Sexual-Recidivism Base Rates Relevant to SVP Assessments

Zavodny, Denis; DeClue, Gregory; Cohen, Jeanine

doi:10.1037/e665902012-001

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One implication of these findings is that experts and attorneys (most likely defense/respondent attorneys) should consider directly addressing jurors’ a priori beliefs about sexual offenders. For example, it may be beneficial to begin testimony by informing decision makers about the overall low base rate of sexual reoffending as well as the concepts that underlie actuarial assessment, normative group comparison, estimated recidivism rates, and the overall utility of risk assessment measures (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Zavodny, DeClue, & Cohen, 2012). Subsequent case-specific testimony should be better received and better understood with this information as a foundation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Same score, different message: Perceptions of offender risk depend on Static-99R risk communication format.

Varela¹,

Boccaccini²,

Cuervo³

et al. 2014

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The popular Static-99R allows evaluators to convey results in terms of risk category (e.g., low, moderate, high), relative risk (compared with other sexual offenders), or normative sample recidivism rate formats (e.g., 30% reoffended in 5 years). But we do not know whether judges and jurors draw similar conclusions about the same Static-99R score when findings are communicated using different formats. Community members reporting for jury duty (N = 211) read a tutorial on the Static-99R and a description of a sexual offender and his crimes. We varied his Static-99R score (1 or 6) and risk communication format (categorical, relative risk, or recidivism rate). Participants rated the high-scoring offender as higher risk than the low-scoring offender in the categorical communication condition, but not in the relative risk or recidivism rate conditions. Moreover, risk ratings of the high-scoring offender were notably higher in the categorical communication condition than the relative risk and recidivism rate conditions. Participants who read about a low Static-99R score tended to report that Static-99R results were unimportant and difficult to understand, especially when risk was communicated using categorical or relative risk formats. Overall, results suggest that laypersons are more receptive to risk results indicating high risk than low risk and more receptive to risk communication messages that provide an interpretative label (e.g., high risk) than those that provide statistical results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Same score, different message: Perceptions of offender risk depend on Static-99R risk communication format.

Varela¹,

Boccaccini²,

Cuervo³

et al. 2014

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, sexual offenders being considered for SVP commitment are usually a “preselected” subgroup of sex offenders, because a screening procedure or screening committee suspected that they may qualify for SVP commitment and referred them for evaluation. However, other evaluators might note that none of the six research samples that constitute the preselected high-risk/need sample included any offenders at any stage in a contemporary SVP commitment process (Zavodny, DeClue, & Cohen, 2012). They might also note that the only study that has reported Static-99R recidivism rates for offenders whom evaluators concluded qualified for SVP commitment reported recidivism rates similar to the routine sample norms (Boccaccini & Murrie, 2014).…”

Section: Recidivism Rates and Normative Comparison Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance?

Chevalier¹,

Boccaccini²,

Murrie³

et al. 2015

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Sexual-Recidivism Base Rates Relevant to SVP Assessments

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Same score, different message: Perceptions of offender risk depend on Static-99R risk communication format.

Same score, different message: Perceptions of offender risk depend on Static-99R risk communication format.

Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About