Actuarial Risk Assessment of Sexual Offenders

Abstract

The development and promulgation of the actuarial risk assessment methodology are certainly one of the most important advances in forensic and criminological psychology in the last few decades. Actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs) represent highly structured risk assessment scales using combinations of empirically determined and thoroughly operationalized predictor variables. Two further core variables of ARAIs are that they use explicit methods of combining the risk factors, and that the total score is linked to an empirically derived probability figure. Based on Meehl's seminal work in 1954, it is today the most replicated result of psychological assessment research that ARAIs usually yield better predictive accuracy than alternative prognostic approaches. Furthermore, following the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model about the effectiveness of offender rehabilitation programmes proposed by Andrews and Bonta in 2006, ARAIs have to be regarded as an integral part of successful rehabilitation and treatment programmes. This chapter gives an overview of the internationally most important ARAIs for sexual offenders and the current state of research on ARAIs, and discusses the strengths, opportunities, and also potential problems in the application of ARAIs.

Cross-Validation of the Revised Version of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG-R) in a Sample of Individuals Convicted of Sexual Offenses

“…Therefore, we introduce these instruments briefly in the following sections. Due to the focus of the present study on the VRAG-R, we abstained from reporting detailed psychometric properties of these instruments (for further results see, for example, Hanson, Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Harris et al, 2015; Quinsey et al,1998, 2006; Rettenberger & Craig, 2016; Rettenberger, Matthes, Boer, & Eher, 2010; Tully et al, 2013).…”

“…For specifically assessing sexual recidivism risk in individuals who committed a sexual offense, the internationally most commonly used risk assessment instruments are the Static-99/Static-99R , the Stable-2007 and Acute-2007 (Hanson, Harris, Scott, & Helmus, 2007), the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20; Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997), and the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense Version (VRS: SO; Wong, Olver, Nicholaichuk, & Gordon, 2003, 2017; for a current review see Rettenberger & Craig, 2016). In contrast, the most prominent tool for assessing the risk of a general violent (re-)offense in individuals who have committed sexual offenses is the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG; Quinsey et al, 1998, 2006), which is a derivate of the VRAG (Harris et al, 1993; Rice & Harris, 1995).…”

“…This fact was accompanied by an increased perception of the value of structured risk assessment by clinicians as well as legal and public policy decision makers (e.g., Singh et al, 2014). Actuarial risk assessment is currently—along with structured professional judgment (SPJ) instruments—the main methodological approach, and both are clearly preferred over unstructured clinical judgments (e.g., Grove & Meehl, 1996; Hanson, Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Rettenberger & Craig, 2016).…”

Dynamic Risk Assessment of Sexual Offenders: Validity and Dimensional Structure of the Stable-2007

“…Although risk-relevant information is collected from the individual, actuarial risk assessment represents a statistical way to communicate a person’s risk (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Boer & Hart, 2009; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Martens, Rettenberger, & Eher, 2017; Rettenberger & Craig, 2017). Actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs) include explicit rules to combine prespecified items (risk factors) into total risk-scores.…”

“…There are several ARAIs that assess dynamic risk factors in general (Andrews & Bonta, 2000) and in sexual offenders in particular (McGrath, Lasher, & Cumming, 2012; Olver, Wong, Nicholaichuk, & Gordon, 2007; Rettenberger & Craig, 2017; Thornton, 2002). The Stable-2007 (Hanson, Harris, Scott, & Helmus, 2007) is the most commonly used risk assessment instrument in Canada and the United States capturing sexual offender needs (Helmus, Hanson, Thornton, Babchishin, & Harris, 2012; Kelley, Barahal, Thornton, & Olson, 2015; McGrath et al, 2009).…”