Long-Term Predictive Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II: Research and Practice Implications

Abstract

The current study evaluated the predictive validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II) scores in a sample of juveniles who recidivated sexually or nonsexually as adults. Participants included 166 juveniles who had previously sexually offended and were followed into adulthood for an average of 10.75 years. Results of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analyses supported the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II Total Score, Scale 1, and Static Score in regard to adult sexual recidivism, and predictive validity was found for all J-SOAP-II scores (except Scale 1) in regard to adult nonsexual recidivism. Implications for future research on the assessment of risk factors and treatment needs for adolescents who commit sexual offenses are discussed.

Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II in an Australian Context

“…However, several patterns worthy of further consideration emerged. The findings of this study are consistent with the broader literature regarding the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II for YSH, which indicates poor to moderate performance of the J-SOAP-II for the JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL-II 20 prediction of sexual recidivism (e.g., Aebi et al, 2011;Caldwell et al, 2008;Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Martinez et al, 2007;Parks & Bard, 2006;Peterson, 2010;Prentky et al, 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Schwartz-Mette et al, 2019;Viljoen et al, 2008).…”

“…Findings indicate that there is considerable variability regarding its validity (e.g., Aebi, Plattner, Steinhausen, & Bessler, 2011;Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Caldwell, Ziemke & Vitacco, 2008;Chu et al, 2012;Martinez et al, 2007;Parks & Bard, 2006;Peterson, 2010;Powers-Sawyer & Minor, 2009;Prentky, Righthand, Schuler, Cavanaugh, & Lee, 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Schwartz-Mette, Righthand, Hecker, Dore, & Huff, 2019;Viljoen et al, 2008). The authors of the initial validation study of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP) were unable to reach any significant conclusions about the validity of the J-SOAP due to low base rates of sexual recidivism and therefore a lack of generalisability of the findings (Christiansen & Vincent, 2013;Prentky & Righthand, 2003).…”

“…The results of this study are consistent with the results presented above for higher-risk youth. More recently, a longer-term validation study examining the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II into adulthood found support for the prediction of both sexual and non-sexual (violent and non-violent) recidivism, although this differed across scales (Schwartz-Mette et al, 2019). Predictive validity was found for all J-JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL-II 9 SOAP-II scores (except Scale 1 -Sexual Drive/Sexual Preoccupation) for non-sexual (violent and non-violent) recidivism.…”

State-of-the-Art Measures: Contemporary Views on Risk Assessment of Sexually Abusive Youth

“…In their review of nine studies utilizing the J-SOAP-II, Fanniff and Letourneau (2012) cautioned that until "more consistently supported by empirical evidence, evaluators should not base significant decisions" (p. 403) on J-SOAP-II results. Schwartz-Mette, Righthand, Hecker, Dore, and Huff. (2019) reported that J-SOAP-II had good predictive validity for adult recidivism on a small sample (N ¼ 166) in a longitudinal study.…”

Validity of Risk Assessment Instruments Among Juveniles Who Sexually Offended: Victim Age Matters

“…A meta-analysis by Viljoen et al (2012) supports the predictive validity of both instruments for sexual offending, reporting moderate effect sizes for both tools (AUC ERASOR SPJ = .66, AUC ERASOR total score = .66, AUC J-SOAP-II total score = .67). From the current literature, it remains largely unclear whether the predictive validity of the existing risk assessment tools is comparable for subtypes of JSO (Schwartz-Mette et al, 2019).…”