Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
net/publication/247744837
Evaluating the Predictive Accuracy of Six Risk Assessment Instruments for Adult Sex
Offenders
CITATIONS READS
327 1,133
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Incest aversion, Inbreeding avoidance, and Intra-familial sexual abuse View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael C Seto on 17 November 2015.
HOWARD E. BARBAREE
MICHAEL C. SETO
CALVIN M. LANGTON
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and University of Toronto
EDWARD J. PEACOCK
Correctional Service of Canada
Five actuarial instruments and one guided clinical instrument designed to assess risk for recidi-
vism were compared on 215 sex offenders released from prison for an average of 4.5 years. The
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, Rapid Risk Assessment of
Sexual Offense Recidivism, and Static-99 predicted general recidivism, serious (violent and sex-
ual) recidivism, and sexual recidivism. The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised
and a guided clinical assessment (Multifactorial Assessment of Sex Offender Risk for Recidi-
vism) predicted general recidivism but did not significantly predict serious or sexual recidivism.
On its own, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised predicted general and serious recidivism but not
sexual recidivism. The results support the utility of an actuarial approach to risk assessment of
sex offenders.
AUTHORS’ NOTE: We would like to thank Karl Hanson, Martin Lalumière, and
Vernon Quinsey for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
We would also like to express our gratitude to our research assistants Michelle
Adams, Leigh Harkins, Alexandra Maric, and Jennifer McCormick. Finally, we want
to recognize the staff at the Warkworth Sexual Behaviour Clinic, the administration of
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 28 No. 4, August 2001 490-521
© 2001 American Association for Correctional Psychology
490
Barbaree et al. / SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 491
Warkworth Institution, and the staff at the National Parole Board office in Kingston,
Ontario, for their help and support. Support for this study was provided by a research
contract with the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada (9414-CL/525),
awarded to the first author, and two research contracts with the Correctional Service
of Canada (21150-6-7605 and 21150-7-6614), awarded to the first and second
authors. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada or the Correctional
Service of Canada. Please address correspondence to Howard E. Barbaree or
Michael C. Seto, Law and Mental Health Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental
Health, 1001 Queen Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6J 1H4; e-mail:
Howard_Barbaree@camh.net or Michael_Seto@camh.net.
492 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
1997), Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999), and the Minnesota Sex
Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) (Epperson, Kaul, &
Hesselton, 1998). These five actuarial instruments are objectively
scored and provide probabilistic estimates of risk based on the empiri-
cal relationships between their combination of items and the outcome
of interest. The probabilistic estimates indicate the percentage of peo-
ple with the same score who would be expected to reoffend within a
defined period of opportunity. It is not surprising that the instruments
have similar item content; in fact, the SORAG is a modification of the
VRAG, and the Static-99 includes all four RRASOR items.
The VRAG accurately predicts violent recidivism among male
offenders, including sex offenders (Harris et al., 1993; Rice & Harris,
1995, 1997; reviewed in Quinsey et al., 1998). The operational defini-
tion of violent recidivism for the VRAG includes all offenses against
persons, including assault, armed robbery, sexual offenses that
involve physical contact with the victim, homicide, and attempted
homicide. It does not include offenses such as uttering threats or sex-
ual offenses that do not involve contact, such as possession of child
pornography or indecent exposure. Hare’s (1991) Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), a reliable and valid measure of psychop-
athy among male forensic patients and correctional inmates, is an
important item in this instrument. Rice and Harris (1997) reported that
VRAG scores correlated .44 with violent recidivism and .17 specifi-
cally with sexual recidivism in a sample of 288 sex offenders followed
for an average of 10 years; the corresponding areas (AUC1) under the
Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve were .76 and .60,
respectively. The VRAG was developed using a sample of predomi-
nantly mentally disordered offenders, but its utility has since been
demonstrated in correctional samples of offenders (Kroner & Mills,
1997; Loza & Dhaliwal, 1997).
The SORAG is a modification of the VRAG, developed specifi-
cally to predict violent recidivism (which includes sexual offenses
involving physical contact with the victim) among male sex offenders.
The same procedure used in developing the VRAG was followed to
identify and weigh items; 10 of its 14 items are the same as items in the
VRAG. Rice and Harris (1997) reported that a scale composed of
items closely resembling the SORAG performed as well as the VRAG
in predicting violent recidivism among sex offenders, and Bélanger
Barbaree et al. / SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 493
and Earls (1996) found that the SORAG had an AUC of .82 with an
outcome of parole failure or recidivism of any kind in a sample of 57
Canadian sex offenders released from prison. Rice and Harris (1999),
in a cross-validation sample of sex offenders released in Ontario,
found that the VRAG and SORAG were highly correlated with each
other, and both significantly predicted violent and sexual recidivism.
Assigning raw scores to four instead of nine risk categories, Firestone,
Bradford, Greenberg, Nunes, and Broom (2001) found that the
SORAG was significantly associated with violent (including sexual)
recidivism in a sample of 558 Canadian sex offenders with an average
follow-up time of slightly more than 7 years; however, the AUC of .63
was lower than the values reported in other studies.
In their meta-analytic review of 61 data sets representing more than
20,000 sex offenders, Hanson and Bussiére (1998) found that indica-
tors of deviant sexual interests—number of prior sexual offenses,
phallometrically measured sexual arousal to children—consistently
predicted sexual recidivism (both contact and noncontact offenses).
Drawing from these results, Hanson (1997) selected variables with a
minimum correlation of .10 with sexual recidivism and developed a
brief actuarial scale with four items, representing the best independent
predictors of sexual reoffending. Across seven development samples,
comprising a total of 2,592 sex offenders, Hanson found that
RRASOR scores had an average correlation of .27 with sexual recidi-
vism, with an average AUC of .71, ranging from .62 to .77. The predic-
tive validity of the RRASOR for sexual recidivism has been replicated
in a number of as yet unpublished studies (Haynes, Yates,
Nicholaichuk, Gu, & Bolton, 2000; Smiley, Hills, & McHattie, 2000).
In a large cross-validation sample of 1,400 sex offenders followed for
an average of almost 4 years in Sweden, Sjöstedt and Långström
(2000) found that the RRASOR had a correlation of .22 and an AUC of
.72 with sexual recidivism.
The Static-99 incorporates the items from the RRASOR as well as
items from the Structured Anchored Clinical Judgement scale devel-
oped in the United Kingdom (Hanson & Thornton, 1999, 2000).
Hanson and Thornton reported that scores on the Static-99 correlated
.33 with sexual recidivism and .32 with sexual or violent recidivism in
a combined sample of 1,208 sex offenders, drawn from four sources;
the corresponding AUCs were .71 and .69, respectively. Three of the
494 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The sample consisted of 215 adult sex offenders who were assessed
at the Warkworth Sexual Behaviour Clinic (WSBC), a prison-based
sex offender treatment program, between June 1989 and June 1996.
Selection for sex offenders for inclusion in the WSBC program did not
involve any specific selection or exclusionary criteria. All sex offend-
ers housed at Warkworth Penitentiary were eligible for treatment at
the WSBC and were actively encouraged to participate by their case
managers and treatment staff. All offenders who sought treatment
were admitted to the program on a priority basis depending on their
projected release date, with earlier release leading to earlier admis-
sion. Of course, offenders who did not consent to participation were
not included in the program and would not be represented in the pres-
ent study. The present sample represents all the offenders seen at the
WSBC who had relatively complete information in their files for cod-
Barbaree et al. / SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 497
ing the risk assessment instruments and who were released from
prison and at risk for offending during the follow-up period. Approxi-
mately half the sample had index sexual offenses involving females
age 14 or older, and the remainder had index sexual offenses involving
female or male children younger than 14 years old. Approximately
half of the offenders against children committed offenses against bio-
logically or legally related children, and the remainder committed
their offenses against at least one unrelated child. Many of these
offenders (n = 153) were in a follow-up study recently reported by
Seto and Barbaree (1999).
The average age of the sample was 37.6 years (SD = 10.6, ranging
from 21 to 68). Participants had an average grade 9 level of education
(SD = 2.4, ranging from grade 1 to high school graduation) and had an
average Blishen Index score of 33.4 (SD = 8.3). The Blishen Index is
based on the individual’s most recent occupation and takes into
account the median education and income for major occupational cat-
egories drawn from Canadian census data; examples of occupations
with Blishen scores in the low 30s include construction tradesperson
or truck driver (Blishen, Carroll, & Moore, 1987). Data on socioeco-
nomic status were available for only 140 participants because many
were unemployed, attending school, or retired at the time of their
index offense. Thirty-two percent of the sample were married or in
common-law relationships at the time of their involvement with the
Warkworth program, 43% were separated, divorced, or widowed, and
25% had never been married.
MEASURES
antisocial, and socially deviant lifestyle,” with only two items specifi-
cally pertaining to criminal behavior.
The conventional cutoff for making a diagnosis of psychopathy is
30. The total score can also be interpreted as reflecting the probability
that an individual is a psychopath (Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1994).
The PCL-R was scored from interview and file information by pre-
dominantly master’s-level clinicians as part of the intake assessment
at the WSBC. The PCL-R allows up to 5 missing items; scores were
prorated accordingly.
Descriptive statistics for the PCL-R are shown in Table 1. To serve
as a comparison for the risk assessment instruments evaluated in this
study, the PCL-R was also submitted to the ROC analysis. Participants
were assigned to one of eight risk categories based on their scores,
divided into equal intervals (1 = 0 to 5, 2 = 6 to 10, 3 = 11 to 15, and
so on).
MASORR
PCL-R VRAG SORAG RRASOR Static-99 MnSOST-R Pretreatment Posttreatment
1 7 1 0 1 27 0 41 0 26 1 5 1 9 1 8
2 43 2 4 2 19 1 76 1 21 2 31 2 26 2 27
3 58 3 32 3 30 2 52 2 33 3 46 3 48 3 62
4 48 4 65 4 47 3 24 3 43 4 34 4 66 4 39
5 31 5 60 5 28 4 14 4 35 5 27 5 66 5 33
6 17 6 37 6 27 5 8 5 24 6 7
7 8 7 17 7 25 6 0 6+ 33
8 0 8 0 8 10
9 0 9 2
NOTE: PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; VRAG = Violence Risk Appraisal Guide; SORAG = Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide;
RRASOR = Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism; MnSOST-R = Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised; MASORR =
Multifactorial Assessment of Sex Offender Risk for Recidivism. PCL-R, VRAG, SORAG, and MnSOST-R scores are reported in terms of risk cat-
egories. IRR = Interrater reliability, calculated as Pearson correlations between total scores.
499
500 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
DATA COLLECTION
lihood of being granted parole among those who were eligible, r(162) =
–.51, p < .001.
The average time at risk for reoffense was 4.5 years (SD = 2.2,
range = 29 days to 9.9 years). We distinguished between any recidi-
vism, meaning a reoffense of any kind, serious recidivism, meaning a
new nonsexually violent or sexual reoffense, and specifically sexual
recidivism. Sexual recidivism could include both contact and non-
contact offenses, but all sexual reoffenses identified in the April 2000
follow-up involved physical contact with the victim. For the entire
sample of 215 offenders, the recidivism rates after an average of 4.5
years’ follow-up time were 38% for reoffenses of any kind, 24% for
serious reoffenses, and 9% for sexual reoffenses.
RESULTS
group of 150 participants with scores available for all the risk assess-
ment instruments.
CONCURRENT VALIDITY
MASORR
Measure PCL-R VRAG SORAG RRASOR Static-99 MnSOST-R Pretreatment Posttreatment
PCL-R —
VRAG .70** —
SORAG .72** .90** —
RRASOR .13 .14* .38** —
Static-99 .45** .49** .67** .75** —
MnSOST-R .30** .36** .41** .32** .46** —
MASORR, Pretreatment .54** .36** .47** .38** .50** .37** —
MASORR, Posttreatment .32** .18* .33** .42** .44** .32** .65** —
NOTE: PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; VRAG = Violence Risk Appraisal Guide; SORAG = Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide;
RRASOR = Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism; MnSOST-R = Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised; MASORR =
Multifactorial Assessment of Sex Offender Risk for Recidivism. N = 215 except for the PCL-R, which was available for 212 participants, the
MnSOST-R, which was available for 150 participants, and the posttreatment MASORR rating, which was available for 169 participants.
* p < .05. ** p < .001.
TABLE 3: Areas Under the Curve of the Relative Operating Characteristic for the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and the Risk
Assessment Instruments (using all available participant scores)
MASORR
Outcome Ratea PCL-R VRAG SORAG RRASOR Static-99 MnSOST-R Pretreatment Posttreatment
Any reoffense 38% .71** (.037) .77** (.034) .76** (.033) .60* (.040) .71** (.036) .65** (.046) .62** (.042) .56 (.046)
Serious reoffense 24% .65** (.043) .69** (.040) .73** (.037) .65** (.043) .70** (.040) .58 (.054) .58 (.050) .54 (.052)
Sexual reoffense 9% .61 (.064) .61* (.068) .70** (.060) .77** (.050) .70** (.050) .65 (.077) .61 (.078) .60 (.092)
NOTE: PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; VRAG = Violence Risk Appraisal Guide; SORAG = Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide;
RRASOR = Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism; MnSOST-R = Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised; MASORR =
Multifactorial Assessment of Sex Offender Risk for Recidivism. Standard errors are in parentheses. Italicized values indicate the outcomes for
which the risk assessment instruments were originally designed to predict. N = 215 except for the PCL-R, which was available for 212 partici-
pants, the MnSOST-R, which was available for 150 participants, and the posttreatment MASORR rating, which was available for 169 participants.
a. Calculated for the total sample of 215 participants.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
507
508 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
Recidivism
Measure Any Serious Sexual
Pretreatment
Outcome Rate PCL-R VRAG SORAG RRASOR Static-99 MnSOST-R MASORR
Any reoffense 43% .68** (.045) .76** (.040) .78** (.038) .61* (.048) .76** (.040) .65** (.046) .62* (.051)
Serious reoffense 27% .63* (.051) .66** (.048) .71** (.043) .65** (.052) .70** (.047) .58 (.054) .57 (.061)
Sexual reoffense 9% .61 (.069) .58 (.080) .68** (.070) .73** (.073) .68* (.070) .65 (.077) .63 (.091)
NOTE: PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; VRAG = Violence Risk Appraisal Guide; SORAG = Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide;
RRASOR = Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism; MnSOST-R = Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised; MASORR =
Multifactorial Assessment of Sex Offender Risk for Recidivism. Standard errors are in parentheses. Italicized values indicate the outcomes for
which the methods were designed to predict. N = 150 for all risk assessment instruments except N = 148 for the PCL-R.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Barbaree et al. / SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 511
DISCUSSION
Results from the present study using the VRAG confirm findings
published previously. Specifically, the VRAG has been found to pre-
dict violent and sexual recidivism among sex offenders (Harris et al.,
1993; Rice & Harris, 1995, 1997; reviewed in Quinsey et al., 1998).
Rice and Harris (1997) reported that the VRAG resulted in AUCs of
.76 and .60 for violent and sexual recidivism, respectively. The present
study found AUCs of .69 and .61, respectively. Similarly, results from
the present study using the SORAG confirm findings published previ-
ously. Specifically, the SORAG has been reported to predict serious
recidivism among sex offenders (Quinsey et al., 1998). Firestone et al.
(2001) found that the SORAG resulted in an AUC of .65 for sexual
recidivism. The present study reported AUCs of .73 and .70 for serious
and sexual recidivism, respectively. Results from the present study
confirm findings published previously using the RRASOR. Spe-
cifically, the RRASOR predicts sexual recidivism. Hanson (1997)
reported that the RRASOR resulted in AUCs ranging from .62 to .77.
Sjöstedt and Långström (2000) found that the RRASOR resulted in an
AUC of .72. The present study reported an AUC of .76 for sexual
recidivism. Finally, results from the present study confirm findings
published previously using the Static-99. Specifically, the Static-99
predicts both serious and sexual recidivism. Hanson and Thornton
(2000) reported that use of the Static-99 resulted in AUCs of .71 and
.69 for serious and sexual recidivism, respectively. Beech et al. (2000)
found that the Static-99 had an AUC of .73 in predicting sexual recidi-
vism. Firestone et al. (2001) found that the Static-99 predicted sexual
recidivism with an AUC of .61, and sexual or violent recidivism with
an AUC of .62. Sjöstedt and Långström (2000) reported AUCs of .76
for sexual recidivism and .74 for nonsexually violent recidivism. The
present study reported an AUC of .70 for both sexual and serious
recidivism.
One reasonable objective of the present study might have been to
identify a single actuarial instrument that would provide the field with
superior predictive capability. No one instrument was found to be
superior in predicting recidivism outcome.
However, not every actuarial instrument was found to be successful
in predicting outcome. The fifth of the actuarial instruments
(MnSOST-R) failed to meet conventional levels of statistical signifi-
cance in the prediction of serious and sexual recidivism, although it
Barbaree et al. / SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 513
correlation with the RRASOR was very low. It may be that the PCL-R
and the RRASOR each tap different independent contributors to
recidivism (psychopathy and sexual deviance).
It should be noted here that conventional scoring of the PCL-R
requires specialized training, lengthy file review, and an interview that
may take up to 2 hours to complete. The VRAG and SORAG require
the PCL-R score as an important component item. In the event that the
PCL-R score is not available in the clinical file, scoring the VRAG and
the SORAG therefore require the additional scoring of the PCL-R, a
requirement that is expensive and time consuming. The present study
found that the RRASOR and the Static-99, instruments that do not
include the PCL-R, were equal to the PCL-R-based instruments in
their reliability and their ability to predict serious and sexual recidi-
vism among sex offenders. This finding may be good news for settings
that do not have PCL-R scores available or that do not have the
resources to conduct these personality assessments.
Among the successful actuarial instruments, the RASORR was by
far the easiest to score, and its performance was in many ways remark-
able. The AUC found for sexual recidivism was numerically superior
to the other instruments, although this difference was not statistically
significant. We should conclude that, in the present study, the
RRASOR was at least equal in predictive validity to other actuarial
instruments that are more difficult and time consuming to score. This
is particularly remarkable when you realize that one of its items takes
account of whether the individual has ever offended against an unre-
lated child, and the direct comparison between instruments in the
present study excluded incest offenders. Therefore, its strong perfor-
mance here would have depended on only three simply scored items.
One important caveat on the scoring of the RRASOR is important
to make. Assuming that our computerized database provided adequate
proxies for the simply scored RRASOR items, we initially scored the
RRASOR by recoding these database variables. Using these data, we
initially found that the RRASOR, and indeed the Static-99 (which
included the RRASOR items), were not successful in predicting recid-
ivism. Subsequently, when we calculated the reliability of our scoring,
we detected important differences between the independent rater
scoring the RRASOR directly from the file and the recoded database
variables. When RRASOR scores were coded directly from the files,
516 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
we found the results reported here. When coded directly from the files,
the RRASOR was successful in predicting recidivism in sex
offenders.
As mentioned in the introduction, the SORAG contains many items
from the VRAG. In addition, it contains items specifically designed to
capture contributions to reoffending in sex offenders. As discussed in
Quinsey et al. (1998), statistical comparisons between these two
instruments would assess the marginal utility of the additional items in
the SORAG. The present study found no significant differences
between the VRAG and SORAG in the prediction of recidivism out-
come in sex offenders.
In a similar vein, as mentioned in the introduction, the Static-99
contains the four items from the RRASOR, as well as additional items
from an instrument developed by David Thornton in England. The
Static-99 was designed to be an improvement over the RRASOR
(Hanson & Thornton, 2000). Statistical comparisons of the RRASOR
and the Static-99 would assess the extent to which the Static-99 repre-
sents an improvement over the RRASOR. The present study reported
no significant differences between the RRASOR and the Static-99.
Examination of the tables of AUCs indicate that the performance of
the RRASOR and Static-99 were similar with respect to serious and
sexual recidivism. However, the RRASOR appears to fall short of the
Static-99 in the prediction of general recidivism. The direct statistical
comparisons were not made due to a concern for increases in Type I
error.
Treatment-related information did not improve the prediction of
recidivism in the present study. The global MASORR rating of
posttreatment risk did not significantly predict any of the recidivism
outcomes, whereas the global MASORR rating of pretreatment risk
did predict recidivism of any kind. This finding is consistent with the
results of Seto and Barbaree (1999), who found that positive treatment
behavior was actually associated with a greater risk for offending,
especially with higher scores on the PCL-R. In a similar vein, the
correlational analysis revealed that the institutional item subtotal on
the MnSOST-R was less informative with regard to recidivism of any
kind than the historical item subtotal. This finding has important
implications for the assessment of risk with sex offenders. Many pro-
Barbaree et al. / SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 517
from the clinical file as does the MASORR offense history compo-
nent. However, unlike the subjectively scored MASORR, the
RRASOR structures and quantifies the scoring, ensuring that such
scoring is applied consistently across subjects and raters. The present
study was unable to report that the MASORR ratings were reliable but
found very high reliability for the RRASOR ratings. The RRASOR’s
correlation with sexual recidivism was found to be numerically higher
(.26 vs. .18) than the MASORR’s. Therefore, whereas a guided clini-
cal approach to risk assessment may be found to predict recidivism
from time to time, an actuarial approach is favored over the clinical
judgments because of consistently superior reliability and validity.
We do not mean to imply that the assessment of sex offender risk for
reoffense cannot be improved. Other variables may provide informa-
tion over and above the combination of items that are already included
in a particular instrument. Of particular interest is research on proxi-
mal antecedents of reoffending, including noncompliance with super-
vision, substance abuse, access to potential victims, and acute psychi-
atric symptoms such as persecutory delusions (Hanson & Harris,
1998; Quinsey, Coleman, Jones, & Altrows, 1997). It is clear from the
results of the present study, however, that the development and modifi-
cation of new risk assessment instruments for sex offenders must be
guided by validation research.
NOTE
1. Many of the indices commonly used to evaluate predictive accuracy, such as correlations
or percentage of recidivists and nonrecidivists correctly classified, are influenced by the base
rate (e.g., the proportion of individuals who reoffend) and selection ratio (e.g., the proportion of
individuals predicted to reoffend). Mossman (1994) and Rice and Harris (1995) have proposed
that area under the ROC curve is the most appropriate index in the assessment of accuracy in pre-
diction of recidivism. ROC curves are obtained by plotting the sensitivity of a prediction instru-
ment as a function of specificity (Hanley & McNeil, 1982, 1983). In the context of predicting
sexual recidivism, the area under the curve (AUC) represents the probability that a randomly
selected individual who commits a new sexual offense has a higher score on the prediction
instrument than a randomly selected individual who does not. AUC values can range from 0 to 1;
an AUC of .5 represents prediction at the chance level, whereas values higher or lower than .5
indicate better or worse performance, respectively.
Barbaree et al. / SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 519
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-
ders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Barbaree, H. E., & Seto, M. C. (1998). The ongoing follow-up of sex offenders treated at the
Warkworth Sexual Behaviour Clinic. Research report prepared for the Correctional Service
of Canada.
Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., & Maric, A. (1995). Sex offender characteristics, response to treat-
ment, and correctional release decisions at the Warkworth Sexual Behaviour Clinic
(Research report 1996-73). Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor-General.
Beech, A., Beckett, R., & Fisher, D. (2000). Outcome data of representative UK sex offender
treatment programs: Short-term effectiveness and some preliminary re-conviction data.
Unpublished manuscript.
Bélanger, N., & Earls, C. M. (1996). Sex offender recidivism prediction. Forum on Corrections
Research, 8, 22-24.
Blishen, B. R., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioeconomic index for occupa-
tions in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 24, 465-488.
Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism
among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-
142.
Dempster, R. J. (1998). Prediction of sexual violent recidivism: A comparison of risk assessment
instruments. Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University.
Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., & Hesselton, D. (1998). Final report on the development of the Min-
nesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R). Paper presented at the 17th
Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Vancouver, Brit-
ish Columbia.
Epperson, D. L., Kaul, J. D., Huot, S. J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Goldman, R. (2000,
November). Cross-validation of the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised. Paper
presented at the 17th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers, San Diego, California.
Firestone, P., Bradford, J. M., Greenberg, D. M., Nunes, K. L., & Broom, I. (2001). A compari-
son of the Static-99 and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). Manuscript sub-
mitted for publication.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender
recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating
characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29-36.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating
characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839-843.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidi-
vism (User report 1997-04). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R. K. (1998). What do we know about sexual offender risk assessment? Psychology,
Public Policy and Law, 4, 50-72.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiére, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender
recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism (User report 1998-
01). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
520 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex
offenders (User report 1999-02). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A compar-
ison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered
offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 20, 315-335.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1994). Psychopathy as a taxon: Evidence that psy-
chopaths are a discrete class. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 387-397.
Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Performance of psychopaths following condi-
tional release from prison. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 227-232.
Haynes, A. K., Yates, P. M., Nicholaichuk, T., Gu, D., & Bolton, R. (2000, June). Sexual devi-
ancy, risk, and recidivism: The relationship between deviant arousal, the Rapid Risk Assess-
ment for Sexual Offence Recidivism (RRASOR) and sexual recidivism. Paper presented at the
Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa, Ontario.
Kroner, D. G., & Mills, J. F. (1997, February). The VRAG: Predicting institutional misconduct in
violent offenders. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Convention of the Ontario Psychologi-
cal Association, Toronto, Canada.
Lieb, R., & Matson, S. (1998). Sexual predator commitment laws in the United States: 1998
update. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adoles-
cence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber & D. P.
Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful inter-
ventions (pp. 86-105). London: Sage.
Loza, W., & Dhaliwal, G. K. (1997). Psychometric evaluation of the Risk Appraisal Guide
(RAG): A tool for assessing violent recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 779-
793.
Metz, C. E. (1998). ROCKIT (Version 0.9.1b) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago.
Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 783-792.
Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada: Research towards decision guidelines.
Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Quinsey, V. L., Coleman, G., Jones, B., & Altrows, I. F. (1997). Proximal antecedents of eloping
and reoffending among supervised mentally disordered offenders. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 12, 794-813.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising
and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1997). Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk
Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 231-241.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1999, May). A multi-site followup study of sex offenders: The pre-
dictive accuracy of risk prediction instruments. Third Annual Research Day of the Univer-
sity of Toronto Forensic Psychiatry Program, Penetanguishene, Ontario.
Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Quinsey, V. L. (1990). A follow-up of rapists assessed in a maximum
security psychiatric facility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 435-448.
Barbaree et al. / SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 521
Seto, M. C., & Barbaree, H. E. (1999). Psychopathy, treatment behavior and sex offender recidi-
vism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1235-1248.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (1999). Adolescent sex offenders: Investigating the roles of
antisociality and sexual deviance. Psychiatry Rounds, 13(3).
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2000). Psychopathy and sexual aggression. In C. Gacono (Ed.),
The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 333-350).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sjöstedt, G., & Långström, N. (2000, November). Actuarial assessment of risk for criminal
recidivism among sex offenders released from Swedish prisons 1993-1997. Poster presented
at the 19th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San
Diego, California.
Smiley, C., Hills, A. L., & McHattie, L. (2000, June). Are dangerous offenders really dangerous?
Presentation at the Canadian Psychological Association Convention, Ottawa, Ontario.