Does Reassessment Improve Prediction? A Prospective Study of the Sexual Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS)

Hanson, R. Karl; Newstrom, Nicholas P.; Brouillette‐Alarie, Sébastien; Thornton, David; Robinson, Beatrice “Bean” E.; Miner, Michael H.

doi:10.1177/0306624x20978204

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within samples of men convicted of sexually motivated crimes, reassessed proximal scores also predicted recidivism better than prior scores (Babchishin & Hanson, 2020;Hanson et al, 2020). Of specific interest, Babchishin and Hanson (2020) found that prediction results differed based on the type of recidivism.…”

Section: Prospective Prediction In the Communitymentioning

confidence: 94%

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

Stone¹,

Lloyd²,

Serin³

2021

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In community-based corrections, reassessment of dynamic risk factors improves the prediction of recidivism relative to initial risk assessment at the time of release. However, there is less evidence for predictions of violent recidivism. We examined whether reassessment proximity or aggregation of reassessments improved the prediction of imminent violence in a sample of paroled individuals on community supervision. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that reassessment of dynamic risk would better predict violent recidivism than initial risk assessment at the time of release. Examination of aggregation and individual risk-factor domains was exploratory. Method: In a prospective study of violent recidivism in a sample of individuals on community supervision in New Zealand (75,917 assessments from 3,421 participants; 92.8% men), we used supervision officers’ ratings of dynamic risk (assessed using Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry [DRAOR]) and static risk scores (using the Risk of ReConviction × Risk of Imprisonment) to predict imminent violence (within 2 weeks). Results: Individuals who recidivated violently had higher initial risk ratings (DRAOR Stable d = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17, 0.55]; DRAOR Acute d = 0.45, 95% CI [0.26, 0.64]) and showed more week-to-week fluctuations in risk ratings (DRAOR Stable d = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.41]; DRAOR Acute d = 0.26, 95% CI [0.06,0.46]). Total averages of faster-changing acute risk factors best predicted violence (c-index = 0.68), with changes in these factors incrementally predicting violence over well-established predictors (criminal history) and initial scores (Δχ2 = 15.54, df = 3). The constructs that best discriminated violence were consistent with social cognition explanations of violence. Conclusions: Because client consistency as determined through score aggregation was more important than current presentation, supervision officers should consider overall patterns of interpersonal hostility and reactivity rather than assuming the emerging presence of these factors will signal imminent violence among previously violent individuals.

show abstract

Section: Prospective Prediction In the Communitymentioning

confidence: 94%

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

Stone¹,

Lloyd²,

Serin³

2021

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compared to Time 1 and 2, Time 3 yielded the cleanest correlation matrix, the most consistent number of factors (according to the various factor retention criteria), and the best fit indices. Time 3 scores were also privileged because, as a dynamic risk tool, the most recent scores are expected to be the most valid, and there was some evidence that this was the case in the current sample (Hanson et al, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Factor Structure of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of risk of sexual recidivism has progressed from tools containing only static factors to tools including dynamic (i.e., changeable) risk factors. The psychometric properties and factor structure of one such scale, the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS) were explored. Seven hundred and thirty-one men assigned probation for sexual crimes in New York City and Maricopa County, Arizona were administered SOTIPS three times: intake into probation, six months later, and six months after that. SOTIPS showed good internal consistency (Time 1 ω = .87, Time 2 ω = .89, and Time 3 ω = .91), and acceptable inter-rater reliability (for the 26 cases rated in the same month, ICC =.821). An exploratory factor analysis did not result in the original factor structure proposed by the developers; instead, SOTIPS showed two factors: sexual risk and antisocial opposition. This factor structure required the averaging of two items to avoid collinearity. SOTIPS showed temporal invariance indicating that its factor structure and its association to underlying latent variables are consistent over time.

show abstract

“…However, recently, researchers have begun exploring various ways to capture fluctuations in dynamic risk over time. Instead of relying on the most recent assessment, other methods (e.g., using a rolling mean, the highest score to date, the lowest score to date, or the moving rolling mean; Babchishin & Hanson, 2020; Chu, Thomas, Daffern, et al, 2013; Davies et al, 2021; Hanson et al, 2021; Howard & Dixon, 2013; Lloyd et al, 2020) have been investigated to account for measurement error associated with a single assessment (Epstein, 1983) and consider whether periods of crisis or improvement, as reflected by changes in the presence of stable and acute dynamic risk factors, are more important than an enduring presentation. Additionally, researchers have begun investigating the dynamic nature of acute risk assessments and their incremental validity compared to an initial assessment (Babchishin & Hanson, 2020; Davies et al, 2021; Hanson et al, 2021; Howard & Dixon, 2013; Lloyd et al, 2020).…”

Section: Risk Assessment In Forensic Mental Health Inpatient Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the dynamic nature of multiple risk assessment instruments in a forensic mental health hospital.

Simmons¹,

Ogloff²,

Daffern³

2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and Forensicare Readministration of multiple risk assessment instruments to determine the risk of aggression over the short, medium, and long term is common practice in many forensic mental health settings. Justification for the repeated administration and use of multiple instruments is based on purported differences in discriminative validity of risk factors according to whether they are characterized as static, stable, or acute, and the composition of these tools, in terms of the relative balance of different types of risk factors, which can impact the discriminative validity of these instruments over different follow-up periods. However, research has yet to determine whether the use of multiple and repeated administration of risk assessment instruments improves identification of risk, and it may be the case that the heavy burden on service providers to administer multiple instruments is unwarranted. In this study, time-dependent cox regression with repeated assessments and recurrent events was used to investigate the dynamic nature and incremental validity of the dynamic appraisal of situational aggression (DASA), short-term assessment of risk and treatability (START), and HCR-20 v3 , which were repeatedly rated on a sample of forensic mental health inpatients (N = 240) over a 2-year period. Results suggest that using the rolling mean or the most recent risk assessment yielded the most accurate characterization of change in aggression risk. Repeated administration of dynamic risk instrument instruments improved the identification of aggression beyond the initial risk assessment. Although static, stable, and acute factors were significantly related to aggression, the combination of data from multiple risk assessment instruments may not result in clinically meaningful improvements in risk identification. Public Significance StatementAlthough it is common practice for forensic mental health services to use an array of risk assessment instruments to guide short-, medium-, and long-term risk mitigation, this study suggests that the administration of multiple risk assessment instruments fails to appreciably increase discriminative validity. Services may benefit from streamlining risk assessment protocols that use multiple instruments, as the combination of instruments may not meaningfully improve the identification of inpatient aggression.

show abstract

Does Reassessment Improve Prediction? A Prospective Study of the Sexual Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS)

Cited by 13 publications

References 72 publications

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

Reliability and Factor Structure of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale

Investigating the dynamic nature of multiple risk assessment instruments in a forensic mental health hospital.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About