We surveyed experts (N = 109) who conduct sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to obtain information about their Static-99R score reporting and interpretation practices. Although most evaluators reported providing at least 1 normative sample recidivism rate estimate, there were few other areas of consensus. Instead, reporting practices differed depending on the side for which evaluators typically performed evaluations. Defense evaluators were more likely to endorse reporting practices that convey the lowest possible level of risk (e.g., routine sample recidivism rates, 5-year recidivism rates) and the highest level of uncertainty (e.g., confidence intervals, classification accuracy), whereas prosecution evaluators were more likely to endorse practices suggesting the highest possible level of risk (e.g., high risk/need sample recidivism rates, 10-year recidivism rates). Reporting practices from state-agency evaluators tended to be more consistent with those of prosecution evaluators than defense evaluators, although state-agency evaluators were more likely than other evaluators to report that it was at least somewhat difficult to choose an appropriate normative comparison group. Overall, findings provide evidence for adversarial allegiance in Static-99R score reporting and interpretation practices.

Scores from risk measures are a primary focus for scholars and forensic evaluators who attempt to estimate sex-offender recidivism risk. But do they matter to the jurors who make decisions about sex offenders in civil commitment trials? We surveyed jurors at the end of 26 sexually violent predator trials to examine the relation between risk-measure scores reported at trial and jurors' beliefs about the likelihood that the respondent would commit a new sexual offense if released. Jurors' perceptions of respondents' recidivism risk were not associated with respondents' scores on the Static-99 (R. K. Hanson

We surveyed evaluators who conduct sexually violent predator evaluations ( N = 95) regarding the frequency with which they use the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), their rationale for use, and scoring practices. Findings suggest that evaluators use the PCL-R in sexually violent predator cases because of its perceived versatility, providing information about both mental disorder and risk. Several findings suggested gaps between research and routine practice. For example, relatively few evaluators reported providing the factor and facet scores that may be the strongest predictors of future offending, and many assessed the combination of PCL-R scores and sexual deviance using deviance measures (e.g., paraphilia diagnoses) that have not been examined in available studies. There was evidence of adversarial allegiance in PCL-R score interpretation, as well as a "bias blind spot" in PCL-R and other risk measure (Static-99R) scoring; evaluators tended to acknowledge the possibility of bias in other evaluators but not in themselves. Findings suggest the need for evaluators to carefully consider the extent to which their practices are consistent with emerging research and to be attuned to the possibility that working in adversarial settings may influence their scoring and interpretation practices.

No abstract

The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid (KSOG) is a commonly used framework in research and public education despite limited psychometric evaluation to date. Previous literature argues for theory-or Principal Components Analysis (PCA)-driven KSOG models based on time (i.e., past, present, and future self-concept) across 7 dimensions, or nuanced factor structures combining time with general sexual orientation subscales. Using a sample of 277 self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community members in a low socioeconomic stats (SES) urban district, the present study exposed these KSOG models, as well as 2 single-factor total scores, to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We further tested evidence of disparities in past, present and future (ideal) scores, as well as the possibility of a unique factor structure in the present sample. Results showed the following: (a) significant, yet modestly sized, differences in past scores from present and ideal scores; (b) inadequate statistical fit of all previous KSOG factor structures; and (c) a complex and unique 3-factor structure in the present sample which also failed to display adequate fit after exposure to CFA modeling. Implications are discussed emphasizing KSOG refinement and careful consideration when using the KSOG in research, education, and practice. We also offer future research directions for additional KSOG development.