1 31 DYNAMIC RISK FACTORS have, as yet, not been the focus of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. This constitutes an additional reason to be cautious with statements on possible causal links between dynamic risk factors and sexual reoffending (Hanson et al., 2020). Third, current studies on the predictive accuracy of dynamic risk factors on sexual reoffending do not consider dynamic risk factors’ interrelationships. This is a problem, as not considering their interactions may lead to misplaced assumptions on the causal relationship of these factors with sexual reoffending. Fourth, inferences on the causal relationship between dynamic risk factors and sexual reoffending are derived from studies based on group-level data. Although these studies provide guidance for risk assessment and treatment of individuals with a history of a sexual offense, in social science, findings from interindividual (group) level cannot blindly be generalized to the intraindividual (person) level (Fisher et al., 2018). Examining dynamic risk factors’ interrelationships at the individual level may generate working hypotheses on the etiology of the risk of sexual reoffending in a specific person (Burger et al., 2020; Epskamp et al., 2018; Kroeze at al., 2017). This personalized information may enhance treatment effectiveness aimed at desistance. However, scientific research on the clinical applicability of personalized information on interrelated dynamic risk factors in individual men with a history of sexual offenses is still lacking. 1.3.2 THEORETICAL GAPS REGARDING DYNAMIC RISK FACTORS’ CAUSAL ROLE Several theoretical gaps in current conceptual perspectives on dynamic risk factors have been discussed in the literature (e.g., Prentky et al., 2015; Thornton, 2016; Ward & Beech, 2015). First, both the statistical and Propensities Model perspectives on dynamic risk factors assert causality but do not provide an explanation for how dynamic risk factors give rise to the risk of sexual reoffending (Prentky et al., 2015, Thornton, 2016). Second, current conceptualizations of dynamic risk factors provide no theoretical account of how change in risk may be achieved (Thornton, 2016). Third, the perspectives do not explicitly recognize that dynamic risk factors are composite constructs or categories containing a range of variables like emotion, behavior, cognition, contextual characteristics, and causal strands (also referred to as lack of coherence by Heffernan & Ward, 2019; Heffernan et al., 2019; Ward & Fortune, 2016b). Whitin emotional congruence with children, for example, causal interactions can be assumed between ascribing child-like characteristics to oneself, encountering cognitive and experiencing affective connection with children, and initiating and maintaining contact with children (McPhail et al., 2013; McPhail et al., 2018). Fourth, neglecting the interrelationships between characteristics within dynamic risk factors makes it impossible to draw accurate conclusions about the potential causes of criminal behavior (lack of specificity; e.g., Fortune & Heffernan, 2021; Heffernan & Ward, 2019; Heffernan et al., 2019; Ward & Fortune, 2016b). Fifth, the statistical and Propensities Model perspectives on dynamic risk factors offer no guidance on the level of abstraction in the current perspectives on dynamic risk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw