Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Change in Men Who Have Sexually Offended: Linkages to Risk Assessment and Management

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

Abstract

Purpose of Review

We provide a review and synthesis of the sexual offense treatment change literature with implications for dynamic sexual violence risk assessment and management. An argument is presented for the need for a dynamic approach in research and practice, and that for change to be prognostic, such changes need to be risk relevant and to come from credible change agents.

Recent Findings

Extant research demonstrates that changes on psychologically meaningful dimensions of risk and need (e.g., sexual deviance; attitudes and cognitions; anger, aggression, and hostility) tend to be associated with reductions in sexual and other forms of recidivism; however, changes in domains less germane to risk and need tend not to be (e.g., empathy, mental health and well-being). Formalized dynamic sexual offense risk measures can be administered at multiple time points to reliably measure changes in sexual violence risk. Change information can then be used systematically to adjust risk appraisals.

Summary

The extant literature supports the dynamic nature of sexual violence risk. Working toward the routine assessment of change with psychometrically sound measures, and integrating this information into risk management interventions, can not only improve lives and reduce sexual violence but is an ethical and human responsibility.

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. Hazard ratio (eB) below 1.0 indicates an inverse association between the predictor and criterion; in this case, the percent decrease in hazard of recidivism per one-unit increase in the predictor. An eB = 0.34 would represent a 66% decrease in the hazard of a new sexual offense per one-unit increase in change score.

References

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

  1. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon K. The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychol Assess. 2009;21:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Olver ME, Wong SCP. A comparison of static and dynamic assessment of sexual offender risk and need in a treatment context. Crim Justice Behav. 2011;38:113–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810389534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Douglas KS, Skeem JL. Violence risk assessment: getting specific about being dynamic. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2005;11:347–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, Kessler RC, Jensen PS, Kupfer DJ. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;54:337–43. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830160065009.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 5th ed. LexisNexis: New Providence; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mann RE, Hanson RK, Thornton D. Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sex Abus. 2010;22:191–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210366039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. • Gannon TA, Olver ME, Mallion JS, James M. Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clin Psychol Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101752The most recent meta-analysis of sexual offense treatment outcome. It examined the importance of staff and program moderators in contributing to program efficacy and provides an illustrative example of credible agents.

  8. 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. 2002;14:169–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320201400207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lösel F, Schmucker M. The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive meta-analysis. J Exp Criminol. 2005;1:117–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-004-6466-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmucker M, Lösel F. The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: an international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. J Exp Crim. 2015;11:597–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9241-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hanson RK. Recidivism and age: data from 4,673 sexual offenders. J Interpers Violence. 2002;17:1046–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002236659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nicholaichuk TP, Olver ME, Gu D, Wong SCP. Age, actuarial risk, and long-term recidivism in a national sample of sex offenders. Sex Abus. 2014;26:406–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063213492340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burt GN, Olver ME, Wong SCP. Investigating characteristics of the nonrecidivating psychopathic offender. Crim Justice Behav. 2016;43:1741–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816661215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Beggs SM, Grace RC. Treatment gains for sexual offenders against children predicts reduced recidivism: a comparative validity study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011;79:182–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59:12–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Barnett GD, Wakeling H, Mandeville-Norden R, Rakestrow J. Does change in psychometric test scores tell us anything about risk of reconviction in sexual offenders? Psychol Crime Law. 2013;19:85–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.607820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wakeling H, Beech AR, Freemantle N. Treatment change and its relationship to recidivism in a sample of 3773 sex offenders in the UK. Psychol Crime Law. 2013;19:233–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.626413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nunes KL, Babchishin KM, Cortoni F. Measuring treatment changes in sex offenders: clinical and statistical significance. Crim Justice Behav. 2011;38:157–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810391054.

  21. Babchishin KM. Sex offenders do change on risk-relevant propensities: Evidence from a longitudinal study of the Acute-2007. Unpublished doctoral dissertation 2013, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.

  22. Olver ME, Nicholaichuk TP, Wong SCP. The predictive and convergent validity of a psychometric battery used to assess sex offenders in a treatment program: an 18-year follow-up. J Sex Aggress. 2014;20:216–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2013.816791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wossner G, Schwedler A. Correctional treatment of sexual and violent offenders: therapeutic change, prison climate, and recidivism. Crim Justice Behav. 2014;41:862–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813520544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawson JS, Marshall WL, McGrath P. The social self-esteem inventory. Educ Psychol Meas. 1979;39:803–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marshall WL, Champagne F, Brown C, Miller S. Empathy, intimacy, loneliness, and self-esteem in non-familial child molesters: a brief report. J Child Sex Abus. 1997;6:87–98. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v06n03_06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. O’Reilly G, Carr A, Murphy P, Cotter A. A controlled evaluation of a prison-based sexual offender intervention program. Sex Abus. 2010;22:95–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063209358107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams F, Wakeling H, Webster S. A psychometric study of six self-report measures for use with sexual offenders with cognitive and social functioning deficits. Psychol Crime Law. 2007;13:505–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160601060739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nowicki S, Duke MP. The Nowicki-Strickland life-span locus of control scales: construct validation. In: Lefcourt HM, editor. Research with the locus of control construct: Vol. 2. Developments and social problems. New York: Academic Press; 1983. p. 9–49.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McGrath RJ, Cumming GF, Buchard BL, Zeoli S, Ellerby L. Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: the safer society 2009 north American survey. Brandon: Safer Society Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Olver ME, Kingston DA, Nicholaichuk TP, Wong SCP. A psychometric examination of treatment change in a multisite sample of treated Canadian federal sexual offenders. Law Hum Behav. 2014;38:544–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bickley JA, Beech AR. Implications for treatment of sexual offenders of the Ward and Hudson model of relapse. Sex Abus. 2003;15:121–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320301500203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Helmus L, Hanson RK, Babchishin KM, Mann RE. Attitudes supportive of sexual offending predict recidivism: a meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abus. 2013;14:34–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012462244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jung S, Guyalets M. Using clinical variables to evaluate treatment effectiveness in programmes for sexual offenders. J Sex Aggress. 2011;17:166–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552601003802238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bumby KM. Assessing the cognitive distortions of child molesters and rapists: development and validation of the MOLEST and RAPE scales. Sex Abus. 1996;8:37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Abel GG, Becker JV, Cunningham-Rathner J. Complications, consent, and cognitions in sex between children and adults. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1989;7:89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hanson RK, Gizzarelli R, Scott H. The attitudes of incest offenders: sexual entitlement and acceptance of sex with children. Crim Justice Behav. 1994;21:187–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854894021002001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wong S, Olver M, Nicholaichuk T, Gordon A. The Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version (VRS-SO). Saskatoon: Regional Psychiatric Centre and University of Saskatchewan; 2003. p. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  38. McGrath RJ, Lasher MP, Cumming GF. Sex offender treatment intervention and progress scale (SOTIPS): psychometric properties and incremental predictive validity with static-99R. Sex Abus. 2012;24:431–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211432475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nunes KL, Pettersen C, Hermann CA, Looman J, Spape J. Does change on the MOLEST and RAPE scales predict sexual recidivism? Sex Abus. 2014;28:427–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214540725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Marques JK, Wiederanders M, Day DM, Nelson C, van Ommeren A. Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: final results from California’s sex offender treatment and evaluation project. Sex Abus. 2005;17:79–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-005-1212-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. van den Berg JW, Smid W, Schepers K, Wever E, van Beek D, Janssen E, et al. The predictive properties of dynamic sex offender risk assessment instruments: a meta-analysis. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:179–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000454.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Olver ME, Thornton D, Beggs Christofferson SM. Application of the theory of dynamic risk to the VRS-SO’s dynamic risk factors: the latent structure of dynamic sexual violence risk. Unpublished manuscript; 2019.

  43. 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. 2012;24:64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Marshall WL, Marshall LE. Attachment and intimacy in sexual offenders: An update. Sex Relatsh Therapy. 25:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681991003589568.

  45. Brankley AE, Helmus LM, Hanson RK. STABLE-2007 evaluator workbook: Updated recidivism rates (includes combinations with Static-99R, Static-2002R, and Risk Matrix 2000). Unpublished report. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada; 2017.

