MEGA♪: Empirical Findings on the Preternatural: Sexually Violent and Predatory Sexually Violent Youth
Applied are empirical findings from two major studies employing the ecologically framed MEGA♪ risk assessment tool: MEGA♪ Combined Samples Studies (N = 3901 [1979–2017] (Miccio-Fonseca 2017a, d) and MEGA♪ Combined Cross Validation Studies (N = 2717). Samples consisted of male, female, and transgender-female sexually abusive youth, ages 4–19, including youth with low intellectual functioning of borderline or low average. Findings further support a previously presented nomenclature identifying two subsets overlooked by most contemporary risk assessment tools: sexually violent and predatory sexually violent youth (Miccio-Fonseca and Rasmussen Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 106–128, 2009, 2014). MEGA♪ Studies provided normative data, with cut-off scores (calibrated) according to age and gender, establishing four risk levels: Low, Moderate, High, and Very High. The fourth risk level, Very High, sets MEGA♪ apart from other risk assessment tools for sexually abusive youth, which are limited to three risk levels. Very High risk level definitively identifies the most dangerous youth, thus empirically supporting the nomenclature of sexually violent and predatory sexually violent youth.
KeywordsAdolescent sex offender Sexually abusive youth Violent sex offender Sexually violent predator MEGA risk assessment tool
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Author states there is no conflict of interest.
- Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). (2017). Practice guidelines for the assessment, treatment, and intervention with adolescents who have engaged in sexually abusive behavior. Beaverton: Author.Google Scholar
- Blasingame, G. D. (2018). Risk assessment of adolescents with intellectual disabilities who exhibit sexual behavior problems or sexual offending behavior. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Special Issue on Risk Assessment of Sexually Abusive Youth. Published online 30 Mar. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1452324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Driemeyer, W., Yoon, D., & Briken, P. (2011). Sexuality, antisocial behavior, aggressiveness, and victimization in juvenile sexual offenders: A literature review. Sexual Offender Treatment, 6(1), 1–26. Retrieved January 29, 2012 from: http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/.
- Elkovitch, N., Viljoen, J. L., Scalora, M. J., & Ullman, D. (2008). Assessing risk of reoffending in adolescents who have committed a sexual offense: The accuracy of clinical judgments after completion of risk assessment instruments. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26(4), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.832.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., & Chaffin, M. (2009, December). Juveniles who commit sex offenses against minors. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf.
- Herman, J. L., Flores, A. R., Brown, T. N., Wilson, B.D.M., & Conron, K. (2017). Age of individuals who identify as transgender in the United States. The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/transgender-issues/new-estimates-show-that-150000-youth-ages-13-to-17-identify-as-transgender-in-the-us/.
- Lane, S. (1997). Special populations: Children, females, the developmentally disabled and violent youth. In G. Ryan & S. Lane (Eds.), Juvenile sexual offending: Causes, consequences, and correction (Rev. ed., pp. 322–359). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Martinez-Prather, K., & Vandiver, D. (2014). Sexting among teenagers in the United States: A retrospective analysis of identifying motivating factors, potential targets, and the role of the capable guardian. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8(1), 21–35.Google Scholar
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2001). Somatic and mental symptoms of male sex offenders: A comparison among offenders, victims, and their families. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 13(3/4), 103–114.Google Scholar
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2013b, April). MEGA ♪ : An Ecological risk assessment tool for sexually abusive adolescents and children ages 4 to 19. 28th Annual Conference of the National Adolescent Perpetration Network, Portland.Google Scholar
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2016b, May). MEGA♪: Second cross-validation findings on sexually abusive youth. Presentation given at the annual conference of the California coalition on sexual offending (CCOSO), San Diego, CA. To request PowerPoint slides, go to: https://www.mega-miccio-fonseca.com/.
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2017a, Fall). Innovative scientific advancement in risk assessment of sexually abusive youth. Perspectives: California Coalition on Sexual Offending (CCOSO), Quarterly Newsletter, 7-10.Google Scholar
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2017b, September). Issues in assessment of sexually abusive youth: Intimacy deficits and erotically related protective factors and sexually abusive youth. 22st international conference on violence, abuse, & trauma and the National Summit on Interpersonal Violence & Abuse, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2017d, September). The anomalies among juvenile sex offenders: Sexually violent & predatory sexually violent. 22st international conference on violence, abuse, & trauma and the National Summit on Interpersonal Violence & Abuse, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2019). Family Lovemap, protective factors: Sex, intimacy, and sexually abusive youth. In J. L., Ireland, C. A. Ireland, & Birch, P. (Eds.) Violent and sex offenders handbook (2nd ed., pp. 114–127). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C., & Rasmussen, L. A. (2014). MEGA ♪: Empirical support for nomenclature on the anomalies: Sexually violent and predatory youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 1–17. Published online 2 May 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/030624X14533265.
- Miccio-Fonseca, L. C., & Rasmussen, L. A. (2018). Scientific evolution of clinical and risk assessment of sexually abusive youth: A comprehensive review of empirical tools. Special Issue on risk assessment of sexually abusive youth. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1537337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (2008). Sex and tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. Retrieved from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/pdf/sextech_summary.pdf
- Polaris Project (2015). National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC) data breakdown 01/01/2015–12/31/15. Retrieved from http://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking
- Prentky, R., & Righthand, S. (2003). Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) Manual. NCJ 202316. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from www.csom.org/pugs/JSOAP.pdf
- Przybyliski, R. (2015, July). Recidivism of adult sexual offenders. SOMAPI-Research Brief Sex Offender Managemet Assessment and Planning Initiatie. U.S. Department of Justice of Office of Justice Programs Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking, Washingston, DC.Google Scholar
- Rasmussen, L. A. L. (2017). Comparing predictive validity of JSORRAT-II and MEGA ♪ with sexually abusive youth in long-term residential custody. International Journal of Offender Rehabilitation and Comparative Criminology, 62, 2937–2953. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17726550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rasmussen, L. A. L. (2018, September). Examining adult recidivism of male adjudicated sexually abusive youth in secure residential care. 23rd international summit on violence, abuse, and trauma across the lifespan, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- van Der Put, C. E., van Vugt, E. S., Stams, G. J. J. M., Devokic, M., & van der Laan, P. H. (2013). Differences in the prevalence and impact of risk factors for general recidivism between different types of juveniles who have committed sexual offenses (JSOs) and juveniles who have committed nonsexual offenses (NSOs). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212452615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- van Wijk, A., Bullens, B. R. F., Maly, R. A. R., & Vermeiren, R. R. (2007). Criminal profiles of violent juvenile sex and violent juvenile non–sex offenders: An explorative longitudinal study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1341–1355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507304802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Viljoen, J. L., Scalora, M., Cuadra, L., Bader, S., Chavez, V., Ullman, D., & Lawrence, L. (2008). Assessing risk for violence in adolescents who have sexually offended: A comparison of the J-SOAP-II, JSORRAT-II, and SAVRY. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807307521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar