The constant multiplier assumption misestimates long-term sex offender recidivism rates.

Wollert, Richard; Cramer, Elliot

doi:10.1037/h0093924

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Doren (2010) recommended that evaluators estimate the lifetime risk by doubling the 5-year sexual recidivism rate. Wollert and Cramer (2012) criticized the use of a constant multiplier because it poorly replicated the observed rates for different risk levels. Better statistical models are needed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Lifetime and Residual Risk for Individuals Who Remain Sexual Offense Free in the Community: Practical Applications

Thornton¹,

Hanson

Kelley

et al. 2019

Sex Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although individuals with a history of sexual crime are often viewed as a lifelong risk, recent research has drawn attention to consistent declines in recidivism risk for those who remain offense free in the community. Because these declines are predictable, this article demonstrates how evaluators can use the amount of time individuals have remained offense free to (a) extrapolate to lifetime recidivism rates from rates observed for shorter time periods, (b) estimate the risk of sexual recidivism for individuals whose current offense is nonsexual but who have a history of sexual offending, and (c) calculate yearly reductions in risk for individuals who remain offense free in the community. In addition to their practical utility for case-specific decision making, these estimates also provide researchers an objective, empirical method of quantifying the extent to which individuals have desisted from sexual crime.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Lifetime and Residual Risk for Individuals Who Remain Sexual Offense Free in the Community: Practical Applications

Thornton¹,

Hanson

Kelley

et al. 2019

Sex Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5Although there have been some proposals for estimating actual recidivism from detected recidivism, these proposals have been seriously flawed (Wollert, 2006; Wollert & Cramer, 2012). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic use of the Static-99R: Part 4. Risk communication.

DeClue¹,

Zavodny²

2014

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Static-99R is 1 of the most widely used tools for assessing sexual-recidivism risk. We draw on recent research and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists to provide succinct answers to 6 basic questions regarding the use of the Static-99R in forensic cases. We suggest that evaluators focus on detected sexual recidivism at the group level, using concepts from the field of public health and safety, expressed in everyday terms. In the absence of local norms, we recommend that evaluators refer to the comparison group that is considered to represent the full population of convicted sex offenders. We encourage evaluators to affirmatively state that there is no evidence that clinical adjustments or overrides enhance the accuracy of actuarial-based risk predictions. We advise evaluators to affirmatively state that there is no objective procedure that can allow an evaluator to reliably and validly predict that someone is more likely than not to sexually recidivate if he is not confined. We present some cross-examination questions that forensic evaluators should be prepared to answer.

show abstract

“…Some researchers proposed multipliers to account for undetected sexual offending as well as long-term risk (Doren, 2010). Others have criticized the use of constant multipliers because it does not account for differences in risk levels (Wollert & Cramer, 2012). Indeed, the current study suggests that different risk groups (e.g., community vs. those with prior sanctions) appear to have different detection rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Sanctions Affect Undetected Sexual Offending?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Undetected sexual offending creates challenges for risk assessment since estimated sexual recidivism rates are based on documented charges or convictions. Courts and other stakeholders may be primarily interested in the true risk for sexual reoffense and not simply risk for detected sexual offenses. Attempts to study and quantify the rate of undetected sexual offending have resulted in a wide variety of estimates. In this study, we explore whether sanctions imposed for detected sexual offenses increase the detection rate of subsequent offenses, and thereby suppress undetected sexual offending in an exceptionally high-risk sample who were ultimately committed as Sexually Violent Persons. Results indicate the detection rate of sexual offenses increased following an initial sanction, subsequently decreasing the proportion of undetected to detected offending. This effect only occurred after the first sanction. Overall, the sample had a high detection rate and spent little time in the community before subsequent arrests. These results differ from other reports that high rates of sexual offenses go undetected.

show abstract

The constant multiplier assumption misestimates long-term sex offender recidivism rates.

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Estimating Lifetime and Residual Risk for Individuals Who Remain Sexual Offense Free in the Community: Practical Applications

Estimating Lifetime and Residual Risk for Individuals Who Remain Sexual Offense Free in the Community: Practical Applications

Forensic use of the Static-99R: Part 4. Risk communication.

Do Sanctions Affect Undetected Sexual Offending?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About