The conceptualization of dynamic risk factors in child sex offenders: An agency model

Challenges for the theory and application of dynamic risk factors

“…The abductive critique of the hypothetico-deductive method is clearly applicable to prior research on dynamic risk assessment, which has been largely data-driven, attempting to identify the best predictors of recidivism among a set of candidate measures using regressionTheory and Application of Dynamic Risk -11 based statistical methods, rather than theory-driven (Heffernan & Ward, 2015;Ward, this issue). One could argue that variables which were studied as potential dynamic risk factorssuch as lack of empathy for victims -were selected based on prior theoretical grounds (e.g., Marshall, Hamilton, & Fernandez, 2001), however acceptance of these dynamic risk factors was reliant largely on evidence of their ability to predict recidivism, ideally beyond the contribution made by static factors.…”

“…A further problem with validity in the area of risk assessment relates to the multidimensional and indistinct nature of many dynamic risk factors (Heffernan & Ward, 2015). "Cognitive distortions" provides a good example.…”

“…As defined by Andrews and Bonta (2010, p.7), dynamic risk factors are theoretically changeable factors that are "predictors of the criminal futures of Theory and Application of Dynamic Risk -6 individuals", and that with changes, "we see changes in the chances of criminal activity" (p.48). While this conceptualisation of dynamic risk factors, and therefore the assessment of dynamic risk, appears to at least theoretically meet the explanatory requirement of construct validity, there has been some recent doubt cast on whether the current reliance on correlational analyses and significance testing is a valid method of identifying truly causal factors relating to recidivism risk (Haig, 2012;Heffernan & Ward, 2015;Ward & Beech, 2014). Ward (this issue) discusses this issue in more depth; suffice to say, it is unclear whether the current conceptualisation of what constitutes as a "risk factor" is demonstrably valid in a more meaningful sense of the term.…”

“…Although their causative and explanatory nature is still not clearly understood (Heffernan & Ward, 2015;Ward, this issue), dynamic risk factors are generally defined as situational and personal characteristics that are both empirically linked to an increased chance of future offending and are, theoretically at least, able to change (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).…”

Desistance from sexual offending: Do the mainstream theories apply?

“…In tandem with broader policy and professional concerns with risk assessment and management (Kemshall and Maguire, 2001), a large body of mainly quantitative research has focused on sexual recidivism (Friendship and Thornton, 2001;Harris and Hanson, 2004) 1 and the static and dynamic risk factors associated with re-offending (Beech et al, 2002;Heffernan and Ward, 2015). The former are related to historical factors such as age at first offence and history of offending, while the latter pertain to those fluid factors amenable to intervention such as unemployment, or substance misuse, and are thus of more relevance for discourses on desistance.…”