1 32 CHAPTER 1 factors (lack of precision; Heffernan & Ward, 2019; Heffernan et al., 2019; Ward & Fortune, 2016b). In other words, they provide no clarity whether dynamic risk factors should best be described in domains (self-management), subdomains (poor problem solving) or in more fine-grained categories (e.g., negative affect, offenses supportive cognition, or impulsive behavior). Sixth, within the current statistical and Propensities Model perspectives, dynamic risk factors are normative in nature (lack of factualness; Heffernan & Ward, 2019; Heffernan et al., 2019; Ward & Fortune, 2016b). While dynamic risk factors are predominantly operationalized and examined within Euro-American contexts, this could render them subject to cultural bias (Schmidt et al., 2022). Meaning that a dynamic risk factor measured might not be the same across cultural groups or have a different psychological meaning across racial or ethnic groups (Lee, 2018). This cultural bias may occur, for example, in the dynamic risk factor hostility toward women. This factor involves negative and/or hostile beliefs about women that impair the ability to form warm, close, and egalitarian relationships with women which can be expressed as sexist attitudes, stereotypically traditional beliefs about women and their roles, or simple outright hatred of women (Fernandez et al., 2012). Dynamic risk factors’ cultural bias negatively affects both scientific research as well as society (for example, studies on the predictive properties of dynamic risk assessment instruments or judicial decisions affecting public safety and liberties of an individuals who perpetrated a sexual offense). 1.3.3 ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL GAPS This dissertation aims to address the described research gaps by 1) conducting a metaanalysis on the predictive propensities of (change) scores on dynamic risk assessment instruments developed for adult men with a history of sexual offenses (Chapter 2); investigating the clinical applicability and added value of collecting, generating, and reporting personalized information regarding interrelated dynamic risk factors (Chapter 5); and conducting networks of interrelated dynamic risk factors (Chapter 3 and 4). The first four theoretical gaps are addressed by considering dynamic risk factors as composite constructs consisting of a range of causally interacting psychological and behavioral characteristics interacting with contextual features (Chapter 3, 4, 6); investigating dynamic risk factors’ interrelationships (Chapter 3, 4); and by providing a theoretical account of the causal processes by which dynamic risk factors give rise to the risk of sexual reoffending, and contribute to sustained change in this risk (Chapter 6).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw