No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol—II (J-Soap-II) in a Sample of Urban Minority Youth
Abstract
Despite recent advances in risk assessment procedures, relatively little research has targeted validation of procedures with sexually offending minority youth. The current study used retrospective coding of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol—II (J-SOAP-II; Prentky & Righthand, 2003) with a group of 60 male youth of mostly Latino and African American ethnicity. Correlational and receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses were used to test the J-SOAP-II's relationship with and accuracy in predicting general reoffense, sexual reoffense, and treatment compliance. The J-SOAP-II total score was significantly correlated with all three of these outcome variables, and ROC analyses demonstrated a high degree of accuracy in predicting general (area under the curve [AUC] = .76) and sexual reoffending (AUC = .78). There was mixed support for the J-SOAP-II individual subscales, with Dynamic subscales consistently outperforming Static subscales. The implications of this research for juvenile sex-offender risk assessments are discussed.
... Such aggression may be directed towards peers, family, staff, and people known to the child, or strangers (Baker, 2004). According to Martinez et al. (2007), a sexual re-offense is committed, when there is reliable evidence (namely, self-report, arrest records, or reported by the probation/parole officer, school authorities, Child Protective Services, a parent, or other family member) that the CCL had committed an additional sexual offence, after the initial intake. Importantly, Oliphant and Pavlic (2012) define a child sexual offender, in the South African context, as a person between the ages of six and seventeen years, who commits a sexual offence against a victim/victims, who are persons younger than 18. ...
... The ten instruments that were identified are described as follows: three are diagnostic (Caufmann & MacIntosh, 2006;Li et al., 2017;Martinez et al., 2007); while seven are screening tools (Assink et al., 2016;Baglivio, 2009, Meyers & Schmidt, 2008Miller & Lin, 2007;Schmidt et al., 2005 Li et al., 2017;Martinez et al., 2007). ...
... The ten instruments that were identified are described as follows: three are diagnostic (Caufmann & MacIntosh, 2006;Li et al., 2017;Martinez et al., 2007); while seven are screening tools (Assink et al., 2016;Baglivio, 2009, Meyers & Schmidt, 2008Miller & Lin, 2007;Schmidt et al., 2005 Li et al., 2017;Martinez et al., 2007). ...
... Several researchers found that the total score is a moderate predictor of sexual recidivism with AUCs ranging from .63 to .83 (Aebi et al., 2011;Barra et al., 2018;Martinez et al., 2007;Prentky et al., 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010). Others found that the total score does not predict sexual recidivism (Caldwell et al., 2008;Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012;Parks & Bard, 2006;Viljoen et al., 2008). ...
... Although studies of the J-SOAP-II often include racially diverse samples, they frequently do not capitalize on this strength, and fail to examine the impact of race on the psychometric properties of the J-SOAP-II. For example, several studies with racially diverse samples of youth did not test the predictive validity of J-SOAP-II scores on reoffense risk (Barroso et al., 2019;Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Martinez et al., 2007). Recent research indicated that Black youths score higher than White youths on the J-SOAP-II, though it remains unclear whether these score differences represent a true difference in risk (Fix et al., 2017). ...
... It is worth noting that prior research did not find such a high correlation between the Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior and Community Stability/Adjustment scales, and so it is highly possible that this merge would not be replicated if EFA was run on a different dataset (Martinez et al., 2007;Viljoen et al., 2008). One potential explanation for this could be that all youths in the present study had been convicted and confined for a sexual offense approximately two weeks prior to the assessment, whereas Viljoen et al. (2008) scored the J-SOAP-II retrospectively based on extensive patient records, and approximately 40% of the youths described in Martinez et al. 's (2007) paper were not adjudicated. ...
The Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) is a tool used to aid clinicians in assessing the sexual and criminal reoffense risk of male youths who have committed a sex offense. Despite its popularity, the factor structure has not been thoroughly assessed. The present study used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the factor structure of the four subscales of the J-SOAP-II in a group of youths aged 12-18 who were confined for sexual offenses (N = 909), and whether the fit is affected by youth race. The results showed a poor fit to the data. An ad-hoc goal was added, to propose a new factor structure using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on one half of the data, and CFA on the second half of the data. The EFA identified three-factors: Sexual Offending and Victimization History, Risk for General Delinquency, and Antisocial Beliefs and Attitudes. This three-factor model, provided an improved, but not good, fit, indicating that further modifications to the J-SOAP-II are required to meaningfully capture risk-relevant latent constructs.
... Dynamic scales of the J-SOAP-II are consistently found to outperform static scales in the prediction of sexual recidivism (e.g., Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Martinez et JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL-II 6 al., 2015). However, there are differences across settings and presumably across different cultural groups (Martinez et al., 2015). ...
... Findings indicate that there is considerable variability regarding its validity (e.g., Aebi, Plattner, Steinhausen, & Bessler, 2011;Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Caldwell, Ziemke & Vitacco, 2008;Chu et al., 2012;Martinez et al., 2007;Parks & Bard, 2006;Peterson, 2010;Powers-Sawyer & Minor, 2009;Prentky, Righthand, Schuler, Cavanaugh, & Lee, 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Schwartz-Mette, Righthand, Hecker, Dore, & Huff, 2019;Viljoen et al., 2008). The authors of the initial validation study of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP) were unable to reach any significant conclusions about the validity of the J-SOAP due to low base rates of sexual recidivism and therefore a lack of generalisability of the findings (Christiansen & Vincent, 2013;Prentky & Righthand, 2003). ...
... Of the studies examining the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II with non-institutionalised YSH, most have demonstrated moderate Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores ranging from .70 to .80 for the prediction of sexual recidivism (Aebi et al., 2011;Martinez et al., 2007;Peterson, 2010;Prentky et al., 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010). However, Fanniff and Letourneau (2012) argue that only Scale 2 -Impulsive/Antisocial Behaviour of the J-SOAP-II demonstrated acceptable levels of predictive validity in their nine-study review. ...
This study investigated the reliability and predictive validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II), in an Australian context, and for Australian Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth. Participants were 123 ( n = 91 non-Indigenous; n = 32 Indigenous) youth assessed using the J-SOAP-II and followed up over an average period of 4 years. The reliability of the J-SOAP-II was assessed using measures of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas and inter-item correlations). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted to assess the J-SOAP-II’s validity in predicting sexual and non-sexual (violent and non-violent) recidivism. Overall, the J-SOAP-II demonstrated moderate to high levels of reliability and weak to moderate levels of validity for predicting sexual and non-sexual (violent and non-violent) recidivism for the whole sample. While the J-SOAP-II total score was significantly associated with non-sexual (violent and non-violent) recidivism for non-Indigenous youth, it was not significantly associated with any of the outcome variables for Indigenous youth. Across all analyses, the dynamic scales of the J-SOAP-II predicted recidivism with greater accuracy than the static scales. However, the static scales had greater accuracy in predicting the risk of sexual recidivism for Indigenous youth. While a reliable measure, these preliminary findings raise questions about the validity of the J-SOAP-II for predicting sexual recidivism for Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth in an Australian context, and warrant further investigation.
... In the past few years, a number of studies have examined the predictive validity of these two measures-so far, studies of both the J-SOAP-II and ERASOR have produced inconsistent results. Prentky (2006) and Martinez, Flores, and Rosenfeld (2007) found high accuracy for the J-SOAP-II total score in predicting sexual recidivism in their samples; however, in Viljoen et al. (2008) and McCoy (2007), the J-SOAP-II total score did not predict sexual reoffending. Regarding the ERASOR, Skowron (2004) found that the ERASOR total score significantly predicted sexual recidivism, whereas McCoy (2007) found that the ERASOR total score was not predictive of sexual recidivism in adolescent sexual offenders. ...
... Principal components analysis in this study yielded four factors that corresponded to the four J-SOAP subscales. The authors of recent J-SOAP-II predictive validity studies also reported good to excellent interrater reliability for the J-SOAP total score (the interclass correlation coefficient [ICC] was .70 in Martinez et al., 2007;.74 in McCoy, 2007;and .84 in Viljoen et al., 2008). ...
... for preadolescents and .80 for adolescents, equivalent to large effect sizes. Martinez et al. (2007) found high predictive accuracy for the J-SOAP-II total score in urban minority youth admitted to a community-based adolescent sex offender treatment program (AUC = .78 for sexual recidivism and AUC = .76 ...
The present study explored the predictive validity of two measures designed to assess risk for sexual recidivism in adolescent sexual offenders (ASO), the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol—II and the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism, in the context of an antisociality-based typology of adolescent sexual offenders. The authors distinguished between adolescent sexual offenders with a history of general offending (delinquent ASO) and adolescent sexual offenders without a history of general offending (sex offense—only ASO). They found differential predictive accuracy of risk measures according to offender type: Both instruments predicted sexual recidivism in the sex offense—only ASO group (large effect sizes), whereas in the delinquent ASO group, the measures did not predict sexual recidivism beyond chance levels. Risk assessment in the context of an antisociality-based sex offender typology is discussed.
... Research on the reliability of the J-SOAP-II shows a good to excellent interrater reliability, ranging from 0.75 to 0.91, with an average of 0.83 (Prentky & Righthand, 2003). Validity outcomes (Elkovitch, Viljoen, Scalora & Ullman, 2008;Hecker, Scoular, Righthand, & Nangle, 2002;Martinez, Flores & Rosenfeld, 2007;Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009;Prentky et al., 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Viljoen et al., 2008) however, vary. An area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.50 indicates that an estimate is considered equal to chance (i.e., flipping a coin is considered as accurate as using the instrument). ...
... A value between 0.70 and 0.75 is considered moderate; a value greater than 0.75 to 0.80 is considered good (Fawcett, 2006). The J-SOAP AUC values measured for general recidivism (all types of re-offending) range from 0.53 (Elkovitch et al., 2008) to 0.76 (Martinez et al., 2007). J-SOAP AUC values measured for sexual recidivism range from 0.44 (Elkovitch et al., 2008) to 0.83 (Prentky et al., 2010). ...
Juveniles with harmful sexual behavior constitute a heterogeneous group regarding treatment needs and reoffending patterns. In general, intensive mandated treatment aims at reducing recidivism risk and, therefore, criminogenic treatment needs. Sexual recidivism by juveniles, however, is scarce and mostly adolescence limited. No psychological typology to date represents a higher at sexual recidivism risk subgroup. Risk assessment instruments generally overestimate recidivism risk, so allocation to mandated intensive treatment aimed at reducing sexual recidivism risk is a difficult task. Up to 38% percent of juveniles with harmful sexual behavior in the Netherlands were found to be allocated to too intensive and restrictive treatments, considered detrimental to development and treatment motivation. Incremental treatment effect on reduction of recidivism was established as small to moderate (d=0.37), but influenced by publication bias, indicating small, possibly non-significant, results in treatment practice. The effect of treatment on psychosocial functioning was established as moderate (d=0.60), with several moderating influences of outcome, participant, treatment, and study characteristics. Importantly, a primary focus on (sexual) deviance or risk reduction in juveniles with harmful sexual behavior may interfere with treatment effects on relatively often self-reported psychosocial treatment needs (i.e, low self-esteem, emotional loneliness, and external locus of control; helplessness or defeatism). A shift to a more holistic paradigm for treating juveniles with harmful sexual behavior is advocated. Aiming treatment at approach goals instead of avoidance goals, thereby aligning treatment goals prominently with the attainment of well-being, is expected to improve treatment results and reduce relapse into transgressions.
... (Prentky & Righthand, 2003). Validity outcomes (Elkovitch, Viljoen, Scalora, & Ullman, 2008;Hecker, Scoular, Righthand, & Nangle, 2002;Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009;Prentky et al., 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Viljoen et al., 2008) however, vary. An area under the curve (AUC) value of .50 ...
... A value between .70 and .75 is considered moderate; a value greater than .75 to .80 is considered good (Fawcett, 2006). The J-SOAP AUC values measured for general recidivism (all types of reoffending) range from .53 (Elkovitch et al., 2008) to .76 (Martinez et al., 2007). J-SOAP AUC values measured for sexual recidivism range from .44 (Elkovitch et al., 2008) to .83 ...
The aim of this study was to compare results of and develop guidelines for mandatory allocation of sexually transgressive juveniles to Multisystemic Therapy - Problem Sexual Behavior (MST-PSB), Secure Youth Care (SYC), or Forensic Youth Care (FYC), based on the risk-need-responsivity model. Results of current allocation showed a population with relatively less treatment needs to receive community-based MST-PSB, compared with populations receiving residential SYC and FYC. Furthermore, estimated recidivism risk levels did not always support the need for risk reduction by the imposition of limitation of freedom of movement and maximum supervision, provided by all three treatment modalities. Based on the assessed sexual recidivism risk, 38% of the juveniles in FYC, 7% in SYC, and 24% in MST-PSB received treatment that was too intensive, which is considered detrimental to motivation and development. Future allocation practices could benefit from assessing treatment needs and recidivism risk, by use of an actuarial tool.
... To date, 15 studies have examined the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II, yielding mixed results (Aebi, Plattner, Steinhausen, & Bessler, 2011;Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Caldwell et al., 2008;Chu, Ng, Fong, & Teoh, 2012;Faniff & Letourneau, 2012;Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Martinez, Rosenfeld, Cruise, & Martin, 2015;McCoy, 2007;Parks & Bard, 2006;Petersen, 2011;Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009;Prentky et al., 2010;Ralston & Epperson, 2013;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Viljoen et al., 2008). Some have found the total score to be a significant predictor of both sexual and non-sexual recidivism. ...
... for Scale III. Martinez et al. (2007) and Rajlic & Gretton (2010) had similar findings. ...
The Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–Revised (J-SOAP-II) is the most commonly used measure in the assessment of recidivism risk among juveniles who have committed sexual offenses (JSOs), but mixed support exists for its predictive validity. This study compared the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II across two offender characteristics, age and sexual drive, in a sample of 156 JSOs who had been discharged from a correctional facility or a residential treatment program. The J-SOAP-II appeared to be a better predictor of sexual recidivism for younger JSOs (14-16 years old) than for older ones (17-19 years old), with significant differences found for the Dynamic Summary Scale and Scale III (Intervention). In addition, several of the measure’s scales significantly predicted sexual recidivism for JSOs with a clear pattern of sexualized behavior but not for those without such a pattern, indicating that the J-SOAP-II may have greater clinical utility for JSOs with heightened sexual drive. The implications of these findings are discussed.
... These roadblocks make it difficult to establish concrete numbers on re-offending, which results in conflicting results. For example, one study conducted by Martinez, Flores, and Rosenfeld in 2007 concluded that rates of recidivism for juvenile sexual offenders were fairly low. ...
... Their study determined that approximately 19% of their sample criminally re-offended and 13% of the sample sexually re-offended (Martinez et al., 2007). Conversely, a study conducted in 2002 by Sjöstedt and Långström found a higher rate of 25% for criminal re-offending and 20% for sexual re-offending. ...
The following grant funded (Research Initiation Program, FY 2013-2014) study explored Winston-Salem State University student’s prior participation in juvenile delinquent and or deviant behaviors. It further expanded on how effective deterrents and alternative programs assisted study participants in abstaining from continued delinquency which lead them to Winston-Salem State University. The sample consisted of ten African American male and female full-time undergraduate students between the ages of 19-21 (that participated in some form of juvenile delinquent or deviant behavior between the ages of 9-16. The findings presented various reasons for delinquent/deviant behaviors stemming from sociological, environmental and socioeconomic circumstances. Study results showed mixed outcomes in intervention programs as opposed to punishment. Sample participants, though motivated to desist from crime because of fear of harsh punishments, were receptive to the various programming required of them through various juvenile justice and educational requirements. This study further concluded that low socioeconomic status was a motivator behind the students’ participation in delinquency and that each of them viewed a college education as vital to economic success and a positive alternative to delinquency.
... Subsequent research on J-SOAP-II involved adjudicated male adolescent sex offenders in: (a) community based programs (Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007); (b) residential facilities (Elkovitch, Viljoen, Scalora, & Ullman, 2008); (c) corrections-based programs (Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009); and (d) secure custody facilities (Caldwell et al. 2008;Parks & Bard, 2006;Waite, Keller, McGarvey, Wieckowski, Pinkerton, & Brown, 2005). J-SOAP-II's dynamic scales were better predictors of sexual and nonsexual recidivism than static scales (Martinez et al., 2007). ...
... Subsequent research on J-SOAP-II involved adjudicated male adolescent sex offenders in: (a) community based programs (Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007); (b) residential facilities (Elkovitch, Viljoen, Scalora, & Ullman, 2008); (c) corrections-based programs (Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009); and (d) secure custody facilities (Caldwell et al. 2008;Parks & Bard, 2006;Waite, Keller, McGarvey, Wieckowski, Pinkerton, & Brown, 2005). J-SOAP-II's dynamic scales were better predictors of sexual and nonsexual recidivism than static scales (Martinez et al., 2007). Combined score of Scales I and II showed strong predictive accuracy (average 4-year follow-up period) for sexual recidivism (AUC=.75), ...
Reviewed are validated and cross-validated risk assessment tools for assessing sexual improprieties in youth: J-SOAP-II, ERASOR,2.0, and MEGA ♪. Assessments are significantly more accurate when tools focused on specific populations of youth are employed. The review affirms a New Paradigm of ecologically based, developmentally and gender sensitive risk assessment tools. Key words: risk assessment, adolescent sex offender, juvenile sex offender, sexually abusive youth, ERASOR, J-SOAP-II, MEGA, JSORRAT-II
... Dubious assertions that ERASOR and J-SOAP-II are "forensically oriented risk assessment approaches" (McPherson et al., 2024(McPherson et al., , p. 1588, or erroneous claims they are "well supported empirically" (Jung & Thomas, 2022, pp. 10-11) ignore the accrual of studies demonstrating their poor performance (Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012;Martinez et al., 2007Martinez et al., , 2015Parks & Bard, 2006;Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009;Viljoen et al., 2012Viljoen et al., , 2017. Several studies found the two tools equivocal when compared against each other (Aebi et al., 2011;Barra et al., 2018;M. ...
This article brings attention to cardinal principles to consider when implementing the Therapeutic Jurisprudence multidisciplinary approach with youth who are manifesting sustained coarse sexual improprieties and come to the attention of the judicial system. The obstacles of implementing therapeutic jurisprudence with this population include the persistent reliance of researchers on adult paradigms for risk assessment tools, along with treatment models that are not developmentally and gender sensitive, nor empirically supported for youth. Adherence to the scientific method is essential when constructing risk assessment tools that meet forensic standards. Applying the rich collateral paradigm of therapeutic jurisprudence within the context of valid and reliable measurements of intervention outcomes would immensely benefit those youth entangled with judicial systems who repeatedly are victims of abuse (neglect, maltreatment, physical and/or sexual). Youth who become entangled with the judicial system as dependents, and/or suspected or charged with criminal activity, need additional collateral resources geared toward ongoing developmental needs and specific to gender. Practical considerations and recommendations are made in contemplating expanding Therapeutic Jurisprudence with youth who engage in sustained sexually harmful behaviors to self and others.
... Two decades ago (2000), the need for risk assessment tools was extremely high, resulting in quick adoption and implementation of J-SOAP-II and ERASOR, even though they had only been validated on very small samples (respectively: N ¼ 96 [Prentky et al. 2000] and 136 [Worling 2004]). The first independent studies of J-SOAP-II did not appear until 7 years after its construction (Martinez et al. 2007), while the first independent study of the ERASOR was a dissertation study published 4 years after the tool was introduced (Costin 2005). Subsequent independent studies brought disappointing news, evidenced in a meta-analysis (Viljoen et al. 2012) documenting only moderate predictive validity for both tools and a systematic review (Hempel et al. 2013) demonstrating that neither J-SOAP-II or ERASOR nor other risk recidivism (predictive) tools reviewed "showed unequivocal positive results in predicting future offending" (p. ...
... Research has since confirmed some adult risk factors to be questionable for youth, or not applicable at all (Caldwell et al., 2008;Miner, 2002Miner, , 2019Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009;Worling, 2017). Multiple independent predictive validity studies on J-SOAP/J-SOAP-II and ERASOR have shown a plethora of contradictory findings (Martinez et al., 2007(Martinez et al., , 2015Parks & Bard, 2006;Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009;Viljoen et al., 2017). Research findings on J-SOAP-II and ERASOR were essentially equivocal when they were compared against each other (Aebi et al., 2011;Barra et al., 2018;Caldwell et al., 2008;Chu & Thomas, 2010;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Viljoen et al., 2008). ...
This article renews the call by Chaffin and Bonner in 1998 to cease treating youth who engage in sexually abusive behaviors like adult male convicted sex offenders. The author urges that professionals cease imposing an adult-centered convicted sex offender paradigm in assessment and treatment. A new paradigm is advocated that considers sexual developmental and gender issues, along with judicial status in all areas of intervention (i.e., clinical and risk assessment, treatment/service planning, and possible treatment [when needed]). The paradigm is grounded on the Family Lovemap model, a conceptual framework for assessing the youth's bio-physio-psycho-social-sexual and erotic development. Discussed is the evidence-based, developmentally and gender sensitive risk-level tool, MEGA♪ as a viable option for assessing risk for persistent coarse sexual improprieties and sexually abusive behaviors in youth ages 4-19 (adjudicated and non-adjudicated). Selected significant empirical findings are presented from 3,901 youths who were participants in samples of the MEGA♪ validation studies.
... It is estimated that between a third and two thirds of children who report experiencing sexual abuse is perpetrated by other children and young people under the age of 18 (Hackett, 2014;Radford et al., 2011). A assessment tool in accurately predicting future HSB has been inconsistent with three studies suggesting it is able to accurately predict future HSB (Martinez et al., 2007;Prentky, 2006;Raijlic & Gretton, 2010) and two studies suggesting that it was not able to (Elkovitch et al., 2008;Viljoen et al., 2008). The studies were retrospective and therefore have limitations in their generalisability. ...
Harmful Sexual Behaviour (HSB) has been regularly documented as a demanding area of practice within the United Kingdom (UK). The aim of this paper is to share a practice model developed in an under-resourced inner London borough. The HSB forum is formed of a multi-agency group of professionals and runs monthly providing a platform for practitioners to seek consultation for young people they are working with who are displaying HSB's. Initial feedback for the forum from practitioners has been consistently positive and they have valued specifically the opportunity to formulate, have clear directions, and the multi-disciplinary perspective. In addition, most reported feeling empowered to implement the recommendations suggested. Given the shared vulnerability factors between those displaying HSB's and other at-risk young people such as those who are being sexually exploited, this model provides an innovative way that practitioners can be supported by multiple agencies where there is a lack of specialist services.
... Several independent studies of male sexually abusive adolescents were completed on J-SOAP-II. Dynamic scales were more predictive of sexual recidivism (Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007), whereas studies of correctional samples found static scales more predictive (Parks & Bard, 2006;Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009;Waite et al., 2005). Other studies found mixed predictive validity findings, including when comparing JSOAP-II against the ERASOR and/or other tools (Aebi, Plattner, Steinhausen, & Bessler, 2011;Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vitacco, 2008;Chu, Ng, Fong, & Teoh, 2012;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Viljoen et al., 2008). ...
This paper closely examines descriptive and significant group comparison results on a sub-sample of youth, 16-19 years of age, referred to as 'emerging adults'; a term descriptive of reaching the age of transitioning into adulthood. Findings cover gender differences, risk levels, and protective factors; neuropsychological difficulties; family, education, and antisocial variables, along with data on victims, types of crimes and so on. The sub-samples (n = 1,170 and n = 1,731) came from two large validation studies: the MEGA ♪ Combined Cross-Validation Studies (N=2,717), and MEGA ♪ Combined Samples Studies (N=3,901) respectively. MEGA ♪ is a risk level assessment tool (comprised of seven aggregates and four scales) for assessing coarse sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive behaviour in adjudicated and non-adjudicated male and female youth ages 4-19, including youth with low intellectual functioning. MEGA ♪ 's calibrated risk levels provide an accurate assessment of sexually abusive youth, including youth, ages 16-19, transitioning into adulthood.
... Although the reliability values obtained were adequate, a controversy (Fanniff & Letourneau, 2014;Hecker, 2014) regarding low reliability values of the J-SOAP-II Scale 1 (Sexual Drive/Preoccupation) (Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012) importance of analyzing and interpreting the values obtained in this scale with caution. More specifically, Fanniff and Letourneau (2012) suggested that the use of records and a clinical interview is crucial for an accurate coding of Scale 1. Regarding the concurrent validity parameter of the J-SOAP-II, six studies (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vitacco, 2008;Chu, Ng, Fong, & Teoh, 2012;Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012;Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Viljoen et al., 2008) compared the J-SOAP-II with (a) previously validated risk assessment measures, or with (b) other instruments designed to measure similar constructs or other measures with which it is theoretically predicted to correlate. As the J-SOAP-II authors recommend, Scale 4 should be omitted if the juvenile has been in a correctional facility or in a secure residential treatment for 6 months or more at the time of the evaluation. ...
Over the last decade, we have witnessed consistent advances in risk assessment procedures, namely the validation of those used with juveniles who have committed sexual offenses. The adaptation of these instruments into other languages requires research examining the conceptual and metric equivalence of the instruments, not just translation equivalence. Informed by data from 141 boys, aged 13 to 18, the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II), regarding reliability and construct validation, are presented and discussed. Factor structure, internal consistency, and interrater reliability were examined, and a reliable factorial structure that was consistent with the original validation of the J-SOAP was found. Scales 2 and 3 had good internal consistency, and Scale 1 had acceptable internal consistency. Results regarding concurrent validity revealed mostly statistically significant correlations. The implications of this research for juvenile sex offender risk assessments are discussed.
... Several independent studies of male sexually abusive adolescents were completed on J-SOAP-II. Dynamic scales were more predictive of sexual recidivism (Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007), whereas studies of correctional samples found static scales more predictive (Parks & Bard, 2006;Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009;Waite et al., 2005). Other studies found mixed predictive validity findings, including when comparing JSOAP-II against the ERASOR and/or other tools (Aebi, Plattner, Steinhausen, & Bessler, 2011;Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vitacco, 2008;Chu, Ng, Fong, & Teoh, 2012;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010;Viljoen et al., 2008). ...
Risk assessment of sexually abusive youth is a specialty, which ideally includes a clinical assessment (e.g., psychological evaluation) utilizing a validated risk assessment tool. This article reviews tools for assessing sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive behaviors in youth: JSORRAT-II, J-SOAP-II, J-RAS, AIM2, and MEGA♪,1 and a clinical assessment tool, MIDSA. Untested, structured, clinical checklists with face validity, J-RAT-4 and PROFESOR, are included. The authors also highlight clinical dilemmas using “utility tools” (i.e., polygraph and plethysmograph) with sexually abusive youth. The comprehensive review sustains a twenty-first−century New Paradigm of inclusive ecologically based, developmentally and gender-sensitive assessment tools that definitively and accurately assess risk and protective factors of sexually abusive youth.
... No cutoff scores for risk-level classifications have been established (Prentky & Righthand, 2003). Consistent with prior research (e.g., Martinez et al., 2007;Parks & Bard, 2006), the J-SOAP-II total score and scales displayed good interrater reliability in the present sample, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; k = 2, n = 25) = .88, .87, ...
Assessment of sexual and nonsexual recidivism risk is important for juveniles who have offended sexually (JSOs). It is unclear whether clinicians who assess risk for both types of recidivism should use a JSO-specific measure alone or in combination with an assessment of other potential risk factors, such as psychopathy. Using a sample of 72 JSOs, this study examined the reliability and validity of a scale (Scale P) intended to assess psychopathic traits comprised of seven items from the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–Revised (J-SOAP-II). Scale P demonstrated adequate internal consistency and was significantly correlated with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Youth Version (PCL:YV). In addition, Scale P significantly predicted nonsexual and sexual recidivism as well as the PCL:YV and was a significantly stronger predictor of nonsexual recidivism than several of the preexisting J-SOAP-II scales. These preliminary findings suggest that Scale P may enhance the clinical utility of the J-SOAP-II.
... Although this study did not examine the prognostic utility of the tools, it was nevertheless informative. Continued independent study of JSORRAT-II and MEGA ♪ is essential but may take some time considering that the first independent study on the J-SOAP-II (Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007) was completed 7 years after Prentky et al.'s (2000) initial validation. ...
This 6-year prospective study is the first to compare two psychometrically sound risk assessment tools for sexually abusive youth: JSORRAT-II and MEGA♪. Cross-validated on representative samples of over 500 youth, these measures have cutoff scores, allowing for a more exact assessment of risk. Study sample consisted of 129 male adjudicated adolescents housed in a secured residential treatment facility for sexually abusive youth. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that MEGA♪ Risk Scale was mildly predictive of sexual recidivism over a 6-year period (mean follow-up = 15.6 months)—area under the curve (AUC) = .67; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.52, 0.82]; p < .015. JSORRAT-II was not predictive (AUC = .57; 95% CI = [0.42, 0.72]; p < .297). The study contributes to scant literature on the most contemporary, statistically robust risk assessment tools for sexually abusive youth.
... The measure is designed for use with males 12-18 years of age. No cutoff scores have been provided for risk level and the J-SOAP-II is recommended to be used as part of a more comprehensive assessment and not in isolation [29]. The J-SOAP-II has four scales that include measures of sexual drive/preoccupation, impulsive/antisocial behavior, intervention variables such as treatment motivation, and community stability/ adjustment. ...
Sexual assaults are often one of the most traumatic experiences endured by those victimized, and the impact can be lifelong for victims, their loved ones, and the community [1]. Research on sexual perpetrators is often segregated between adult assailants and juvenile offenders. The Department of Justice finds that juvenile offenders account for " 25.8 % of all sexual offenders and more than a third (35.6%) of sex offenders against juvenile victims " (2009, p. 3). Deviant sexual behavior during adolescence has been found to be predictive of criminalized sexual and non-sexual offenses into adulthood [2]. Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the treatment effectiveness of the Louisiana Sexual Behavior Problem Treatment Program (SBPTP) on reducing risk for recidivism in juveniles with sexual behavior problems. Using the JSOAP-II, pre and post test scores for juveniles with sexual behavior problems in secure and non-secure care settings, secondary analyses on archival data was collected from participants who completed the SBPTP between 2008 and 2014. SBPTP subjects were 100 adjudicated male juveniles with sexual behavior problems (ages 12-20) and enrolled in the treatment program. Overall, 73% of subjects in both secure and non-secure settings significantly decreased their overall sexual recidivism risk scores and 83% significantly decreased scale 3 (Intervention) scores showing significant improvement. The analyses reveal decreases in sexual risk recidivism in secure settings in JSOAP-II total scores. Furthermore, the analyses showed decreases in the scale 3 (Intervention Scale) showing treatment benefits of the SBPTP across time. The implication for this research is that the SBPTP shows promise related to lowering JSOAP-II scores over time, which may lead to sexual recidivism risks across settings.
... The measure is designed for use with males 12-18 years of age. No cutoff scores have been provided for risk level and the J-SOAP-II is recommended to be used as part of a more comprehensive assessment and not in isolation [29]. The J-SOAP-II has four scales that include measures of sexual drive/preoccupation, impulsive/antisocial behavior, intervention variables such as treatment motivation, and community stability/ adjustment. ...
... The instrument consists of 28 items, covering static risk factors organised into two scales: Sexual orientation/impulse and Impulsivity-Antisocial behaviour; and dynamic risk factors through the scales of Intervention, and Adjustment and social stability. Studies on forensic samples support its predictive capability, validating its use as a complementary tool for the assessment of the risk of recidivism of sexual assault in adolescents (Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Viljoen, Mordell, & Beneteau, 2012). The Spanish adaptation was developed by Garrido, Silva and López (2006), with the name Protocolo de Evaluación de Agresores Sexuales Juveniles [Assessment Protocol Juvenile Sex Offenders]. ...
Objectively and rigorously understanding the individual psychological characteristics of adolescent offenders, such as intelligence, personality traits and others of a clinical and criminological nature, is essential when developing appropriate processes for intervention in educational and judicial measures in the context of juvenile justice. However, the clinical and personological tools described in the previous article (Wenger & Andrés-Pueyo, 2016) are not enough to address the criminogenic needs of the adolescents and other, more specific, tools are needed. In this article, a number of complementary instruments developed specifically for the forensic area are reviewed. These tools enable us to carry out very specific assessments in this context, such as the evaluation of the risk of violence or the assessment of psychopathy. A review is also presented of the forensic psychological tests available in Spanish for professionals in the field of juvenile justice.
... For example, while having a offended against a male child victim has been a reliable predictor of sexual recidivism in adults (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004), juvenile studies have failed to demonstrate a similar utility. To date, out of the 18 studies have examined having a male victim as a risk factor among juvenile sex offenders, 16 have found no significant predictive value (Auslander, 1998;Boyd, 1994;Caldwell, 2007;Caldwell, 2013;Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009;Hecker, Scoular, Righthand, & Nangle, 2002;Levit, 2015;Nisbett, Wilson, & Smallbone, 2004;Prentky, Harris, Frizzell, & Righthand, 2000;Ralston, 2008;Rasmussen, 1999;Schram, Milloy, & Rowe, 1991;Smith, & Monastersky, 1986;Spice, Viljoen, Latzman, Scalora, & Ullman, 2012;Williams, 2007;Wolk, 2005), and two found it to be a significantly associated with a lower risk of sexual recidivism (Caldwell, Zemke, & Vitacco, 2008;Miner, 2002). ...
This project assessed the relationship between psychopathic traits, racial identity, and violent behavior in 257 delinquent boys. The Psychopathy Checklist–Youth Version (PCL:YV) was administered to youth across a 7-year window. The group was then followed for a mean of 14.7 years (range = 9.3 to 18.5 years), to determine if the presence of psychopathic features in adolescence predicted violent recidivism in adulthood. After controlling for race, Facet 3 was predictive of violent recidivism, whereas PCL:YV total score and all other Facets were not. Overall, African American youth obtained significantly higher PCL:YV scores and had higher rates of violent recidivism than did Caucasian youth, even when controlling for urban status. Implications for the use of the PCL:YV in clinical and legal settings will be discussed in light of the need for further research to be conducted on psychopathic traits in minority adolescents.
... The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR; Worling & Curwen, 2001) and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II; Prentky & Righthand, 2003), which are the most widely used risk assessment instruments for juveniles, yield at best mixed results for predicting sexual recidivism when they have been assessed by independent investigators (e.g., Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vitacco, 2008;Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Parks & Bard, 2006;Spice, Viljoen, Latzman, Scalora, & Ullman, 2013;Voljoen et al., 2008). Although the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) has shown some ability to predict general criminal recidivism (AUC = 0.62; Onifade et al., 2008), it has not fared as well in predicting sexual recidivism (Viljoen, Elkovitch, Scalora, & Ullman, 2009). ...
Using the overarching framework of the risk/needs/responsivity principles of Andrews and Bonta (2006), this chapter identifies the criminogenic needs that have been emerged most consistently as treatment targets for juveniles who have sexually offended (JSOs). Empirical studies supporting the selection of each domain are presented and the assessment tools that have the most research support with JSOs are described and evaluated. The treatment needs reviewed are: hypersexuality and sexual deviance; age and gender sexual preferences; antisocial behavior; callous-unemotional trait; aggressive fantasies and behavior; intimacy and friendships; and victimization. We recommend that clinicians assessing JSOs either generate their own batteries from the reviewed tools or select instruments using different methods that have been created to assess all of the critical domains.
... The measure is designed for use with males 12-18 years of age. No cutoff scores have been provided for risk level and the J-SOAP-2 is recommended to be used as part of a more comprehensive assessment and not in isolation(Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007). The J-SOAP-2 has four scales that include measures of sexual drive/preoccupation, impulsive/antisocial behavior, intervention variables such as treatment motivation, and community stability/adjustment. Studies involving the J-SOAP-2 indicate moderate to high interrater reliability ranging from .75 to .91, as well as internal consistency alphas from .68 to .85. ............... ooObservational Reviews. ...
The purpose of this study was to offer preliminary support for the Louisiana Sex Offender Treatment Program (LSOTP) in addressing the needs of juvenile sex offenders. Research objectives were (1) to offer statistical evidence for reductions in anxiety, depression, cognitive distortion and negative attitudes towards women comparing a group of 21 adolescents, 12 of whom received services as usual and nine of whom participated in the LSOTP. A controlled experimental evaluation design was utilized. The juvenile sex offenders were randomly assigned to the experimental group for 12 weeks receiving treatment services and a control group receiving care “as usual” in a residential group care program. Participants in the experimental group experienced statistically significant decreases in cognitive distortions related specifically to rape and molestation.The results of this study offer preliminary support of the LSOTP as a best practices alternative to other treatment modalities.
... assessment, such as the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol II (J-SOAP-II), are used to predict and infer an individual's likelihood of engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior in the future and, subsequently, to enact various procedures that may help to protect the individual and the community from such acts. Emerging evidence demonstrated that general reoffending, sexual reoffending, and treatment compliance were significantly predicted for African Americans, European Americans, and Latinos by the J-SOAP-II (Prentky & Righthand, 2003), which suggests similar risk factors are relevant across cultural groups and implies appropriate cross-cultural use for the measure (Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007). However, while assessment measures were designed for equal and appropriate use across racial/ethnic groups, their interpretation and application in the real world is not necessarily free of cultural bias. ...
The overrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities within the criminal justice system relative to their population percentage, a phenomenon termed disproportionate minority contact, has been examined within general adult and adolescent offender populations; yet few studies have tested whether this phenomenon extends to juvenile sexual offenders (JSOs). In addition, few studies have examined whether offender race/ethnicity influences registration and notification requirements, which JSOs are subject to in some U.S. states. The present study assessed for disproportionate minority contact among general delinquent offenders and JSOs, meaning it aimed to test whether the criminal justice system treats those accused of sexual and non-sexual offenses differently by racial/ethnic group. Furthermore, racial/ethnic group differences in risk, legal classification, and sexual offending were examined for JSOs. Results indicated disproportionate minority contact was present among juveniles with non-sexual offenses and JSOs in Alabama. In addition, offense category and risk scores differed between African American and European American JSOs. Finally, registration classifications were predicted by offending characteristics, but not race/ethnicity. Implications and future directions regarding disproportionate minority contact among JSOs and social and legal policy affecting JSOs are discussed.
© The Author(s) 2015.
... A meta-analysis indicated that the J-SOAP-II's Intervention and Community Stability/Adjustment scales significantly predicted sexual and nonsexual reoffending with small to moderate effect sizes (Viljoen, Mordell, & Beneteau, 2012). In prior studies, researchers have found the Intervention scale to have good to excellent interrater reliability and the Community Stability/Adjustment scale to have fair to excellent interrater reliability (e.g., Aebi, Plattner, Steinhausen, & Bessler, 2011;Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vitacco, 2008;Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Rajlic & Gretton, 2010). In the present study, internal consistency was adequate (α > .77; ...
Although the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) include an emphasis on dynamic, or modifiable factors, there has been little research on dynamic changes on these tools. To help address this gap, we compared admission and discharge scores of 163 adolescents who attended a residential, cognitive-behavioral treatment program for sexual offending. Based on reliable change indices, one half of youth showed a reliable decrease on the J-SOAP-II Dynamic Risk Total Score and one third of youth showed a reliable decrease on the SAVRY Dynamic Risk Total Score. Contrary to expectations, decreases in risk factors and increases in protective factors did not predict reduced sexual, violent nonsexual, or any reoffending. In addition, no associations were found between scores on the Psychopathy Checklist:Youth Version and levels of change. Overall, the J-SOAP-II and the SAVRY hold promise in measuring change, but further research is needed.
© The Author(s) 2015.
... Research on youthful sexual offenders has predominately focused on identifying youth risks as unremitting efforts have been made to perfect and empirically validate actuarial risk assessment tools (Hempel et al. 2013;Martinez et al. 2007). Furthermore, much of the research on youth who have sexually offended and their families reveals those factors, dynamics, and characteristics, frequently characterized as risks, that are likely to perpetuate sexually harmful behavior (Barbaree and Langton 2006;McMackin et al. 2002;Righthand and Welch 2004;Wanklyn et al. 2012). ...
To address the problem of sexual offenses perpetrated by youth, a recognized treatment framework, risk, need, and responsivity delivers appropriate services according to youths’ relative risk level. Service programs espousing this framework intermittently integrate families. Little is known about how families become engaged in services, and research has yet to comprehensively identify family protective factors. Recognizing family engagement as an avenue by which risk can be mitigated, our qualitative study interviews providers throughout one western state (N = 19) on family engagement strategies. Using rigorous data collection and analyses methods, the results revealed that providers engage families through building rapport and a strength-based approach. Service engagement implications and study limitations are noted.
... Racial differences among juvenile sex offenders are not often discussed in the literature. Some preliminary research indicates that there are differences between groups as it relates to rates of historical victimization, the presence of sexual deviance (Burton & Meezan, 2007), propensity for committing sexual crimes (Ikomi, Rodney, & McCoy 2009), and response to standardized assessment instruments (Bridges & Steen, 1998; Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfield, 2007). A challenge for African American offenders in general involves disproportionate minority contact. ...
Abstract African American juveniles adjudicated for sexual offenses may struggle with the mistrust of both the judicial and treatment systems. Unlike general mental health services, juvenile sex offender treatment is often mandated by the court or child welfare services; thus these youth and their families must engage in the treatment process. Without clinicians and services that can acknowledge and respond to a minority youth's experience in a sensitive, culturally competent manner, there could be significant resistance to treatment. Traditional treatment approaches fail to prioritize issues involving cultural competence. This paper addresses the unique challenges of African American juvenile sex offenders and makes recommendations for creating culturally competent practice for these youth and their families.
... Rajlic en Gretton (2010) voorspelden met de ERASOR en J-SOAP-II seksuele recidive bij een groep specialisten, dit in tegenstelling tot een groep generalisten. De J-SOAP-II blijkt seksuele recidive goed te voorspellen bij een steekproef jeugdige zedendelinquenten van met name Latino en Afro-Amerikaanse afkomst (Martinez, Flores & Rosenfeld, 2007). De bevindingen met betrekking tot risicotaxatie illustreren dat vooralsnog onduidelijk is welke instrumenten het geschiktst zijn om de recidivekans bij jeugdige zedendelinquenten ten aanzien van zedenmisdrijven in te schatten. ...
Jeugdige zedendelinquenten zijn reeds enkele decennia onderwerp van wetenschappelijk onderzoek. In deze review wordt nagegaan wat de stand van zaken is in de recente literatuur. Een search in zeven databases over een periode van vijf jaar (2006-2010) leverde in totaal 139 artikelen over jeugdige zedendelinquenten op. De hoofdonderwerpen van die artikelen hebben betrekking op kenmerken en achtergronden, risicotaxatie en recidive, assessment en behandeling, en beleid aangaande registratie. In deze review worden de belangrijkste bevindingen uit de recente literatuur binnen deze onderwerpen beschreven en suggesties gedaan voor toekomstig onderzoek.
... A great many researchers have studied the strength with which various factors are associated with subsequent sexual recidivism among juvenile offenders (Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vitacco, 2008;Gretton, McBride, Hare, O'Shaugnessy, & Kumka, 2001;Kahn & Chambers, 1991;Martinez, Flores, & Rosenfeld, 2007;Smith & Monastersky, 1986;Viljoen, Scalora, Cuadra, Bader, Chavez, Ullman, & Lawrence, 2008;Viljoen, Elkovitch, Scalora, & Ullman, 2009;Zimring, 2007). Hanson (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998;Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005;Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004), compiling very large data sets, has published two articles summarizing data on this issue for adult sex offenders. ...
... Dynamic scales of the J-SOAP-II were found to be better predictors than static scales (Martinez et al. 2007). The combined score of the two dynamic scales (i.e., Sexual Drive/Sexual Preoccupation and Impulsive, Antisocial Behavior) showed good predictive validity (Powers-Sawyer & Miner, 2009). ...
Prognostic utility of MEGA
♪
was evaluated on a sample of 969 male and female youth without history of sexually-related probation or parole violation. Six month follow-up of 334 (34 %) found a new sexually-related probation or parole violation occurred in 28 (8.4 %). ROC findings showed Risk Scale significantly (p < .001) predictive of a new violation (AUC = .71 [95 % CI = .62 to .80]). MEGA
♪
Risk Scale scores added incremental prognostic utility over demographic variables (p < 0.001) and resulted in a net reclassification improvement of 31.5 %. Contravention for youth ages 4 to 12 was defined as new reports of sexually abusive behaviors in three or more different locations, or sexual behaviors that included oral, anal, vaginal, direct skin to skin contact, and/or penetration. Post-hoc analysis found 8 youth (21 %) experienced these outcomes. Risk Scale was significantly predictive (AUC = .77 [95 % C.I. = .60 to .96; p = 0.016]).
台灣刑法學文獻對於積極特別預防理論的實證問題之處理，普遍薄弱且過時，本文嘗試填補部分知識缺口。首先整理文獻中的正、反方實證命題，然後回顧實證研究來釐清：若積極特別預防理論要成為一套可操作的刑罰理論，必要的命題具有多少證據基礎？命題和研究可分為三大面向：再犯風險與矯治需求的衡鑑、刑罰的再犯預防效果、矯治措施的再犯預防效果。證據顯示：一、全般犯罪、性犯罪和暴力犯罪的再犯風險預測之準確度雖非完美，但已足以對刑事司法起重大貢獻。二、由於尚欠缺方法論足夠健全的研究，目前無法推論刑罰改善犯罪人的效果。三、矯治措施改善犯罪人的效果則有豐富許多的證據，可資提供刑罰種類的少許建議，儘管還不能提示具體刑度。然因這領域的本土研究尚在初期，故於運用這些主要基於國外證據的量刑指引時，應保持適度謹慎。
[en] Taiwanese criminal legal scholars paid little attention to the empirical questions of the positive specific prevention theory. This article seeks to fill the gap in knowledge regarding the empirical evidence of this theory. First, empirical propositions in criminal legal research are summarized. Secondly, empirical studies are reviewed to determine to what extent the prerequisites for the positive specific prevention theory to be a practicable penal theory are evidence-based. The relevant propositions and studies are divided into three topics: on recid-ivism risk/needs assessment, on effectiveness of criminal punishment, and on effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. Evidence shows that the predictive validity of several risk/needs assessment tools for general, sexual, and violent offenses is good enough, although not per-fect, to make a great contribution to the criminal justice. Nothing can be inferred about the effect of criminal punishment on the resocialization of offenders due to lack of studies with proper methodology. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that rehabilita-tion programs do work, and thus some guidelines for deciding the type of punishment, but not its specific quantity, can be provided. However, due caution is required when applying these sentencing guidelines, which are mainly based on foreign studies, as local research in this field is still in the early stage
Using a standardized, validated risk assessment tool is an integral part of risk management and should be employed to evaluate a youth who is at risk to and/or has engaged in sexually abusive behaviors. Risk and needs tools are needed to inform critical decisions about the allocation of services and the areas that should be targeted in treatment and supervision. Although practitioners have a number of published tools to their avail, it is often less practical to discover the type of tool, where to access the tool, information regarding its psychometric properties, and how to access relevant training. This paper offers a brief compendium of youth-applied risk tools specific to male youths who are at risk to and/or who have engaged in sexually abusive behaviors; specifically, a description of the tool and its psychometric properties, along with where practitioners may access these tools and any relevant training in using these tools, are summarized. In light of the challenges that exist when assessing risk among youths, caveats and considerations are also explored.
Background:
Around 1 in 1000 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years old display problematic or harmful sexual behaviour (HSB). Examples include behaviours occurring more frequently than would be considered developmentally appropriate; accompanied by coercion; involving children of different ages or stages of development; or associated with emotional distress. Some, but not all, young people engaging in HSB come to the attention of authorities for investigation, prosecution or treatment. Depending on policy context, young people with HSB are those whose behaviour has resulted in a formal reprimand or warning, conviction for a sexual offence, or civil measures. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) interventions are based on the idea that by changing the way a person thinks, and helping them to develop new coping skills, it is possible to change behaviour.
Objectives:
To evaluate the effects of CBT for young people aged 10 to 18 years who have exhibited HSB.
Search methods:
In June 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 other databases and three trials registers. We also examined relevant websites, checked reference lists and contacted authors of relevant articles.
Selection criteria:
We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using parallel groups. We evaluated CBT treatments compared with no treatment, waiting list or standard care, irrespective of mode of delivery or setting, given to young people aged 10 to 18 years, who had been convicted of a sexual offence or who exhibited HSB.
Data collection and analysis:
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
Main results:
We found four eligible RCTs (115 participants). Participants in two studies were adolescent males aged 12 to 18 years old. In two studies participants were males simply described as "adolescents." Three studies took place in the USA and one in South Africa. The four studies were of short duration: one lasted two months; two lasted three months; and one lasted six months. No information was available on funding sources. Two studies compared group-based CBT respectively to no treatment (18 participants) or treatment as usual (21 participants). The third compared CBT with sexual education (16 participants). The fourth compared CBT (19 participants) with mode-deactivation therapy (21 participants) and social skills training (20 participants). Three interventions delivered treatment in a residential setting by someone working there, and one in a community setting by licensed therapist undertaking a PhD. CBT compared with no treatment or treatment as usual Primary outcomes No study in this comparison reported the impact of CBT on any measure of primary outcomes (recidivism, and adverse events such as self-harm or suicidal behaviour). Secondary outcomes There was little to no difference between CBT and treatment as usual on cognitive distortions in general (mean difference (MD) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.54 to 14.66, 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence), assessed with Abel and Becker Cognition Scale (higher scores indicate more problematic distortions); and specific cognitive distortions about rape (MD 8.75, 95% CI 2.83 to 14.67, 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence), measured with the Bumby Cardsort Rape Scale (higher scores indicate more justifications, minimisations, rationalisations and excuses for HSB). One study (18 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that CBT may result in greater improvements in victim empathy (MD 5.56, 95% CI 0.94 to 10.18), measured with the Attitudes Towards Women Scale, compared with no treatment. One additional study also measured this, but provided no usable data. CBT compared with alternative interventions Primary outcomes One study (59 participants) found little to no difference between CBT and alternative treatments on post-treatment sexual aggression scores (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.37, very low-certainty evidence), assessed using Daily Behaviour Reports and Behaviour Incidence Report Forms. No study in this comparison reported the impact of CBT on any measure of our remaining primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes One study (16 participants) provided very low-certainty evidence that, compared to sexual education, mean cognitive distortions pertaining to justification or taking responsibility for actions (MD 3.27, 95% CI -4.77 to -1.77) and apprehension confidence (MD 2.47 95% CI -3.85 to -1.09) may be lower in the CBT group. The same study indicated that mean cognitive distortions pertaining to social-sexual desirability may be lower in the CBT group, and there may be little to no difference between the groups for cognitive distortions pertaining to inappropriate sexual fantasies measured with the Multiphasic Sex Inventory.
Authors' conclusions:
It is uncertain whether CBT reduces HSB in male adolescents compared to other treatments. All studies had insufficient detail in what they reported to allow for full assessment of risk of bias. 'Risk of bias' judgements were predominantly rated as unclear or high. Sample sizes were very small, and the imprecision of results was significant. There is very low-certainty evidence that group-based CBT may improve victim empathy when compared to no treatment, and may improve cognitive distortions when compared to sexual education, but not treatment as usual. Further research is likely to change the estimate. More robust evaluations of both individual and group-based CBT are required, particularly outside North America, and which look at the effects of CBT on diverse participants.
Justice and mental health clinicians are often asked to assess the likelihood that an adolescent will engage in violence or other forms of offending. Indeed, youth justice agencies in many American states and Canadian provinces mandate that risk assessments be conducted with adolescents who have been convicted of a criminal offence. This chapter reviews developmental considerations and existing best practises for adolescent risk assessment. It addresses outstanding questions, proposing some future directions for the field of adolescent risk assessment. The chapter identifies four widely used adolescent risk assessment tools that met these criteria, including tools for violence (Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth [SAVRY]), general offending (Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory), and sexual offending (Estimate Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism [ERASOR], Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol‐II [J‐SOAP‐II]).
This article presents a short-term psycho-educational group therapy model of 14 bi-weekly 90-minute meetings with parents of male juvenile sex offenders. The program is used by youth probation services in Israel as part of a multi-systemic treatment program. The group was designed for parents whose children had been convicted of a variety of sex offenses in a juvenile court, and who had been referred to the youth probation service for court-ordered treatment. The group therapy was aimed at involving the parents in the therapeutic process, promoting the offenders’ rehabilitation, and to maintain the improvement achieved through the treatment. The results show that the combination of emotional support, provision of information and knowledge, and parental guidance can empower the parents to be a supportive, directive authority in supervising their children, thereby helping to prevent their recidivism to sexually offensive behavior.
The current study evaluated the predictive validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II) scores in a sample of juveniles who recidivated sexually or nonsexually as adults. Participants included 166 juveniles who had previously sexually offended and were followed into adulthood for an average of 10.75 years. Results of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analyses supported the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II Total Score, Scale 1, and Static Score in regard to adult sexual recidivism, and predictive validity was found for all J-SOAP-II scores (except Scale 1) in regard to adult nonsexual recidivism. Implications for future research on the assessment of risk factors and treatment needs for adolescents who commit sexual offenses are discussed.
Se conceptualizan las distintas aproximaciones teóricas y metodológicas sobre valoración y gestión del riesgo de reincidencia delictiva en menores infractores. Se realiza una revisión sistemática de los instrumentos empleados con mayor frecuencia para valorar y gestionar el riesgo de reincidencia. Se emplean las bases de datos bibliográficos PsycINFO y Google Académico. Se seleccionan aquellos instrumentos cuyas puntuaciones presentan adecuados niveles de validez predictiva y aquellos cuyas características resultan relevantes por su idiosincrasia. Se localizan quince instrumentos: tres escalas actuariales (JSORRAT-II, Static-99 y PCL:YV) y doce instrumentos clínico-estructurados (YLS/CMI, SAVRY, SIED-AJ, EARL-20B, EARL-21G, J-SOAP-II, ERASOR 2.0, MEGA, Asset, ARMIDILO-S, DASH-13 y PREVI-A). Existe una gran variabilidad en los resultados en cuanto a validez predictiva cuando se comparan diferentes estudios realizados con un mismo instrumento. La adecuación de un instrumento al contexto judicial debe basarse en resultados de valores de validez predictiva (AUC) a partir de .70-.75.
The objective of this review article consist of getting to know the validity evidence available in Latin America of the main instruments existing in the international sphere for the appreciation of the sexual recidivism risk in adolescent sexual offenders. For this purpose, a descriptive bibliographical review was carried out where similar or associated key words were used with the matter being analyzed, through the ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases and the Google Scholar metasearch. The results point at Canada and the United States as the major countries in the creation of this type of mechanisms, with tools such as J-SOAP-II, ERASOR 2.0, JSORRAT-II, J-RAT, MEGA and DASH-13. Likewise, a scarcity of researches serving to explore the psychometric properties of these instruments in Latin America and the lack of signs around the construction of those serving for the assessment of sexual violence within this geographical zone. The implications of these effects for evaluation and intervention in adolescent sexual offenders are discussed and the difficulties relating to the overutilization of clinical judgment in risk assessment and/or the use of tools deprived of validity for this population are duly acknowledged
Data from several sources have indicated that violence in general (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012; Finkelhor & Jones, 2004; Sickmund, & Puzzanchera, 2014), and sexual recidivism in adult offenders (Duwe, 2014; Helmus, 2009; Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 2015), has declined substantially in recent decades. This finding is significant because the potential effectiveness of public policies intended to reduce sexual violence in society rests in part on the base rate for re-offense of adjudicated violent offenders. This study examined whether the recidivism base rate for juvenile sexual recidivism has undergone a similar decline in recent decades. We examined 106 studies from 98 reports or data sets involving 33,783 cases of adjudicated juvenile sexual offenders that were carried out between 1938 and 2014. Results showed a weighted mean base rate for sexual recidivism of 4.92% over a mean follow-up time of 58.98 months (SD = 50.97, Median = 52.75). The year of initiation of the study predicted the sexual recidivism rate after controlling for the follow-up time (F? = 14.72, p = .0002). Studies conducted between 2000 and 2015 reported a weighted mean sexual recidivism rate of 2.75%; 73% lower than the rate of 10.30% reported by studies conducted between 1980 and 1995. The implications for public policies, risk assessment methods, and clinical services are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
Research on the assessment of risk with Asian American populations is scarce. In fact, Asian participants have been largely excluded from research on measures that assess for recidivism. In this chapter we review literature on the assessment of risk and recidivism with Asian individuals. In our review of the literature we found evidence that the utilization of actuarial risk factors can assist in accurately predicting risk. Therefore, clinicians are encouraged to use multiple avenues for assessment and to consider that despite the limited research that is available there, research that contradicts the use of the measures with Asian offenders is essentially absent.
Court and mental health workers are frequently asked to determine which juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) are most likely to reoffend. One instrument commonly used to guide decision making with JSOs is the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II). However, research utilizing this instrument has often generated contradictory results, perhaps related to the types of samples studied. The current study sought to compare the predictive accuracy of the J-SOAP-II across two samples of JSOs (a medium-security correctional setting versus an unlocked residential sex offender treatment program). Although the overall predictive accuracy for identifying post-release arrests for sexual offenses (i.e., sexual recidivism) was modest (AUC = .64) and not statistically significant, differences emerged with regard to the accuracy of some individual scales and subscales. Similarly, while no significant differences in predictive accuracy were observed between the two study sites, a number of interesting findings were observed. These findings highlight the need to consider risk assessment measures in light of the setting in which they are used in order to maximize predictive accuracy and optimize treatment and dispositional decision making.
Fanniff and Letourneau concluded that neither their review of the published literature nor their own investigation supported the use of Scale 1 of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II). I argue that empirical findings on Scale 1 are mixed and that there is more support in the literature than one might conclude from reading Fanniff and Letourneau. Their negative conclusions about Scale 1 are based on a flawed literature review as well as problematic methods in their own investigation.
Clinicians are often asked to assess the likelihood that an adolescent who has committed a sexual offense will reoffend. However, there is limited research on the predictive validity of available assessment tools. To help address this gap, this study examined the ability of the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR), the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV), and the Static-99 to predict reoffending in a sample of 193 adolescents. Youth were followed for an average of 7.24 years after discharge from a residential sex offender treatment program. Although none of the instruments significantly predicted detected cases of sexual reoffending, ERASOR’s structured professional judgments nearly reached significance (p = .069). Both the YLS/CMI and the PCL:YV predicted nonsexual violence, any violence, and any offending; however, the YLS/CMI demonstrated incremental validity over the PCL:YV. Although the Static-99 has considerable support with adult sex offenders, it did not predict sexual or general reoffending in the present sample of adolescents.
Presently, there are no established scales that evaluate change in risk among sexual offenders. The Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR) was developed to fill this gap. The SONAR includes five relatively stable factors (intimacy deficits, negative social influences, attitudes tolerant of sex offending, sexual self-regulation, general self-regulation) and four acute factors (substance abuse, negative mood, anger, victim access). The psychometric properties of the scale were examined using data previously collected by Hanson and Harris (1998, 2000). Overall, the scale showed adequate internal consistency and moderate ability to differentiate between recidivists and nonrecidivists (r = 0.43; ROC area of.74). SONAR continued to distinguish between the groups after controlling for well-established risk indicators, such as age, and scores on the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 2000) and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998).
Information was gathered from 485 males younger than 18 being evaluated as possible juvenile sex offenders. More than 60% reported involvement in child molestation, more than 30% in pornography, and 10 to 30% in exhibitionism, fetishism, frottage, voyeurism, obscene phone calls and phone sex. Compared with adult males, juveniles had greater frequencies of fetishism, obscene phone calls, child molestation, and phone sex. Juveniles reported engaging in between 9 and 46 acts of sexual offenses. The average age of onset for the sexual offenses was between 10 and 12 years. Juveniles unwilling to admit violations of common social mores reported fewer sexual offenses than juveniles willing to admit such violations. Of the boys who reported never being accused of child molestation, 41.5% reported they had molested a younger child. Findings are discussed as they pertain to the assessment and treatment of juvenile sexual offenders.
Five actuarial instruments and one guided clinical instrument designed to assess risk for recidivism were compared on 215 sex offenders released from prison for an average of 4.5 years. The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, Rapid Risk Assessment of Sexual Offense Recidivism, and Static-99 predicted general recidivism, serious (violent and sexual) recidivism, and sexual recidivism. The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised and a guided clinical assessment (Multifactorial Assessment of Sex Offender Risk for Recidivism) predicted general recidivism but did not significantly predict serious or sexual recidivism. On its own, the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised predicted general and serious recidivism but not sexual recidivism. The results support the utility of an actuarial approach to risk assessment of sex offenders.
Effective intervention with sexual offenders requires the targeting of appropriate risk factors. In this study, information on dynamic (changeable) risk factors was collected through interviews with community supervision officers and file reviews of 208 sexual offense recidivists and 201 nonrecidivists. The recidivists were generally considered to have poor social supports, attitudes tolerant of sexual assault, antisocial lifestyles, poor self-management strategies, and difficulties cooperating with supervision. The overall mood of the recidivists and nonrecidivists was similar, but the recidivists showed increased anger and subjective distress just before reoffending. The dynamic risk factors reported by the officers continued to be strongly associated with recidivism, even after controlling for preexisting differences in static risk factors. The factors identified in the interview data were reflected (to a lesser extent) in the officers' contemporaneous case notes, which suggests that the interview findings cannot be completely attributed to retrospective recall bias.
The paper describes an evaluation of a risk assessment tool's effectiveness in distinguishing adolescent sexual offenders who had committed further sexual offences from those who had not. The sample consisted of 50 male adolescent sexual offenders referred to a forensic outpatient service within a healthcare setting. The adolescents within the sample were designated recidivists versus non-recidivists using two methods: clinican's judgement and Home Office records for reconvictions. The risk assessment achieved a moderate to high level of sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing the recidivists from non-recidivists using clinician's judgement of recidivism as outcome. However, the tool was unable to distinguish recidivists from non-recidivists. The risk assessment tool described has potential in the identification and modification of contextual and clinical risk factors, in informing professionals’ decision-making and in developing and implementing a comprehensive risk management plan.
In their book,
Violent Offenders, V. L. Quinsey, G. T. Harris, M. E. Rice, and C. A. Cormier (1999) proposed the "complete replacement" of clinical assessments of dangerousness with actuarial methods, such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG). In this article, the author argues that (a) research to date has not demonstrated that actuarial methods of risk assessment are superior to clinical methods; (b) because most clinical determinations of dangerousness are not "predictions" of violence, as well as for other reasons, it is very difficult to meaningfully compare clinical and actuarial assessments of dangerousness; and (c) even the best researched and validated actuarial tool for assessing dangerousness to date, the VRAG, has not yet been validated in a manner that would make it appropriate for use in determining when individuals should be confined on the grounds of their dangerousness. Therefore, although clinicians who engage in risk assessments certainly should be knowledgeable about arguably relevant actuarial assessment schemes and other assessment guides (e.g., the HCR-20), it is premature, at best, to replace clinical risk assessments with actuarial assessments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The development of risk assessment tools that use dynamic variables to predict recidivism and to inform and facilitate violence reduction interventions is the next major challenge in the field of risk assessment and management. This study is the first in a 2-step process to validate the Violence Risk Scale (VRS), a risk assessment tool that integrates violence assessment, prediction, and treatment. Ratings of the 6 static and 20 dynamic VRS variables assess the client's level of risk. Ratings of the dynamic variables identify treatment targets linked to violence, and ratings of the stages of change of the treatment targets assess the client's treatment readiness and change. The VRS scores of 918 male offenders showed good interrater reliability and internal consistency and could predict violent and nonviolent recidivism over both short- and longer term (4.4-year) follow-up. The probability of violent and nonviolent recidivism varied linearly with VRS scores. Dynamic and static variables performed equally well. The results support the contention that the VRS can be used to assess violent risk and to guide violence reduction treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The study compared the predictive accuracy of three sex offender risk-assessment measures: the RRASOR (Hanson, 1997), Thornton's SACJ-Min (Grubin, 1998), and a new scale, Static-99, created by combining the items from the RRASOR and SACJ-Min. Predictive accuracy was tested using four diverse datasets drawn from Canada and the United Kingdom (total n = 1301). The RRASOR and the SACJ-Min showed roughly equivalent predictive accuracy, and the combination of the two scales was more accurate than either original scale. Static-99 showed moderate predictive accuracy for both sexual recidivism (r = 0.33, ROC area = 0.71) and violent (including sexual) recidivism (r = 0.32, ROC area = 0.69). The variation in the predictive accuracy of Static-99 across the four samples was no more than would be expected by chance.
Evidence from 61 follow-up studies was examined to identify the factors most strongly related to recidivism among sexual offenders. On average, the sexual offense recidivism rate was low (13.4%; n = 23,393). There were, however, subgroups of offenders who recidivated at high rates. Sexual offense recidivism was best predicted by measures of sexual deviancy (e.g., deviant sexual preferences, prior sexual offenses) and, to a lesser extent, by general criminological factors (e.g., age, total prior offenses). Those offenders who failed to complete treatment were at higher risk for reoffending than those who completed treatment. The predictors of nonsexual violent recidivism and general (any) recidivism were similar to those predictors found among nonsexual criminals (e.g., prior violent offenses, age, juvenile deliquency). Our results suggest that applied risk assessments of sexual offenders should consider separately the offender's risk for sexual and nonsexual recidivism.
We evaluated the reliability and validity of judgments concerning risk for violence made using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA; Kropp, Hart, Webster, & Eaves, 1994, 1995, 1998). We analyzed SARA ratings in six samples of adult male offenders (total N = 2681). The distribution of ratings indicated that offenders were quite heterogeneous with respect to the presence of individual risk factors and to overall perceived risk. Structural analyses of the risk factors indicated moderate levels of internal consistency and item homogeneity. Interrater reliability was high for judgments concerning the presence of individual risk factors and for overall perceived risk. SARA ratings significantly discriminated between offenders with and without a history of spousal violence in one sample, and between recidivistic and nonrecidivistic spousal assaulters in another. Finally, SARA ratings showed good convergent and discriminant validity with respect to other measures related to risk for general and violent criminality.
Little is known about whether the accuracy of tools for assessment of sexual offender recidivism risk holds across ethnic minority offenders. I investigated the predictive validity across ethnicity for the RRASOR and the Static-99 actuarial risk assessment procedures in a national cohort of all adult male sex offenders released from prison in Sweden 1993-1997. Subjects ordered out of Sweden upon release from prison were excluded and remaining subjects (N = 1303) divided into three subgroups based on citizenship. Eighty-three percent of the subjects were of Nordic ethnicity, and non-Nordic citizens were either of non-Nordic European (n = 49, hereafter called European) or African Asian descent (n = 128). The two tools were equally accurate among Nordic and European sexual offenders for the prediction of any sexual and any violent nonsexual recidivism. In contrast, neither measure could differentiate African Asian sexual or violent recidivists from nonrecidivists. Compared to European offenders, AfricanAsian offenders had more often sexually victimized a nonrelative or stranger, had higher Static-99 scores, were younger, more often single, and more often homeless. The results require replication, but suggest that the promising predictive validity seen with some risk assessment tools may not generalize across offender ethnicity or migration status. More speculatively, different risk factors or causal chains might be involved in the development or persistence of offending among minority or immigrant sexual abusers.
In this retrospective study, the interrater reliability and predictive validity of 2 risk assessment instruments for sexual violence are presented. The SVR-20, an instrument for structured professional judgment, and the Static-99, an actuarial risk assessment instrument, were coded from file information of 122 sex offenders who were admitted to a Dutch forensic psychiatric hospital between 1974 and 1996 (average follow-up period 140 months). Recidivism data (reconvictions) from the Ministry of Justice were related to the risk assessments. The base rate for sexual recidivism was 39%, for nonsexual violent offenses 46%, and for general offenses 74%. Predictive validity of the SVR-20 was good (total score: r = .50, AUC = .80; final risk judgment: r = .60, AUC = .83), of the Static-99 moderate (total score: r = .38, AUC =.71; risk category: r = .30, AUC = .66). The SVR-20 final risk judgment was a significantly better predictor of sexual recidivism than the Static-99 risk category.
The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR) is an empirically guided checklist designed to assist clinicians to estimate the short-term risk of a sexual reoffense for youth aged 12-18 years of age. The ERASOR provides objective coding instructions for 25 risk factors (16 dynamic and 9 static). To investigate the psychometric properties, risk ratings were collected from 28 clinicians who evaluated 136 adolescent males (aged 12-18 years) following comprehensive, clinical assessments. Preliminary psychometric data (i.e., interrater agreement, item-total correlation, internal consistency) were found to be supportive of the reliability and item composition of the tool. ERASOR ratings also significantly discriminated adolescents based on whether or not they had previously been sanctioned for a prior sexual offense.
The Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP) was first developed in 1994 in response to the need for a structured method of assessing risk of recidivism among juvenile sexual offenders (R. A. Prentky, B. Harris, K. Frizzell, & S. Righthand, 2000). Over the ensuing years the scale has been subjected to a series of studies that have sought to examine its psychometric properties and its validity. The current paper reports on results from three of these studies, one of which looks at the factor structure of the items. The other two studies examine concurrent validity by looking at J-SOAP Scales 1 and 2 in relation to the Level of Service Inventory-Youth Version with: Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLSICMI) (R. D. Hoge & D. A. Andrews, 1996) and other selected variables and discriminant validity by looking at the ability of J-SOAP scales to differentiate between juvenile sex offenders in the community and juvenile sex offenders in residential placement. The revision of the scale is discussed based on the research that has developed the scale and the research that has employed it.
A developmental focus in treatment adolescents with sexual issues is often lacking. These issues include an understanding of normative sexual development, identity development, gender identity, sexual orientation, and relationship formation. Sexually vulnerable youth have special problems related to their sexual development that requires a developmental perspective in order to offer effective treatment. Sexually vulnerable youth, a term used by the author, describes youth that are sexually abusive, have been sexually abused and sexual minority youth. The characteristics of these three groups of youth are described and compared and many similarities are noted. A model of healthy sexuality that integrates several theories is presented as a way to conceptualize and understand the special needs of this population.
This study used four Cox regression analyses to examine the predictors of reoffending in a sample of 86 male adolescents adjudicated delinquent for the commission of sexual offenses and treated in a corrections-based sex offender treatment program. The results indicate that the predictors of reoffense, when defined as an arrest, conviction, or parole violation for any new crime, differ somewhat from those found for adults. Specifically, increased risk for reoffense was associated with impulsivity, involvement with significantly younger children, younger age at first offense, and shorter treatment stays. Decreased risk for reoffense was associated with having a male victim, having been a sexual abuse victim, and multiple paraphilias. These factors were not all stable across analyses. These data indicate that the risk prediction methods used for adult sex offenders would not be appropriate for adolescent populations and that more research is needed before attempts are made to develop such tools for adolescents.
Forty convicted male sex offenders were classified as non-contact or contact sex offence recidivists. Non-contact recidivists had a history of non-contact sex offending on two or more occasions. Contact recidivists had a history of non-contact sex offending and recidivated with a contact sex offence. Groups were compared on the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV). Psychosexual variables, criminal history and clinical risk factors were also coded using a multi-variable assessment model. A retrospective-prospective comparison was performed between non-contact and contact recidivist groups. Significant differences between non-contact recidivists and contact recidivists were observed on a number of risk factors. Suggested revisions to the SVR-20 are reported. The research demonstrates that a progressive pattern of sex offending from non-contact sex offending to contact sex offending is reliably associated with a combination of risk factors. This study offers the potential for early detection of escalation in the severity of sex offending.
describe . . . the controversial findings of an eight-year longitudinal study of 561 male sexual assaulters who sought voluntary assessment and/or treatment for their paraphilic disorders (sexual assaults) at the University of Tennessee Center for the Health Sciences in Memphis, and at the New York State Psychiatric Institute in New York City
incarceration versus nonincarceration / the reliability of self-report / recruiting sexual assaulters / assessment methods / demographic characteristics / age of onset of deviant sexual interest / deviant sex acts by specific category of paraphilia / age of target victims / gender of victims / assaultive versus nonassaultive behavior / incestuous versus nonincestuous behavior / rape as a paraphilia (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The primary focus of this book is on criminal violence of both mentally disordered and criminal inmates, whose histories of criminal violence raise serious societal concerns about the commission of future acts of violence. It is difficult for legal experts, psychologists, and policy makers to make decisions that strike the proper balance between an offender's civil liberties and community safety. Such a balance requires an accurate assessment of the likelihood that an individual offender will commit a new violent or sexual offense. On the basis of their research on mentally disordered offenders, sex offenders, fire setters, and psychopathic offenders, the authors have devised an actuarial assessment instrument, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. The authors argue that risk management can be improved by combining what is already known about predicting violence, clinical decision making, and program evaluation. They conclude that the results of their applied research have implications for our understanding of the etiology of violent criminal behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
To evaluate the success of specialized community-based treatment for reducing adolescent sexual reoffending and explore the predictive utility of variables assessed regarding sexual and nonsexual recidivism.
Recidivism data (criminal charges) were collected for 58 offenders participating in at least 12 months of specialized treatment at the SAFE-T Program. Data were also collected for a comparison group of 90 adolescents who received only an assessment (n = 46), refused treatment (n = 17), or dropped out before 12 months (n = 27). Follow-up interval ranged from 2 to 10 years (M = 6.23, SD = 2.02). Offenders completed a battery of psychological tests to provide standardized data regarding social, sexual, and family functioning.
Recidivism rates for sexual, violent nonsexual, and nonviolent offenses for treated adolescents were 5.17%, 18.9%, and 20.7%, respectively. The Comparison group had significantly higher rates of sexual (17.8%), violent nonsexual (32.2%), and nonviolent (50%) recidivism. Sexual recidivism was predicted by sexual interest in children. Nonsexual recidivism was related to factors commonly predictive of general delinquency such as history of previous offenses, low self-esteem, and antisocial personality.
Results support the efficacy of treatment for adolescent sexual offenders and are consistent with the notion that sexual recidivism is predicted by unique factors unrelated to general (nonsexual) reoffending.
States have increasingly subject juvenile sexual offenders to sex offender registration and commitment under sexual predator laws in recent years. These statutes assume that sexual offenders present a sustained risk to recommit sexually violent crimes over an extended time period. Implicit in this assumption is that criminal sexual behavior is a product of some form of stable trait or condition that continues to push the juvenile toward sexually violent behaviors as they get older. This article examines these assumptions in light of the available research on the stability of sexually offending behavior in juveniles. The difficulties attendant to applying adult offender risk assessment models to juvenile sexual offenders are addressed. The available evidence indicates that the development and persistence of sexually criminal behavior is poorly understood, making the prediction of sustained sexual offending in juveniles that is required by some sexual predator statutes a particularly difficult task.