Home
Scholarly Works
A Multisite Examination of Sexual Violence Risk...
Journal article

A Multisite Examination of Sexual Violence Risk and Therapeutic Change

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective multisite examination of sexual offender risk and treatment change on a large federal Canadian sample of 676 treated sex offenders followed up for an average of 6.31 years post release. METHOD: The present study featured the clinical application of a risk assessment and treatment planning tool, the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version (VRS-SO; Wong, Olver, Nicholaichuk, & Gordon, 2003). The VRS-SO was rated pre- and posttreatment by sex offender treatment providers on the sample of men who were attending institutionally based sex offender programs across the 5 regions of the Correctional Service of Canada. The Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999) was also rated as part of routine services, and the Static-99R was used for substantive analyses. RESULTS: The VRS-SO dynamic factors and the Static-99R demonstrated significant predictive accuracy for sexual, violent, and general recidivism (area under the curve = .65 to .78). Significant pre-post changes on the VRS-SO dynamic factors were observed, ranging from small to moderate in magnitude (d = 0.22 to 0.62) across low, moderate, and high intensity programs. The change scores, in turn, were associated with decreases in the 3 recidivism outcomes; the majority of relationships examined attained significance after partialing out of pretreatment scores. Cox regression survival analyses, controlling for pretreatment risk, further demonstrated change scores to have associations with postrelease recidivism outcomes to varying degrees. CONCLUSIONS: The results are consistent with the dynamic nature of sexual violence risk and suggest that risk-relevant changes associated with participation in sexual offender treatment are linked to reductions in sexual offender recidivism.

Authors

Olver ME; Nicholaichuk TP; Kingston DA; Wong SCP

Journal

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 312–324

Publisher

American Psychological Association (APA)

Publication Date

January 1, 2014

DOI

10.1037/a0035340

ISSN

0022-006X

Contact the Experts team