Further investigation of findings reported for the minnesota sex offender screening tool-revised

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1363-1379

  Langton, Calvin M ^a   Barbaree, Howard E ^a   Harkins, Leigh ^b   Peacock, Edward J ^c   Arenovich, Tamara ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c University of Birmingham ^*

^d CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Actuarial risk assessment; MnSOST R; Recidivism; Sex offenders; Sexually violent predator evaluation; Violence prediction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PERSONALITY TEST; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECURRENT DISEASE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEXUAL CRIME; STANDARD;

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMANS; PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT; PERSONALITY TESTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RECURRENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX OFFENSES;

EID: 51649105708     PISSN: 08862605     EISSN: 15526518     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0886260508314302     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Amenta, A.E., Guy, L.S., & Edens, J.F. (2003). Sex offender risk assessment: A cautionary note regarding measures attempting to quantify violence risk. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3 (1). 39-50.
2. Austin, J., Peyton, J., & Johnson, K.D. (2003, January). Reliability and validity study of the Static-99/RRASOR sex offender risk assessment instruments (Final report submitted to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole). Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at the George Washington University. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.pccd. state.pa.us/pccd/lib/pccd/stats/pa_soab_final_report.pdf
3. Barbaree, H.E., Seto, M.C., Langton, C.M., & Peacock, E.J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 490-521.
4. Bartosh, D.L., Garby, T., Lewis, D., & Gray, S. (2003). Differences in the predictive validity of actuarial risk assessments in relation to sex offender type. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 422-438.
5. Beech, A.R., Fisher, D.D., & Thornton, D. (2003). Risk assessment of sex offenders. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 339-352.
6. Boer, D.P., Hart, S.D., Kropp, P.R., & Webster, C.D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20: Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.
7. Caperton, J.D. (2006). Predicting recidivism among sex offenders: Utility of the Static-99, Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University.
8. Doren, D.M. (2002). Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil commitments and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Doren, D.M. (2004 a). Stability of the interpretative risk percentages for the RRASOR and Static-99. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 25-36.
10. Doren, D.M. (2004 b). SVP evaluators' risk assessment usage: August 2004. Unpublished manuscript, Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center, Madison, WI.
11. Doren, D.M., & Dow, E. (2003). What shrinkage of the MnSOST-R? A reply to Wollert. Journal of Threat Assessment, 2 (4). 49-63.
12. Epperson, D.L. (2000). Description of the cross-validation sample. Retrieved October 21, 2000, from http://psych-server.iastate.edu/faculty/ epperson/crossvalidationupdate.html
13. Epperson, D.L. (2003). Validation of the MnSOST-R, Static-99, and RRASOR with North Dakota prison and probation samples. Unpublished manuscript, North Dakota Division of Parole and Probation.
14. Epperson, D.L., Kaul, J.D., Goldman, R., Huot, S.J., Hesselton, D., & Alexander, W. (2005). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) scoring guidelines-updated. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://www.psychology. iastate.edu/∼dle/MnSOST-RManual12-22-2005.pdf
15. Epperson, D.L., Kaul, J.D., & Hesselton, D. (n.d.). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R): Development, performance, and recommended risk level cut scores. Retrieved October 21, 2000, from http://129.186.143.73/faculty/epperson/mnsost_download.htm
16. Epperson, D.L., Kaul, J.D., & Huot, S.J. (1995, October). Predicting risk of recidivism for incarcerated sex offenders: Updated development on the Sex Offender Screening Tool (SOST). Poster presented at the 14th annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, New Orleans, LA.
17. Epperson, D.L., Kaul, J.D., Huot, S., Goldman, R., & Alexander, W. (2003). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) technical paper: Development, validation, and recommended risk level cut scores. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/∼dle/ TechUpdatePaper12-03.pdf
18. Epperson, D.L., Kaul, J.D., Huot, S.J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W., & Goldman, R. (1998). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R). St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections.
19. 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 (MnSOST-R). Paper presented at the 19th annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego, CA.
20. Gore, K.S. (2004). Adjusted actuarial risk assessment of sex offenders: Frequency, patterns, and reasons for clinical overrides of the MnSOST-R. Unpublished master's thesis, Iowa State University.
21. Grisso, T., & Vincent, G.M. (2005). The empirical limits of forensic mental health assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 1-5.
22. Hanley, J.A., & Hajian-Tilaki, K.O. (1997). Sampling variability of nonparametric estimates of the areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic curves: An update. Academic Radiology, 4, 49-58.
23. 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.
24. Hanlon, M.J., Bender, S., Larson, S., & Schoepp, J. (2004). The MnSOST and MnSOST-R in North Dakota: Validation and utility. Unpublished manuscript, North Dakota State Penitentiary, Bismarck.
25. Hanson, R.K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism (User report 1997-04). Ottawa, Ontario: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
26. Hanson, R.K. (1998). What do we know about sex offender risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 50-72.
27. Hanson, R.K., Morton, K.E., & Harris, A.J.R. (2003). Sexual offender recidivism risk: What we know and what we need to know. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (Vol. 989, pp. 154-166). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
28. Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136.
29. Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of Static-2002 (User report 2003-01). Ottawa, Ontario: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
30. Hare, R.D. (1991). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
31. Harris, G.T., & Rice, M.E. (2007). Characterizing the value of actuarial violence risk assessments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1638-1658.
32. 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.
33. Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., Quinsey, V.L., Lalumire, M.L., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multisite comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15, 413-425.
34. Hart, S., Cox, D., & Hare, R. (1995). Psychopathy Checklist: Screening version. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
35. Hart, S.D., Michie, C., & Cooke, D.J. (2007). Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: Evaluating the 'margins of error' of group v. individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190 (suppl. 49). s60 - s65.
36. In re the Commitment of R.S., 339 N.J. Super. 507 (App. Div. 2001). Retrieved May 28, 2006, from http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/ a6870-99.opn.html
37. Kropp, P.R. (2002, October). The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP). Paper presented at the 21st annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Montreal, Ontario, Canada.
38. Langton, C.M. (2003). Contrasting approaches to risk assessment with adult male sexual offenders: An evaluation of recidivism prediction schemes and the utility of supplementary clinical information for enhancing predictive accuracy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
39. Langton, C.M., Barbaree, H.E., Seto, M.C., Peacock, E.J., Harkins, L., & Hansen, K.T. (2007). Actuarial assessment of risk for reoffense among adult sex offenders: Evaluating the predictive accuracy of the Static-2002 and five other instruments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 37-59.
40. Looman, J. (2006). Comparison of two risk assessment instruments for sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 193-206.
41. McClish, D.K. (1992). Combining and comparing area estimates across studies or strata. Medical Decision Making, 12, 274-279.
42. McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G.F., & Bouchard, B.L. (2003). Current practices and trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2002 Nationwide Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
43. Miller, H.A., Amenta, A.E., & Conroy, M.A. (2005). Sexually violent predator evaluations: Empirical evidence, strategies for professionals, and research directions. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 29-54.
44. Mossman, D. (2006). Another look at interpreting risk categories. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 41-63.
45. Prentky, R.A., Janus, E., Barbaree, H., Schwartz, B.K., & Kafka, M.P. (2006). Sexually violent predators in the courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 357-393.
46. Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Cormier, C.A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
47. Riley, G.C., Bastecki, W.S., Jr., Bayer, C.R., Greenfield, G.T., Krivacska, J.J., & Tate, J.W. (2003, Winter). Inside civil commitment: Competing rights, competing interests. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 13 (1). Retrieved May 26, 2006, from http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume13/ j13_1_3.htm
48. Swets, J.A. (1986). Forms of empirical ROCs in discrimination and diagnostic tasks: Implications for theory and measurement performance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 181-198.
49. Swets, J.A., Dawes, R.M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 1, 1-26.
50. Vrieze, S.I., & Grove, W.M. (in press). Predicting sex offender recidivism. I. Correcting for item overselection and accuracy. Overestimation in scale development. II. Sampling error-induced attenuation of predictive validity over base rate information. Law and Human Behavior.
51. Wollert, R. (2002). The importance of cross-validation in actuarial test construction: Shrinkage in the risk estimates for the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool- Revised. Journal of Threat Assessment, 2 (1). 87-102.