Predictive validity of adult risk assessment tools with juveniles who offended sexually.

Abstract

An often-held assumption in the area of sexual recidivism risk assessment is that different tools should be used for adults and juveniles. This assumption is driven either by the observation that adolescents tend to be in a constant state of flux in the areas of development, education, and social structure or by the fact that the judicial system recognizes that juveniles and adults are different. Though the assumption is plausible, it is largely untested. The present study addressed this issue by scoring 2 adult sexual offender risk assessment tools, the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised and the Static-99, on an exhaustive sample (N = 636) of juveniles who had sexually offended (JSOs) in Utah. For comparison, 2 tools designed for JSOs were also scored: the Juvenile-Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II and the Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale. Recidivism data were collected for 2 time periods: before age 18 (sexual, violent, any recidivism) and from age 18 to the year 2004 (sexual). The adult actuarial risk assessment tools predicted all types of juvenile recidivism significantly and at approximately the same level of accuracy as juvenile-specific tools. However, the accuracy of longer term predictions of adult sexual recidivism across all 4 tools was substantially lower than the accuracy achieved in predicting juvenile sexual recidivism, with 2 of the tools producing nonsignificant results, documenting the greater difficulty in making longer term predictions on the basis of adolescent behavior.

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

“…Nine of 10 studies found nonsignificant relations. As an exception, Ralston and Epperson’s (2013) results did support the predictive validity of Scale 1 for nonsexual violent juvenile recidivism, but only when sexually violent offenses were included. Interestingly, Martinez et al (2015) found that lower scores on Scale 1 were associated with higher rates of nonsexual recidivism.…”

“…Since the meta-analysis, four additional studies on the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II scores for sexual recidivism have been published, and the pattern of mixed results has persisted. In Ralston and Epperson’s (2013) study of 636 adjudicated youths ( M age = 15.2 years), support emerged for the predictive validity of Scales 1 and 2 scores as well as the Static scale (Scales 1 and 2 combined) score in regard to juvenile sexual recidivism (Scales 3 and 4 were not evaluated). The predictive validity of these scores in relation to adult sexual recidivism was lower.…”

“…The focus of the current study is the J-SOAP-II. Studies of sexual recidivism using the J-SOAP-II follow youths over varying periods of time (see Table 1), but only one past study (Ralston & Epperson, 2013) specifically explored the relations of youths’ J-SOAP-II scores and adult sexual offending. Although most juveniles do not appear to continue sex offending once identified or adjudicated for a sexual offense (e.g., Caldwell, 2016; Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Chaffin, 2009), some do persist in adulthood (e.g., Abel, Mittelman, & Becker, 1985; Knight & Prentky, 1993).…”

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

“…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). It is also worth noticing that, if risk assessment is conducted for the purpose of intervention planning in the course of initial court procedures, validation studies will have to rely on samples of JSOs who have not yet received any measure.…”

Assessing Risk, Recidivism, and Dangerousness in Asians

“…(Barbaree, Seto, Langton, & Peacock, 2001 ). Ralston and Epperson ( 2013 ) included a small number of Asian American juvenile participants. Ethnic differences were not discussed.…”