Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 543–556 | Cite as

Treatment Effect on Recidivism for Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended: a Multilevel Meta-Analysis

  • Ellis ter Beek
  • Anouk Spruit
  • Chris H. Z. Kuiper
  • Rachel E. A. van der Rijken
  • Jan Hendriks
  • Geert Jan J. M. Stams
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The current study investigated the effect on recidivism of treatment aimed at juveniles who have sexually offended. It also assessed the potential moderating effect of type of recidivism, and several treatment, participant and study characteristics. In total, 14 published and unpublished primary studies, making use of a comparison group and reporting on official recidivism rates, were included in a multilevel meta-analysis. This resulted in the use of 77 effect sizes, and 1726 participants. A three-level meta-analytic model was used to calculate the combined effect sizes (Cohens d) and to perform moderator analyses. Study quality was assessed with the EPHPP Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. A moderate effect size was found (d = 0.37), indicating that the treatment groups achieved an estimated relative reduction in recidivism of 20.5% as compared to comparison groups. However, after controlling for publication bias, a significant treatment effect was no longer found. Type of recidivism did not moderate the effect of treatment, indicating that treatment groups were equally effective for all types of recidivism. Also, no moderating effects of participant or treatment characteristics were found. Regarding study characteristics, a shorter follow up time showed a trend for larger effect sizes, and the effect size calculation based on proportions yielded larger effect sizes than calculation via mean frequency of offending. Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.

Keywords

Juveniles Sex offending Treatment effect Recidivism Meta-analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Human Studies

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

The asterisks indicate original research included in the analysis.

  1. Adjorlolo, S., & Egbenya, D. L. (2016). Executive functioning profiles of adolescent and juvenile male sexual offenders: A systematic review. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 27, 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armijo-Olivo, S., Stiles, C. R., Hagen, N. A., Biondo, P. D., & Cummings, G. G. (2012). Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: A comparison of the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and the effective public health practice project quality assessment tool. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18, 12–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. M. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12, 154–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Assink, M., Van Der Put, C. E., Hoeve, M., De Vries, S. L., Stams, G. J. J., & Oort, F. J. (2015). Risk factors for persistent delinquent behavior among juveniles: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 42, 47–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbaree, H. E., & Marshall, W. L. (2006). The juvenile sex offender. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. *Barlow, K. N. (1998). Recidivism rates of level six residential programs for youthful male sexual offenders: 1995–1996. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Utah: Utah State University.Google Scholar
  7. Beaudry-Cyr, M., Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., & Tewksbury, R. (2015). Examining the continuity of juvenile sex offending into adulthood and subsequent patterns of sex and general recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 9, 1–18.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, J. V., & Hunter, J. A. (1997). Understanding and treating child and adolescent sex offenders. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in clinical Psychology (pp. 177–197). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker, J. V., & Johnson, B. R. (2001). Treating juvenile sex offenders. In J. Ashford & B. Sales (Eds.), Treating adult and juvenile sex offenders with special needs (pp. 273–289). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beggs, S. M., & Grace, R. C. (2011). Treatment gain for sexual offenders against children predicts reduced recidivism: A comparative validity study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 182–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-Responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.Google Scholar
  12. *Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., Blaske, D. M., & Stein, R. J. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 996, 105–113.Google Scholar
  13. *Borduin, C. M., Heiblum, N., & Schaeffer, C. M. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of Multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: Effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 77, 26–37.Google Scholar
  14. Brannon, J. M., & Troyer, R. (1991). Peer group counseling: A normalized residential alternative to the specialized treatment of adolescent sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butler, S., & Seto, M. C. (2002). Distinguishing two types of adolescent sex offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 83–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Caldwell, M. F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex offender recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 197–211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Caldwell, M. F. (2016). Quantifying the decline in juvenile sexual recidivism rates. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 22, 414–426.Google Scholar
  18. Cale, J., Smallbone, S., Rayment-McHugh, S., & Dowling, C. (2016). Offense trajectories, the unfolding of sexual and non-sexual criminal activity, and sex offense characteristics of adolescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 791–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carpentier, J., & Proulx, J. (2011). Correlates of recidivism among adolescents who have sexually offended. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 434–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carpentier, M. Y., Silovsky, J. F., & Chaffin, M. (2006). Randomized trial of treatment for children with sexual behavior problems: Ten years later. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 482–488.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cheung, M. W. L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19, 211–229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Christiansen, A. K., & Vincent, J. P. (2013). Characterization and prediction of sexual and nonsexual recidivism among adjudicated juvenile sex offenders. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 31, 506–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deeks, J. J., Dinnes, J., D’Amico, R., Sowden, A. J., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., et al. (2003). Evaluating non-randomized intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment, 7, 3–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dopp, A. R., Borduin, C. M., & Brown, C. E. (2015). Evidence-based treatments for juvenile sexual offenders: Review and recommendations. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 7, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Drew, C. H. (2013). Classification of juvenile sexual offenders by victim age based subgroups. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 7359.Google Scholar
  26. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Fanniff, A. M., & Kimonis, E. R. (2014). Juveniles who have committed sexual offenses: A special group? Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 32, 240–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. *Gillis, H. L., & Gass, M. A. (2010). Treating juveniles in a sex offender program using adventure-based programming: A matched group design. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 20–34.Google Scholar
  29. Glowacz, F., & Born, M. (2012). Do adolescent child abusers, peer abusers, and non-sex offenders have different personality profiles? European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 22, 117–225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Groth, N. A., Longo, R. E., & McFaddin, J. B. (1982). Undetected recidivism among rapists and child molesters. Crime and Delinquency, 128, 450–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Guarino-Ghezzi, S., & Kimball, L. M. (1998). Juvenile sex offenders in treatment. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 45–54.Google Scholar
  32. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: Risk, need, and Responsivity. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Hart-Kerkhoffs, L. A., Doreleijers, T. A. H., Jansen, L. M. C., Van Wijk, A. P. H., & Bullens, R. A. R. (2009). Offense related characteristics and psychosexual development of juvenile sex offenders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 3, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hendriks, J. (2006). Jeugdige zedendelinquenten. Een studie naar subtypen en recidive. [Juvenile sex offenders. A study on subtypes and recidivism]. Dissertation. Retrieved from http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15503.
  36. *Hendriks, J., & Bijleveld, C. (2005). Recidive van jeugdige zedendelinquenten: poliklinisch behandelden versus niet-behandelden. [Recidivism by juvenile sexual offenders: Outpatient treatment versus non treatment]. Tijdschrift voor Seksuologie, 29, 150–160.Google Scholar
  37. Henggeler, S. W., Letourneau, E. J., Chapman, J. E., Borduin, C. M., Schewe, P. A., & McCart, M. R. (2009). Mediators of change for multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 451–462.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Hissel, S., Bijleveld, C., Hendriks, J., Jansen, B., & Collot d’Escury-Koenigs, A. (2006). Jeugdige zedendelinquenten: Specialisten, generalisten en first offenders [juvenile sex offenders: Specialists, generalists, and first offenders]. Tijdschrift voor Seksuologie, 30, 215–225.Google Scholar
  39. *Holly, M. C. (2000). Long-term follow up of a community based treatment program for adolescent sex offenders. Unpublished master’s thesis. Thunder Bay: Lakehead University.Google Scholar
  40. Houben, M., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Kuppens, P. (2015). The relation between short-term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 901–930.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah: Lawrence.Google Scholar
  42. Jackson, N., & Waters, E. (2005). Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions. Health Promotion International, 20, 367–374.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. *Johnson Erickson, C. (2008). The effectiveness of functional family therapy in the treatment of juvenile sexual offenders. Unpublished thesis. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  44. Kahn, T. J., & Chambers, H. J. (1991). Assessing re-offense risk with juvenile sexual offenders. Child Welfare, 70, 333–345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kjellgren, C., Wassberg, A., Carlberg, M., Långström, N., & Svedin, C. G. (2006). Adolescent sexual offenders: A total survey of referrals to social services in Sweden and subgroup characteristics. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Knapp, G., & Hartung, J. (2003). Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2693–2710.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. *Lab, S. P., Schields, G., & Schondel, C. (1993). Research note: An evaluation of juvenile sexual offender treatment. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 543–553.Google Scholar
  48. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lawing, C., Frick, P. J., & Cruise, K. R. (2010). Differences in offending patterns between adolescent sex offenders high or low in callous-unemotional traits. Psychological Assessment, 22, 298–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Letourneau, E. J., & Armstrong, K. S. (2008). Recidivism rates for registered and nonregistered juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 20, 393–408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Letourneau, E. J., Henggeler, S. W., Borduin, C. M., Schewe, P. A., McCart, M. R., Chapman, J. E., & Saldana, L. (2009). Mutisystemic therapy for juvenile sexual offenders: 1 year results from a randomized effectiveness trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 89–201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. *Letourneau, E. J., Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., McCart, M. R., Schewe, P. A., & Armstrong, K. S. (2013). Two-year follow-up of a randomized effectiveness trail evaluating MST for juveniles who sexually offend. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 978–985.Google Scholar
  53. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  54. Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (2015). Recidivism of juveniles who commit sexual offenses. SO+MAPI Research Brief. July 2015.Google Scholar
  55. Loeber, R., Hoeve, M., Slot, N. W., & Van Der Laan, P. H. (2012). Persisters and desisters in crime from adolescence into adulthood. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  56. Lord, A. (2016). Integrating risk, the good lives model and recovery for mentally disordered sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Agression, 22, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lussier, P., Van Den Berg, C., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2012). A developmental taxonomy of juvenile sex offenders for theory, research and prevention. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 39, 1559–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Man-Son-Hing, M., Laupacis, A., O’Rourke, K., Molnar, F. J., Mahon, J., Chan, K. B. Y., & Wells, G. (2002). Determination of the clinical importance of study results: A review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17, 469–476.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Margari, F., Lecce, P. A., Craig, F., Lafortezza, E., Lisi, A., Pinto, F., Stallone, F., Pierri, G., Pisani, R., Zagaria, G., Margari, L., & Grattagliano, I. (2015). Juvenile sex offenders: Personality profile, coping styles and parental care. Psychiatry Research, 229, 82–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Moffit, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behaviour, a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012). Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evolutionary Ecology, 26, 1253–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pedersen, L., Rasmussen, K., & Elsass, P. (2010). Risk assessment: The value of structured professional judgments. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2007). Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 4544–4562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Purcel, M. (2010). A personality based classification of male adolescent sex offenders using the MACI (Thesis). Retrieved from https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/6538/01front.pdf?sequence=2.
  66. Reitzel, L. R., & Carbonell, J. L. (2006). The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured by recidivism: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse, 18, 401–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ryan, G., Leversee, T., & Lane, S. (2010). Juvenile sexual offending, causes, consequences and correction. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  69. Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 597–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. *Schram, D. D., Darling Milloy, C., & Rowe, W. E. (1991). Juvenile sex offenders: a follow up study of reoffensive behavior. Unpublished research report. Washington: Washington State institute for public policy.Google Scholar
  71. Seabloom, W., Seabloom, M. E., Seabloom, E., Barron, R., & Hendrickson, S. (2003). A 14 to 24 year longitudinal study of a comprehensive sexual health model treatment program for adolescent sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 468–481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 526–575.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Shrout, P. E. (1989). Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 7, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Spruit, A., Assink, M., Van Vugt, E. S., Van Der Put, C. E., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2016). The effects of physical activity interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 45, 56–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Swenson, C. C., Henggeler, S. W., Taylor, I. S., & Addison, O. W. (2005). Multisystemic Therapy and Neighborhood Partnerships. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  76. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Allynand Bacon.Google Scholar
  77. Ter Beek, E., Van Der Rijken, R. A. E., Kuiper, C. H. Z., Hendriks, J., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2016). The allocation of sexually transgressive juveniles to intensive specialized treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  78. Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2113–2126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Thomas, B. H., Ciliska, D., Dobbins, M., & Micucci, S. (2004). A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 1, 176–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Van Den Noortgate, W., & Onghena, P. (2003). Multilevel meta-analysis: A comparison with traditional meta-analytical procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 765–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van den Noortgate, W., López-López, J. A., Marín-Martínez, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 576–594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Van Outsem, R. E. (2009). Exploring psychological characteristics of sexually abusive juveniles. Unpublished Thesis. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  83. Van Wijk, A. P., Vreugdenhil, C., Van Horn, J., Vermeiren, R., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2007). Incarcerated Dutch juvenile sex offenders compared with non-sex offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Veneziano, C., & Veneziano, L. (2002). Adolescent sex offenders: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 3, 247–260.Google Scholar
  85. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. *Waite, D., Keller, A., McGarvey, E. L., Wieckowski, E., Pinkerton, R., & Brown, G. L. (2005). Juvenile sex offender re-arrest rates for sexual, violent nonsexual and property crimes: A 10-year follow-up study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 313–331.Google Scholar
  87. Walker, D. F., McGovern, S. K., Poey, E. L., & Otis, K. E. (2004). Treatment effectiveness for male adolescent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis and review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13, 281–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Weinrott, M. R., Riggan, M., & Frothingham, S. (1997). Reducing deviant arousal in juvenile sex offenders using vicarious sensitization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 704–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weisburd, D., Lum, C., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Weisz, J. R., Kuppens, S., Eckshtain, D., Ugueto, A. M., Hawley, K. M., & Jensen-Doss, A. (2013). Performance of evidence-based youth psychotherapies compared with usual clinical care. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 750–761.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Wibbelink, C. J. M., & Assink, M. (2015). Manual for conducting a three-level meta-analysis in R. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  92. Wilson, D. B. (2013). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator. Retrieved from: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-Home.php.
  93. Wittebrood, K. (2006). Slachtoffers van criminaliteit: Feiten en achtergronden. (Victims of crime: facts and backgrounds). Den Haag: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.Google Scholar
  94. *Worling, J. R., & Curwen, T. (2000). Adolescent sexual offender recidivism: Success of specialized treatment and implications of risk prediction. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 965–982.Google Scholar
  95. Worling, J. W., & Långström, N. (2003). Assessment of criminal recidivism risk with adolescents who have offended sexually: A review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 4, 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. *Worling, J. R., Littlejohn, M. A., & Bookalam, M. A. (2010). 20-year prospective follow-up study of specialized treatment for adolescents who offend sexually. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 28, 46–57.Google Scholar
  97. Yun, I., & Lee, J. (2013). IQ and delinquency: The differential detection hypothesis revisited. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 196–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ellis ter Beek
    • 1
  • Anouk Spruit
    • 2
  • Chris H. Z. Kuiper
    • 1
  • Rachel E. A. van der Rijken
    • 3
  • Jan Hendriks
    • 2
    • 4
  • Geert Jan J. M. Stams
    • 2
  1. 1.Horizon Youth Care and EducationRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Viersprong Institute for Studies on Personality DisordersHalsterenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Forensic Psychotherapeutic Centre de WaagAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations