Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Etiological Approach to Sexual Offender Assessment: CAse Formulation Incorporating Risk Assessment (CAFIRA)

  • Sexual Disorders (LE Marshall and WL Marshall, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Case formulations (CF) have been the cornerstone of effective practice in clinical psychology since the 1950s and now form one of the core competencies in clinical and forensic assessment. The use of CFs within forensic settings is becoming more relevant when working with offenders who have experienced significant trauma, suffered from personality disorder, and have displayed sexually abusive behavior. Furthermore, most North American and European jurisdictions insist that expert witnesses adopt an idiosyncratic approach to risk assessment and consider the characteristics of the individual as part of a wider formulation of the problem behavior. This article focuses specifically on CF incorporating risk assessment procedures of sexual offenders.

Recent Findings

While empirical support for the use of risk analysis and formulation in managing offending behavior generally, and sexual offending behavior in particular, is limited, there is mounting evidence to suggest that CF can improve understanding of an individual’s problem sexual behaviors. We argue that by integrating risk formulations into the CF provides a conceptually robust link between the etiologically development of the problem sexual behavior and effective assessment and risk management of sexual offenders. As forensic treatment programs increasingly moved toward strength-based approaches, in keeping with the Risk-Need-Responsivity principles Andrews and Bonta (2004), and the Good Lives Model Ward and Stewart (Prof Psychol Res Pract 34:353–60, 2003) of offender rehabilitation, the use of CFs in the assessment, treatment, and management of sexual offenders is indispensable.

Summary

We present an etiological framework for understanding risk in an individual sexual offender by integrating a case formulation model to include the use of (static, stable, and acute) actuarial and clinical risk assessment measures as well as protective risk factors, referred to as the CAse Formulation Incorporating Risk Assessment (CAFIRA) model.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Freud S, Breuer J (1974) Studies on hysteria. Reading: Pelican Books. (Original work published.

  2. Crellin C. Origins and social contexts of the term ‘formulation’ in psychological case reports. Clin Psychol Forum. 1998;112:18–28.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Division of Clinical Psychology. Good practice guidelines on the use of psychological formulation. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Available from: The British Psychological Society, St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UK. 2011. Retrieved 15 May 2017, from: http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/DCP/cat-842.pdf.

  4. Royal College of Psychiatrists. A competency-based curriculum for specialist core training in psychiatry. 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2017, from: www.rcpsych.ac.uk/training/curriculum2010.aspx.

  5. American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology Psychiatry. Core competencies outline. 2011. Retrieved 5 August 2017, from: https://www.abpn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2011_core_P_MREE.pdf

  6. Boetticher A, Nedopil N, Bosinski H, Saß H. Mindestanforderungen für doi: Schuldfähigkeitsgutachten. Forensische Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol. 2007;1(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-006-0002-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Corrie S, Lane DA. Constructing stories, telling tales: a guide to formulation in applied psychology. London: Karnac; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Johnstone L, Dallos R. Introduction to formulation. In: Johnstone L, Dallos R, editors. Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy: making sense of people’s problems. London: Routledge; 2006. p. 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Butler G. Clinical formulation. In: Bellack AS, Hersen M, editors. Comprehensive clinical psychology. Oxford: Pergamon; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Eells TD, Lombart KG. Theoretical and evidence-based approaches to case formulation. In: Sturmey P, McMurran M, editors. Forensic case formulation. Wiley: Chichester; 2011. p. 3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Persons JB, Roberts NA, Zalecki CA, Brechwald WAG. Naturalistic outcome of case formulation-driven cognitive-behavior therapy for anxious depressed outpatients. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44(7):1041–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.08.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. DeNeve KM, Cooper H. The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychol Bull. 1998;124:197–229.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Freeman D, Brugha T, Meltzer H, Jenkins R, Stahl D, Bebbington P. Persecutory ideation and insomnia: findings from the second British National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity. J Psychiatry Res. 1998;44(15–13):1021–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.03.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. • Clark S, Chuan J. Evaluation of the impact personality disorder project—a psychologically informed consultation, training and mental health collaboration approach to probation offender management. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1965. This study evaluates the use of case formulations as part of a project to manage offenders with personality disorders in the community. As part of wider training package for probation staff managing offenders with personality disorders, they found that a significant decrease in rate of recalls in the first and second years and non-compliance with supervision was cut by two thirds.

  15. Vess J, Ward T, Collie R. Case formulation with sex offenders: an illustration of individualized risk assessment. J Behav Anal Offender Vict Treat Prev. 2008;1:284–95. Available from: https://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30019601/vess-caseformulation-2008.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wormith, S. J., Hogg, S., & Guzzo, L. (2012). The predictive validity of a general risk/needs assessment inventory on sexual offender recidivism and an exploration of the professional override. Crim Justice Behav, 39, 1511–1538. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812455741.

  17. • Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 5th ed. Cincinnati: Anderson; 2017. Essential reading for students of criminology and practitioners working in criminal justice settings; this text discusses research issues, social contexts, biology, punishment, and models of effective correctional treatment centered on the Risk-Need-Responsivity model.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ward T, Stewart CA. The treatment of sex offenders: risk management and good lives. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2003;34:353–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Akerman G, Beech AR, Craig LA. Treating child sex abusers: a person centred approach. In: Wilcox D, Garrett T, Harkins L, editors. Case studies in sex offender treatment. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester; 2015. p. 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ireland C, Craig LA. Adult sex offender assessment. In: Boer DP, Eher R, Miner MH, Pfafflin F, Craig LA, editors. International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders: theory, practice and research. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 13–33.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Thakker J. Case formulation. In: Craig L, Rettenberger M, editors. The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment and treatment of sexual offending. Volume 2, assessment. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 737–51.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yates PM, Prescott D, Ward T. Applying the good lives and self-regulation models to sex offender treatment. Brandon: Safer Society; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ward T, Nathan P, Drake CR, Lee JK, Pathé M. The role of formulation-based treatment for sexual offenders. Behav Chang. 2000;17(4):251–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Marshall. L., & Marshall, L. E. (2007). The utility of the random controlled trial for evaluating sexual offender treatment: the gold standard or an inappropriate strategy? Sex Abus J Res Treat, 19, 2, 175–191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320701900207.

  25. Marshall WL. Manulization: a blessing or a curse? J Sex Aggress. 2009;15(2):109–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mann R. Sexual offender treatment: the case for manulization. J Sex Aggress. 2009;15(2):121–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rice ME, Harris GT. The size and sign of treatment effects in sex offender therapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;989:428–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hanson RK. Meta-analysis of treatment outcome in sexual offenders. Paper presented at the 11th Conference of the International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders, Oslo. 2010. http://www.iatso.org/images/stories/pdfs/hanson_r.k._iatso_2010_meta-analysis_of_treatment_outcome_in_sexual_offenders.pdf.

  29. Sturmey P. Clinical case formulation: varity of approaches. Wiley: Chichester; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Macneil CA, Hasty MK, Conus P, Berk M. Is diagnosis enough to guide interventions in mental health? Using case formulation in clinical practice. Biomed Cent. 2012;10:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marshall WL, Marshall LE, Serran GA, Fernandez YM. Treating sexual offenders: an integrated approach. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ainsworth MDS. The development of infant-mother attachment. In: Cardwell B, Ricciuti H, editors. Review of child development research, vol. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973. p. 1–94.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bowlby J. Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books; 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Corrie S, Lane DA. Constructing stories, telling tales: a guide to formulation in applied psychology. London: Karnac; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bartholemew K. Avoidance of intimacy: an attachment perspective. J Soc Pers Relat. 1990;7:147–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590072001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Marshall LE, Marshall WL. Role of attachment in sexual offending—an examination of preoccupied-attachment-style offending behavior. In: Schwartz BK, editor. Handbook of sex offender treatment. 2011; p. 12-1–12-9

  38. Ward, T., Hudson, S. A., Marshall, W. L., (1996). Attachment style in sex offenders: a preliminary study. J Sex Res, 33, 17–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499609551811

  39. • Ward T, Beech AR. The Wiley handbook of theories, assessment and treatment of sexual offending: volume I: theories. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. This text is part of a three set volume on the Theories , Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offending and is a major reference work providing contemporary knowledge on all facets of sex offender theories, evaluation, and assessment and treatment approaches.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kahr B. Sex and the psyche: the truth about our most secret fantasies. UK: Penguin; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rosenzweig S. The photoscope as an objective device for evaluating sexual interest. Psychosom Med. 1942;4:150–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906329801000202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JLK. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74:1464–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bancroft J, Jones HG, Pullan BR. A simple transducer for measuring penile erection with comments on its use in the treatment of sexual disorders. Behav Res Ther. 1966;4(3):239–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(66)90075-1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Barlow DH, Becker JV, Leitenberg H, Agras WS. A mechanical strain gauge for recording penile circumference change. J Appl Behav Anal. 1970;3:73–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Fisher HE, Aron A, Mashek D, Li H, Brown LL. Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Arch Sex Behavior. 2002;31:413–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Finkelhor D. Child sexual abuse: new theory and research. New York: Free Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hall GC, Hirschman R. Towards a theory of sexual aggression: a quadripartite model. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;55:111–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Marshall WL, Barbaree HE. An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In: Marshall WL, Laws DR, Barbaree HE, editors. Handbook of sexual assault: issues, theories, and treatment of the offender. New York: Plenum; 1990. p. 257–75.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Ward T, Siegert RJ. Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: a theory knitting perspective. Psychol Crime Law. 2002;8:319–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903535917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Beech AR, Ward T. The integration of etiology and risk in sexual offenders: a theoretical framework. Aggress Violent Behav. 2004;10:31–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Thornton D, Knight RA. Construction and validation of SRA-FV need assessment. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2015;27:360–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063213511120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Thornton D. Developing a theory of dynamic risk. Psychol Crime Law. 2016;22:138–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1109092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mrazek PJ, Haggerty RJ. Reducing risks for mental disorders: frontiers for preventive intervention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  54. • Rettenberger M, Craig LA. Actuarial risk assessment of sexual offenders. In: Craig LA, Rettenberger M, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook on the Theories, Assessment, and Treatment of Sexual Offending—Volume II: assessment. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 609–41. This text is part of a three set volume on the Theories , Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offending and is a major reference work providing contemporary knowledge on all facets of sex offender theories, evaluation, and assessment and treatment approaches.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hanson RK, Thornton D. Improving risk assessment for sex offenders: a comparison of three actuarial scales. Law Hum Behav. 2000;24:119–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005482921333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Hanson RK, Thornton D. Notes on the development of Static-2002 (corrections research user report no. 2003-01). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. 2003. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/nts-dvlpmnt-sttc/nts-dvlpmnt-sttc-eng.pdf.

  57. Helmus L, Thornton D, Hanson RK, Babchishin KM. Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: revised age weights. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2012;24:64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Thornton D, Mann R, Webster S, Blud L, Travers R, Friendship C, et al. Distinguishing and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. In: Prentky RA, Janus ES, Seto MC, editors. Sexually coercive behavior: understanding and management, vol. 989. New York: New York Academy of Sciences; 2003. p. 225–35.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Quinsey VL, Harris GT, Rice ME, Cormier C. Violent offenders: appraising and managing risk. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Ward T, Keenan T. Child molesters’ implicit theories. J Interpers Violence. 1999;14:821–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mann, R. E., R. K. Hanson., & Thornton, D (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sex Abus J Res Treat, 22, 2, 191–217. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210366039.

  62. Craig LA, Thornton D, Beech A, Browne KD. The relationship of statistical and psychological risk markers to sexual reconviction in child molesters. Crim Justice Behav. 2007;34(3):314–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806291416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Eher R, Matthes A, Schilling F, Haubner-MacLean T, Rettenberger M. Dynamic risk assessment in sexual offenders using STABLE-2000 and the STABLE-2007: an investigation of predictive and incremental validity. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2012;24:5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211403164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hanson RK, Bourgon G, Helmus L, Hodgson S. The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: a meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav. 2009;36:865–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809338545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hanson RK, Harris AJR (2000a) STABLE-2000. Unpublished manuscript. Department of the Solicitor General Canada. Available from the authors.

  66. Hanson RK, Harris AJR (2000b) ACUTE-2000. Unpublished manuscript. Department of the Solicitor General Canada. Available from the authors.

