, Nicholls, Hart, & Brink, 2013), particularly after other variables are controlled for in analyses (e.g., baseline scores; see Appendix 3,Supplemental Material). That said, a couple of studies have failed to find significant associations between change scores and reoffending (Hanson, Harris, Scott, & Helmus, 2007;Hanson, 2015;Goodman-Delahunty & O'Brien, 2014).…”

Changes in J-SOAP-II and SAVRY Scores Over the Course of Residential, Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Adolescent Sexual Offending

“…This association did not reach significance in the full sample ( r = −.09) or for the low-risk group ( r = .01), but was significant for high-risk offenders ( r = −.15, p < .05). In other words, high-risk offenders who showed greater reductions in risk scores were less likely to reoffend (see also Olver, Nicholaichuk, Kingston, & Wong, 2014). For low-risk offenders, the level of improvement may not matter as much as it does for high-risk offenders because low-risk offenders are already relatively unlikely to reoffend.…”