  46. Miller RS, Lefcourt HM. The assessment of social intimacy. J Pers Assess. 1982;46:514–8. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4605_12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Russell D, Peplau LA, Cutrona CE. The revised UCLA loneliness scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:472–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Buss AH, Perry MP. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63:452–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Spielberger CD. Manual for the state-trait anger expression inventory (STAXI). Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Abracen J, Looman J. Treatment of high-risk sexual offenders: an integrated approach. West Sussex: Wiley; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  51. McPhail IV, Hermann CA, Fernane S, Fernandez YM, Nunes KL, Cantor JM. Validity in phallometric testing for sexual interests in children: a meta-analytic review. Assess. Online first publication. 2017. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117706139.

  52. 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 

  53. Sowden JN, Olver ME. Use of the violence risk scale sexual offender version and the stable 2007 to assess sexual offender treatment change. Psychol Assess. 2017;29:293–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. McPhail IV, Olver ME. Interventions for pedohebephilic interests in sexual offenders against children: a meta-analytic review. 2019 Manuscript under review.

  55. Olver ME, Beggs Christofferson SM, Grace RC, Wong SCP. Incorporating change information into sexual offender risk assessments using the violence risk scale-sexual offender version. Sex Abus. 2014;26:472–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063213502679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Olver ME, Nicholaichuk TP, Kingston DK, Wong SCP. A prospective multisite examination of dynamic sexual violence risk: an extension and update to Olver et al. (2014). 2019 Manuscript under review.

  57. McGrath RJ, Lasher MP, Cumming GF. A model of static and dynamic risk assessment. Final grant report to the National Institute of Justice (report submitted. Grant award number 2008-DD-BX-0013). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Boer DP, Hart SD, Kropp PR, Webster CD. Manual for the sexual violence Risk-20: professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Vancouver: Institute against Family Violence and the Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change: applications to the addictive behaviors. Am Psychol. 1992;47:1102–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. •• Olver ME, Mundt JC, Thornton D, Beggs Christofferson SM, Kingston DA, Sowden JN, et al. Using the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense Version in sexual violence risk assessments: Updated risk categories and recidivism estimates from a multisite sample of treated sexual offenders. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:941–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000538The study provides an example, with supporting data and argumentation, how risk change information can be integrated into sexual violence risk assessments to adjust appraisals of risk in a non-arbitrary manner through use of logistic regression modeling.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hanson RK, Harris AJR, Scott TL, Helmus L. Assessing the risk of sex offenders on community supervision. (user report no. 2007–05). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hanson RK, Helmus L, Thornton D. Predicting recidivism among sexual offenders: a multi-site study of Static-2002. Law Hum Behav. 2010;34:198–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9180-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hanson RK, Thornton D. Notes on the development of Static-2002. (corrections research user report no. 2003–01). Department of the Solicitor General of Canada: Ottawa; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics fifth edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Mundt JC. VRS-SO calculator. Retrieved at: www.psynergy.ca; 2015.

  66. Tasca GA, Angus L, Bonli R, Drapeau M, Fitzpatrick M, Hunsely J. Outcomes and progress monitoring in psychotherapy. Ottawa, ON: Task force report prepared for the Canadian Psychological Association; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Coupland RBA. An examination of dynamic risk, protective factors, and treatment-related change in violent offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 2015.

  68. • De Vries Robbé M, de Vogel V, Douglas KS, Nijman HLI. Changes in dynamic risk and protective factors for violence during inpatient forensic psychiatric treatment: Predicting reductions in postdischarge community recidivism. Law Hum Behav. 2015;39:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000089One of the very few studies to show positive changes in risk and protective factors to be associated with decreases in violent recidivism.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. • Hilton NZ, Scurich N, Helmus LM. Communicating the risk of violent and offending behavior: Review and introduction to special issue. Behav Sci Law. 2015;33:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/bslThorough review of the offender risk communication field.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

    Mark E. Olver

  2. Saskatoon Police Service, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

    Keira C. Stockdale

Authors
  1. Mark E. Olver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keira C. Stockdale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark E. Olver.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no 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

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The views, opinions, and assumptions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the University of Saskatchewan or Saskatoon Police Service.

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

Olver, M.E., Stockdale, K.C. Evaluating Change in Men Who Have Sexually Offended: Linkages to Risk Assessment and Management. Curr Psychiatry Rep 22, 22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-01146-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-01146-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation