Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different Actuarial Risk Measures Produce Different Risk Rankings for Sexual Offenders

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment

Abstract

Percentile ranks were computed for N=262 sex offenders using each of 5 actuarial risk instruments commonly used with adult sex offenders (RRASOR, Static-99, VRAG, SORAG, and MnSOST-R). Mean differences between percentile ranks obtained by different actuarial measures were found to vary inversely with the correlation between the actuarial scores. Following studies of factor analyses of actuarial items, we argue that the discrepancies among actuarial instruments can be substantially accounted for by the way in which the factor Antisocial Behavior and various factors reflecting sexual deviance are represented among the items contained in each instrument. In the discussion, we provide guidance to clinicians in resolving discrepancies between instruments and we discuss implications for future developments in sex offender risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A copy of all 10 matrices with diagonal cells indicated is available from the first author upon request.

References

  • Barbaree, H. E., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2006). The factor structure of actuarial items: Its relation to prediction. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 207–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 490–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beech, A. R., & Ward, T. (2004). The integration of etiology and risk in sexual offenders: A theoretical framework. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 31–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doren, D. M. (2002a). Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil commitments and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doren, D. M. (2002b). Toward a multidimensional model for sexual recidivism risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 835–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S. J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Goldman, R. (1998). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool — Revised (MnSOST-R). St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism (User report 1997–04). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K. (1998). What do we know about sex offender risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 50—72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis. Public Works and Government Services Canada. Cat. No.: PS3-1/2004-2E-PDF. ISBN: 0-662-36397-3.

  • Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders (User report 1999–02). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 315–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumière, M. L., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15, 413–425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, R. A., & Sims-Knight, J. E. (2003). The developmental antecedents of sexual coercion against women: Testing alternative hypotheses with structural equation modeling. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (Vol. 989, pp. 72–85). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langton, C. M., Harkins, L., Peacock, E. J., & Barbaree, H. E. (2003). Core dimensions underlying risk assessment instruments for sexual offenders. Paper presented at the 111th Annual Convention of the Americal Psychological Association, Toronto, August, 2003.

  • Malamuth, N. M. (2003). Criminal and non-criminal sexual aggressors: Integrating psychopathy in a hierarchical-mediational confluence model. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (Volume 989, pp. 33–58). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. J., Hoke, S. E., Livingston, J. A., & Cumming, G. F. (2001). The Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk (VASOR): AN initial reliability and validity study. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), San Antonio, Texas.

  • Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision making in Canada: Research towards decision guidelines. Ottawa, Ontario: Supply and Services Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. F., Doren, D. M., & Thornton, D. (2002). Dimensions associated with assessments of sex offender recidivism risk. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 569–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seto, M. C. (2005). Is more better? Combining actuarial risk scales to predict recidivism among adult sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 17, 156–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank their research assistants, Leigh Harkins, Heidi Marcon and Michele Adams, as well as the staff of the WSBC, and the offenders who participated in the research. Karl Hanson, and three anonymous reviewers are also thanked for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this work. The authors also wish to acknowledge financial support for the research described in the article from the Correctional Service of Canada, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and the Ontario Mental Health Foundation. All opinions expressed in the article are the sole opinions of the authors and do not reflect opinions or policy of the Correctional Service of Canada or any other agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law and Mental Health Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, M6J 1H4, Canada

    Howard E. Barbaree

  2. University of Nottingham, and Peaks Unit, Rampton Hospital, Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England

    Calvin M. Langton

  3. Correctional Services of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Edward J. Peacock

Authors
  1. Howard E. Barbaree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Calvin M. Langton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward J. Peacock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Howard E. Barbaree.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barbaree, H.E., Langton, C.M. & Peacock, E.J. Different Actuarial Risk Measures Produce Different Risk Rankings for Sexual Offenders. Sex Abuse 18, 423–440 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-006-9029-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-006-9029-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation