Risk Factors for Adolescent Sex Offender Recidivism: Evaluation of Predictive Factors and Comparison of Three Groups Based Upon Victim Type

Abstract

This study investigated differences in recidivism risk factors and traits associated with psychopathy among 3 groups of male adolescent sexual offenders (N=156): offenders against children, offenders against peers or adults, and mixed type offenders. Furthermore, those same variables were examined for their association with sexual and nonsexual recidivism and the 3 groups were compared for differences in rates of recidivism. Based upon both juvenile and adult recidivism data, 6.4% of the sample reoffended sexually and 30.1% reoffended nonsexually. Retrospective risk assessments were completed using the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (JSOAP-II) and the Psychopathy Checklist:Youth Version (PCL:YV). Comparisons of the 3 preexisting groups for differences on scale and factor scores were conducted using analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Differences among groups for recidivism were measured using survival curve analysis. Associations between risk scales and recidivism were measured using Cox regression analyses. Results suggest significant differences among the 3 offender groups on multiple scales of the JSOAP-II and PCL:YV, with mixed type offenders consistently producing higher risk scores as compared to those who exclusively offend against children or peers/adults. The Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior scale of the JSOAP-II and the Interpersonal and Antisocial factors of the PCL:YV were significant predictors of sexual recidivism. The Behavioral and Antisocial factors of the PCL:YV were significant predictors of nonsexual recidivism. Results supported previous research indicating that most adolescents who sexually offend do not continue offending into adulthood. Such results can lead to improved treatment by targeting specific risk factors for intervention and better use of risk management resources in the community, while preserving the most restrictive treatment options for the highest risk offenders.

Assessing risk of reoffending in adolescents who have committed a sexual offense: the accuracy of clinical judgments after completion of risk assessment instruments

“…While total scores are obtained by summing the items on the four scales, at the present time the authors state that cutoff scores should not be used, and the J-SOAP-II should function as an ''empirically informed guide'' (Prentky & Righthand, 2003, p. 8). While there is limited information on the psychometric properties of the J-SOAP-II, recent research provides preliminary evidence for its concurrent validity, construct validity, and inter-rater reliability (Parks & Bard, 2006). In a sample of sexually abusive urban minority youth, Martinez and colleagues (2007) found the J-SOAP-II total score was correlated with treatment compliance and was able to predict both general and sexual reoffending.…”

“…In a sample of sexually abusive urban minority youth, Martinez and colleagues (2007) found the J-SOAP-II total score was correlated with treatment compliance and was able to predict both general and sexual reoffending. In addition, the Sexual Drive/Preoccupation scale (Hecker et al, 2002) as well as the Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior scale (Parks & Bard, 2006) have been shown to significantly predict sexual recidivism. Further, a modified scale consisting of eight of the nine J-SOAP-II Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior items has been shown to significantly predict general rearrest (Waite et al, 2005), and a total score consisting of 26 of the 28 J-SOAP-II items has been able to predict sexual reoffense in both preadolescents and adolescents (Prentky, 2006).…”

“…Research indicates the instrument has adequate psychometric properties (Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2003;Catchpole & Gretton, 2003;McEachran, 2001;Parks & Bard, 2006). In terms of predictive validity, the SAVRY has been shown to significantly predict both general and violent recidivism (Catchpole & Gretton, 2003;Dolan & Rennie, 2008).…”

“…While some studies have reported low sexual reoffense rates (see Hecker, Scoular, Righthand, & Nangle, 2002;Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Mazur & Michael, 1992;Parks & Bard, 2006;Smith & Monastersky, 1986), others have reported relatively high sexual recidivism rates (see Gretton, McBride, Hare, O'Shaughnessy & Kumka, 2001;Långström, 2002;Rubenstein, Yeager, Goodstein, & Lewis, 1993). Worling and Långström (2003) point out that these discrepant findings are likely a function of sampling and methodological differences, including the characteristics of adolescents under investigation, the type and impact of interventions, the measurement of recidivism (e.g.…”

Confronting Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse

“…Nevertheless, a small number of sex-offending youth are at ele vated risk to progress to adult sex offenses. To identify those who are more likely to progress to future offending, researchers have developed actuarial risk assessment tools that have demonstrated some predic tive validity; efforts to refine these tools are underway (Parks and Bard, 2006;Righthand et al, 2005;Worling, 2004).…”