Sex Offenders' Response to Treatment and its Association with Recidivism as a Function of Psychopathy

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between recidivism and ratings of response to specialized cognitive behavioral treatment conducted in a prison setting among 418 sex offenders released to the community for an average follow-up period of over 5 years. As well as testing for a main effect for treatment ratings, the potential role of psychopathy assessed using the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) as a moderator of response to treatment was investigated. Ratings of response to treatment failed to predict either serious (violent including sexual) or sexual recidivism. For the more inclusive outcome of serious recidivism, there was no significant interaction between psychopathy and treatment ratings; however, the ubiquitous effect of psychopathy on recidivism was found to be significant. For sexual recidivism, psychopathy was not significant as a main effect, but a significant interaction between psychopathy and treatment ratings was found. Among sex offenders with PCL-R scores of 25 or higher, those with ratings reflecting a more negative response to treatment recidivated sexually at a faster rate than others. This interaction effect was not significant when treatment noncompleters were removed from the data set. The results were discussed in terms of the methodology involved in the assessment of response to treatment among sex offenders.

Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: Meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised.

“…The exception was the d = 0.96 effect from a study (Beggs & Grace, 2008) in which offenders were scored on the PCL-R at the end of a 9-month intensive treatment program by therapists who knew the offenders well (S. Beggs, personal communication, December 23, 2011). This scenario appears unusual compared to other field studies, in which scores appear to have been assigned by clinicians conducting intake assessment at the start of treatment or incarceration (e.g., Langton et al, 2006) or by practicing forensic evaluators (e.g., Murrie et al, 2012). In both of the latter scenarios, clinicians may still have ample access to law enforcement records but may have less opportunity to observe and interact with offenders over extended time.…”

Psychopathy, expert testimony, and indeterminate sentences: Exploring the relationship between Psychopathy Checklist‐Revised testimony and trial outcome in Canada

“…There is some evidence that psychopathic sex offenders are able to manipulate skilled therapists into wrongly concluding that they have made treatment gains, causing therapist progress ratings to be unrelated to recidivism (Looman et al, 2005;Seto & Barbaree, 1999). However, recent evidence supports the conclusion that treatment may effectively reduce recidivism for some psychopaths and that therapist's ratings are indeed related to reoffending (Barbaree, 2005;Langton et al, 2006). Most clearly, when an adequate amount of intensive treatment is provided for youth with psychopathic traits, rates of violent recidivism are reduced (Caldwell, Skeem, Salekin, & Van Rybroek, 2006).…”

“…PCL-R scores predict general offending and violent offending (Lesticio, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008) to such a degree that some have argued it would be irresponsible for forensic decision makers to fail to take psychopathy into consideration (Heilbrun, Ogloff, & Picarello, 1999). 1 Psychopathic traits predict serious reoffending but are also associated with lower receptivity to currently available treatment programmes (Langton, Barbaree, Harkins, & Peacock, 2006;Looman, Abracen, Serin, & Marquis, 2005;Ogloff, Wong, & Greenwood, 1990). As a result, decision makers may also adopt the PCL-R as a proxy measure of treatment amenability.…”

Long‐term patterns in interpersonal behaviour amongst psychopathic patients in secure inpatient treatment: A follow‐up study

“…In relation to sexual offenders, psychopathy has been shown to be particularly inimical to positive treatment outcomes. It has been shown to relate to higher rates of treatment dropout and faster sexual and violent recidivism (Barbaree, 2005;Gretton et al, 2001;Hildebrand et al, 2004;Langton et al, 2006;Looman et al, 2005;Olver & Wong, 2006, 2009. Most worryingly, those psychopathic individuals who appeared to be doing better in treatment were in one study found to be more likely to recidivate than those who were rated as having poorer treatment behaviour (Seto & Barbaree, 1999).…”