Predicting Sexual and Nonsexual Recidivism in a Consecutive Sample of Juveniles Convicted of Sexual Offences

Abstract

Reliable and valid risk assessments are essential for responding adequately to juveniles who have sexually offended (JSO). Given the lack of specific research focusing on the JSO population, the present study aims at confirming and expanding previous findings based on clinical samples dealing with risk assessments of JSO. The predictive power of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP-II) and the Sexual Offence Severity (SOS) Scale are evaluated retrospectively by analyzing forensic, police, and judicial files in a consecutive sample of 223 adolescents (mean age of 15.7 years, SD = 2.1 years) who had been convicted of a sexual crime in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, between 2000 and 2008. Based on local official recidivism data (mean follow-up period = 4.3 years; SD = 2.5 years), univariate and multivariate predictions of sexual and nonsexual recidivism are tested by use of the J-SOAP-II and the SOS Scale in logistic regression and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses. Sexual recidivism (n = 7, 3.1%) is best predicted by a multivariate model, including the J-SOAP-II Adjustment Scale and the SOS Scale (ROC: Area under the curve [AUC] = .818). Nonsexual violent (n = 37, 16.6%) and general recidivism (n = 100, 44.8%) are only moderately predicted by the J-SOAP-II impulsive/antisocial behavior scale (AUC = .677 and .662, respectively). In conclusion, the J-SOAP-II adjustment scale, the J-SOAP-II impulsive/antisocial behavior scale, and the SOS Scale may be helpful for screening purposes in JSO, but additional risk assessment seems necessary. Overall, further research is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of risk factors in JSO. Behavior scale (AUC .677; AUC .662). In conclusion, the J-SOAP-II Adjustment scale, the J-SOAP-II Impulsive / Antisocial Behavior scale and the SOS scale may be helpful for screening purposes in JSO but additional risk assessment seems necessary. Overall, further research is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of risk factors in JSO.

Testing the validity of criminal risk assessment tools in sexually abusive youth.

“…To the best of our knowledge, there is no validation study to date for this severity scale. However, the scale has been successfully applied in previous research on JSOs (Aebi, Plattner, Steinhausen, & Bessler, 2011). .86).…”

“…So far, empirical evidence on the predictive validity of the scores of risk assessment tools for JSOs is mixed (e.g., Hempel et al, 2013). This might be partly due to the fact that sample sizes are usually quite small and the base rates of sexual recidivism considerably low (Aebi et al, 2011;Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012;Hempel et al, 2013;Miccio-Fonseca, 2016;Parks & Bard, 2006;Wijetunga et al, 2016;Worling et al, 2012). Furthermore, the rapid developmental changes in adolescents' risk factors make it difficult to derive long-term risk predictions, and thus call for the inclusion of different recidivism periods when investigating the predictive accuracies of risk assessment tools (Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012;Hempel et al, 2013;Miccio-Fonseca, 2016;Ralston & Epperson, 2013;Schlank et al, 2016; RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN JSOs 9 2012).…”

“…Several researchers have found that subscales of the J-SOAP II differed in their predictive validities concerning criminal recidivism (e.g., Aebi et al, 2011). However, as the…”

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

“…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).…”

“…Of the studies examining the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II with non-institutionalised YSH, most have demonstrated moderate Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores ranging from .70 to .80 for the prediction of sexual recidivism (Aebi et al, 2011;Martinez et al, 2007;Peterson, 2010;Prentky et al, 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010). However, Fanniff and Letourneau (2012) Intervention demonstrated predictive validity for relevant behaviours, however, its relationship with sexual recidivism could not be examined (Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012).…”