Evaluation and Applications of the Clinically Significant Change Method with the Violence Risk Scale‐Sexual Offender Version: Implications for Risk‐Change Communication

Abstract

We examined the use of the clinically significant change (CSC) method with the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version (VRS-SO), and its implications for risk communication, in a combined sample of 945 treated sexual offenders from three international settings, followed up for a minimum 5 years post-release. The reliable change (RC) index was used to identify thresholds of clinically meaningful change and to create four CSC groups (already okay, recovered, improved, unchanged) based on VRS-SO dynamic scores and amount of change made. Outcome analyses demonstrated important CSC-group differences in 5-year rates of sexual and violent recidivism. However, when baseline risk was controlled via Cox regression survival analysis, the pattern and magnitude of CSC-group differences in sexual and violent recidivism changed to suggest that observed variation in recidivism base rates could be at least partly explained by pre-existing group differences in risk level. Implications for communication of risk-change information and applications to clinical practice are discussed.

Are adolescent risk assessment tools sensitive to change? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and the YLS/CMI.

“…However, as of yet, few researchers have applied these concepts to the field of risk assessment (i.e., Draycott, Kirkpatrick, & Askari, 2012;Olver, Beggs Christofferson, & Wong, 2015;. For instance, no published research has investigated reliable change on the YLS/CMI, and only one study, to our knowledge, has examined reliable change on the SAVRY .…”

Challenges for the theory and application of dynamic risk factors

“…Other studies have employed a different method known as clinically significant change methodology to explore the link between within-treatment changes in dynamic risk Theory and Application of Dynamic Risk -20 and recidivism (e.g., Barnett, Wakeling, Mandeville-Norden, & Rakestrow, 2013;Olver, Beggs Christofferson, & Wong, 2015). This method avoids the problems associated with raw change scores, as in addition to considering change magnitude, post-treatment scores are evaluated against non-deviant norms to determine whether the individual has qualitatively "improved", "recovered", is "already ok" (i.e., never scored outside the normative range), or remained "unchanged".…”

“…While this method offers a user-friendly and readily interpretable classification system for individuals based on what their dynamic risk test scores say about their treatment outcome, Olver and colleagues (2015) and others (e.g., Barnett et al, 2013) have overviewed the limitations of the method and noted mixed findings, in particular that the usefulness of the output is dependent on the quality of the measures used. In general, Olver et al (2015) suggested that the use of a single, purpose-designed risk tool containing multiple dynamic factors, such as the VRS-SO or the STABLE 2007 (see Hanson, Harris, Scott, & Helmus, 2007), may offer advantages over the psychometric battery approach for the consistent and meaningful applied measurement of dynamic risk factors, and change in these across treatment.…”

Predictive Power of Dynamic (vs. Static) Risk Factors in the Finnish Risk and Needs Assessment Form

“…Repeated measures may show different results. The changes in risk can be measured and they have incremental predictive power has been demonstrated using the Violence Risk Scale (Lewis et al, 2013; Olver, Beggs Christofferson, & Wong, 2015), Historical Clinical Risk Mangement-20, and Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (De Vries Robbé et al, 2015).…”