Risk Assessment Instruments in Repeat Offending

Rossegger, Astrid; Laubacher, Arja; Moskvitin, Konstantin; Villmar, Thomas; Palermo, George B.; Endrass, Jérôme

doi:10.1177/0306624x09360662

Cited by 24 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rossegger et al (2011) reported that the interrater reliability of the overall VRAG is strong (ICC = .95), and Douglas, Yeomans, and Boer (2005) reported mean item-level reliability of ICCs ranged from .49 to 1.00, with a mean of .79. Quinsey et al (2006) reported that the predictive validity of the nonviolent CLS scale is within an acceptable range (AUCs = .70-.74).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Male Sexual Offender Subtypes Using Cluster Analysis and the Static-2002R

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether clinically meaningful subgroups could be identified within a large, undifferentiated group of convicted adult male sex offenders. Of eight cluster analyses, a reliable three-cluster solution emerged based on the subscores of the Static-2002R with 345 sex offenders. To establish the validity of the emergent clusters, the three groups of offenders were compared on four domains: criminal history, psychosexual development, sexual attitudes and interests, and recidivism. The findings revealed meaningful differences among the group, and the implications of subgroup membership is discussed in terms of risk, treatment, and supervision.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Male Sexual Offender Subtypes Using Cluster Analysis and the Static-2002R

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, only the AUCs for the SIR and STATIC-99 with general recidivism were significantly different from each other. Rossegger et al (2011) compared several tools in a sample of violent and sex offenders released from Swiss prisons. The PCL-R (Hare, 1991) had the highest AUC, followed by the FOTRES (Urbaniok, 2007), the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (HCR-20;Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), the LSI-R, and finally the VRAg, which had the lowest AUC.…”

Section: Use Of the Level Of Service Instruments With Sexual Offendersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Predictive Validity of a General Risk/Needs Assessment Inventory on Sexual Offender Recidivism and an Exploration of the Professional Override

Wormith

Hogg

Guzzo³

2012

Criminal Justice and Behavior

114

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the predictive validity of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) on a sample of sexual offenders extracted from a large cohort of offenders and compares predictive validities with nonsexual offenders from the same cohort. The LS/CMI predicted sex offenders' general recidivism, which occurred at a rate of 44.1%, with about the same accuracy as less frequently occurring violent (12.34%) and sexual recidivism (3.73%; AUC = .77, .74, and .74, respectively) and with nonsexual offenders. The study revealed that allowing assessors to override the numerically derived risk level with their professional judgment, a practice that increased risk level much more often than it decreased it, reduced the predictive validity of the scale and did so particularly for sex offenders by increasing risk excessively. An exploration of factors related to these adjustments revealed that non-risk-related characteristics were used in judgments to modify risk ratings. Implications for policy and practice are considered.

show abstract

“…However, research surrounding its utility for sex offenders is scant. To date, there are few peer-reviewed articles that explore the validity and reliability of LSI-R instrumentation for this group (i.e., Rossegger, Laubacher, Moskvitin, Villmar Palermo, & Endgrass, 2011;Simourd & Malcolm, 1998;Wormith, Hogg, & Guzzo, 2012). Simourd and Malcolm (1998) measured the adequacy of the LSI-R against the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991), the General Statistical Information on Recidivism (GSIR; Nuffield, 1982), 3 and the Denial/Minimization Checklist (DMCL; Barbaree, 1991) for a group of federally incarcerated sex offenders (N = 216) in Canada.…”

Section: The Lsi-rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the LSI-R Have Utility for Sex Offenders?

Ragusa-Salerno

Ostermann

Thomas

2013

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite societal perception that sex offenders will repeat their crimes, research indicates these offenders are more likely to be generalists than sex offense-specific offenders. Sex offender-specific legislation has reinforced this erroneous perception while contributing to the excessive labeling of sex offenders as sexual recidivists. Additionally troubling is the lack of research on the efficacy of generalized risk/needs assessments for sex offenders. The present study fills this void by evaluating the adequacy of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) for use with a sexual offending population. The predictive accuracy of the LSI-R for sexual and nonsexual recidivism outcomes was explored using a sample of 21,298 individuals released from New Jersey correctional facilities from 2004 to 2006. Results indicate that while the LSI-R does not have predictive utility for sexual offenses, it has utility for sex offenders overall. Policy implications of the usefulness of the LSI-R for this offending population are discussed.

show abstract

Risk Assessment Instruments in Repeat Offending

Cited by 24 publications

References 16 publications

Identifying Male Sexual Offender Subtypes Using Cluster Analysis and the Static-2002R

Identifying Male Sexual Offender Subtypes Using Cluster Analysis and the Static-2002R

The Predictive Validity of a General Risk/Needs Assessment Inventory on Sexual Offender Recidivism and an Exploration of the Professional Override

Does the LSI-R Have Utility for Sex Offenders?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About