  67. Hanson RK, Harris AJR (2007a) STABLE-2007. Unpublished manuscript. Public Safety Canada. Available from the authors.

  68. Hanson RK, Harris AJR (2007b) ACUTE-2007. Unpublished manuscript. Public Safety Canada. Available from the authors.

  69. Craig LA, Rettenberger M. A brief history of sexual offender risk assessment. In: Laws DR, O’Donohue W, editors. Treatment of sexual offenders: strengths and weaknesses in assessment and intervention. New York: Springer; 2016. p. 19–44.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  70. Thornton D. Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2002;14:139–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320201400205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Laws DR, Ward T (2010) Desistance from sex offending alternatives to throwing away the keys. Guilford Press.

  72. • Yoon D, Turner D, Klein V, Rettenberger M, Eher R, Briken P. Factors predicting desistance from reoffending: a validation study of the SAPROF in sexual offenders. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16664379. This study evaluates the German version of the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors (SAPROF) for violence risk in a sample of incarcerated adult male sexual offenders rated retrospectively using the SAPROF and SVR-20.

  73. Olver ME, Wong SCP, Nicholaichuk T, Gordon A. The validity and reliability of the violence risk scale–sexual offender version: assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychol Assess. 2007;19:318–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Eher R, Olver M, Heurix I, Schilling F, Rettenberger M. Predicting reoffense in pedophilic child molesters by clinical diagnoses and risk assessment. Law Hum Behav. 2015;39:571–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Olver ME, Nicholaichuk TP, Kingston DA, Wong SCP. A multisite examination of sexual violence risk and therapeutic change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014;82:312–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Boer DP, Hart SD, Kropp PR, Webster CD. Manual for the sexual violence Risk-20: professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Vancouver: The Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hart SD, Kropp PR, Laws DR, Klaver J, Logan C, Watt KA. The risk for sexual violence protocol (RSVP): structured professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Hart SD, Douglas KS, Guy LS. The structured professional judgment approach to violence risk assessment: origins, nature, and advances. In: Craig LA, Rettenberger M, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook on the theories, assessment, and treatment of sexual offending—volume II: assessment. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 643–66.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Harris AJR, Hanson RK. Clinical, actuarial and dynamic risk assessment of sexual offenders: why do things keep changing? J Sex Aggress. 2010;16(3):296–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.494772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Masten AS, Reed M-GJ. Resilience in development. In: Snyder CR, Lopez AJ, editors. The handbook of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 74–88.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Benard B. Using strengths-based practice to tap resilience of families. In: Saleeby D, editor. Strengths perspective in social work practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2006. p. 197–220.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Gilgun JF. CASPARS: clinical assessment instruments that measure strengths and risks in children and families. In: Calder MC, editor. Working with young people who sexually abuse: new pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing; 1999. p. 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Miller SD, Duncan BL, Hubble MA. Escape from babel: toward a unifying language for psychotherapy practice. New York: W.W. Norton; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ward T, Gannon TA. Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: the comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggress Violent Behav. 2006;11:77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Glaser D. The effectiveness of a prison and parole system. Bobbs-Merrill: Indianapolis; 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Matza D. Delinquency and drift. New York: Wiley; 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Shover N. Great pretenders: pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder: Westview Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Farrall, S., & Bowling, B. (1999). Structuration, human development and desistance from crime, Br J Criminol, 39(2), 252–267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/39.2.253.

  89. Maruna S. Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  90. Ward T, Polaschek D, Beech A. Theories of sexual offending. Chichester: Wiley; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Linley PA, Joseph S. Positive psychology in practice. New Jersey: Wiley; 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  92. Haaven JL, Coleman EM. Treatment of the developmentally disabled sex offender. In: Laws DR, Hudson SM, Ward T, editors. Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: a sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000. p. 369–88.

    Google Scholar 

  93. • Craig LA, Dixon L, Gannon TA (2013) What works in offender rehabilitation: an evidenced based approach to assessment and treatment. Wiley-Blackwell. This text reviews current best practice for offender assessment and rehabilitation and summarizes the theoretical and empirical basis for assessment and treatment of various offender subpopulations in a variety of settings.

  94. Olver ME. The risk-need-responsivity model: applications to sex offender treatment. In: Marshall LE, Marshall WL, editors. The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment and treatment of sexual offending. Volume 3, treatment. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester; 2017. p. 1313–29.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Looman J, Dickie I, Abracen J. Responsivity in the treatment of sexual offenders. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2005;6:330–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838005280857.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Marshall WL, Ward T, Mann RE, Moulden H, Fernandez YM, Serran G, et al. Working positively with sexual offenders: maximizing the effectiveness of treatment. J f Interpers Violence. 2005;20:1096–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Craig LA, Browne KD, Stringer I. Treatment and sexual offence recidivism. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2003;4(1):70–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838002238946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Gallagher, C. A., Wilson, D. B., Hirschfield, P., Coggeshall, M. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1999) A quantitative review of the effects of sex offender treatment on sexual re-offending. Correct Manag Q, 3, 4, 19–29.

  99. Hall GCN. Sexual offender recidivism revisited: a meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63:802–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Hanson RK, Gordon A, Harris AJR, Marques JK, Murphy W, Quinsey VL, et al. First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2002;14(2):169–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320201400207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Kenworthy T, Adams CE, Bilby C, Brooks-Gordon B, Fenton M (2008) Psychological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004858.pub2.

  102. Lösel F, Schmucker M. The effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders: a comprehensive metaanalysis. J Exp Criminol. 2005;1:117–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Mpofu E, Athanasou JA, Rafe C, Belshaw SH (2016) Cognitive-behavioral therapy efficacy for reducing recidivism rates of moderate- and high-risk sexual offenders. A scoping systematic literature review. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16644501

  104. Polizzi DM, MacKenzie DL, Hickman LJ. What works in adult sex offender treatment? A review of prison and non-prison based treatment programs. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 1999;43(3):357–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X99433008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. • Schmucker M, Lösel F. The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: an international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. J Exp Criminol. 2015;11:597–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-924. This study presents the results of a meta-analysis of sex offender treatment studies with a total of 4939 treated and 5448 untreated sexual offenders.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Mews A, Di Bella L, Purver M. Impact evaluation of the prison-based core sex offender treatment programme. Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. 2017. Retrieved on 28th July 2017, available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impact-evaluation-of-the-prison-based-core-sex-offender-treatment-programme. This study measures the impact of the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) on the re-offending outcomes of sex offenders in England and Wales which found that more treated sex offenders committed at least one sexual reoffense when compared with the matched comparison offenders.

  107. McCartan K, Prescott DS. Bring me the Horizon! (and Kaizen). 2017. SAJRT Blog. 29/06/2017. Retrieved on 9th August 2017, available from: https://sajrt.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/bring-me-horizon-and-kaizen.html.

  108. Ward T, Mann RE, Gannon TA. The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: clinical implications. Aggress Violent Behav. 2007;12:87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Willis GM, Prescott DS, Yates PM. Application of an integrated good lives model to sexual offending treatment. In: Boer DP, Marshall LE, Marshall WL, editors. Theories, assessment and treatment of sexual offending. Volume 3. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016. p. 1355–86.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  110. Willis GM, Ward T, Levenson JS. The good lives model (GLM): an evaluation of GLM operationalization in North American treatment programs. Sex Abus J Res Treat. 2014;26(1):58–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063213478202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Farmer M, Beech AR, Ward T. Assessing desistance in child molesters: a qualitative analysis. J Interpers Violence. 2012;27(5):930–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511423255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Doyle M, Dolan M. Violence risk assessment: combining actuarial and clinical information to structure clinical judgements for the formulation and management of risk. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2002;9:649–57. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2850.2002.00535.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd, Birmingham, UK

    Leam A. Craig

  2. Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Leam A. Craig

  3. School of Social Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK

    Leam A. Craig

  4. Centre for Criminology (Kriminologische Zentrastelle – KrimZ), Wiesbaden, Germany

    Martin Rettenberger

  5. Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz (JGU), Mainz, Germany

    Martin Rettenberger

Authors
  1. Leam A. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Rettenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leam A. Craig.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Leam A. Craig and Martin Rettenberger each declare no potential conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Craig, L.A., Rettenberger, M. An Etiological Approach to Sexual Offender Assessment: CAse Formulation Incorporating Risk Assessment (CAFIRA). Curr Psychiatry Rep 20, 43 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0904-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0904-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation