2 41 PREDICTIVE PROPERTIES DYNAMIC INSTRUMENTS 2.1 INTRODUCTION Sexual violence is a major public health concern. Many victims of sexual violence suffer long-term negative consequences, including depressive disorders, trauma and stressor-related disorders, sleep–wake disorders and sexual and relationship problems (Martin et al., 2011). In addition to the psychological consequences for victims, as well as for their family and significant others, there often are additional effects and needs, many of which pose a significant financial burden to society. For example, beyond the costs associated with psychological and medical treatment of victims, significant financial resources are required for the criminal investigation, detention, treatment, and supervision of individuals with a history of sexual offenses (Elliott & Beech, 2013). One traditional way to reduce sexual recidivism is providing treatment to apprehended individuals convicted for sexual offenses. The effectiveness of policies and interventions aimed at the reduction of recidivism depends on our ability to predict who is most at risk of reoffending. For this purpose, a number of so-called “actuarial” risk assessment instruments have been developed (Dawes et al., 1989; Meehl, 1954). These instruments do not rely on clinical judgment but provide a statistical based method for estimating the risk of recidivism. Previous meta-analyses have shown that the use of so-called “actuarials” leads to more accurate prediction of recidivism in both individuals with a history of sexual and nonsexual (violent) offenses than assessments that rely on clinical judgment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al., 2006; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2007, 2009). Until recently, actuarials predominantly focused on static risk factors that are associated with recidivism, such as the number of prior sex offenses and the gender of the victim(s). The advantage of this type of instrument is that they take relatively little effort to score and that they are reliable (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009), although recent field studies (e.g., Boccaccini et al., 2012; Edens et al., 2016) indicate that inter-rater reliability may be lower in applied than in controlled research settings. A more important concern, however, is that static risk factors are not amenable to change and, therefore, provide little to no guidance for the selection of the most appropriate treatment focus. In response to this limitation of static actuarial risk assessment instruments, researchers have started to develop risk assessment instruments that focus on dynamic risk factors. Dynamic risk assessment instruments evaluate risk factors empirically related to recidivism and believed to be amendable to treatment, such as sexual preoccupation and conflicts in intimate relationships (e.g., Mann et al., 2010). Thus, in addition to predicting recidivism risk, these measures can be used to help develop and evaluate treatment goals (e.g., addressing sexual preoccupation, deviant sexual interests, impulsive tendencies). Although dynamic risk factors have been studied since the mid-1990s, dynamic risk assessment instruments developed for men with a history of sex offenses have, as yet, not been the focus of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Hanson and Bussière (1998) were the first to publish a meta-analysis on “precursors” of sexual recidivism,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw