FIELD VALIDITY OF THE STATIC-99 AND MnSOST-R AMONG SEX OFFENDERS EVALUATED FOR CIVIL COMMITMENT AS SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 278-314

  Boccaccini, Marcus T ^a   Murrie, Daniel C ^b   Caperton, Jennifer D ^a   Hawes, Samuel W ^a  

^a SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

MnSOST R; risk assessment; sex offender civil commitment; sexually violent predator; STATIC 99

Indexed keywords

EID: 72449144668     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0017232     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing (1999), American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC
2. Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers. Civil commitment of sexually violent predators (2001). http://www.atsa.com/ppcivilcommit.html Retrieved from http://www.atsa.com/ppcivilcommit.html
3. Barbaree H.E., Seto M.C., Langton C.M., and Peacock E.J. Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior 28 (2001) 490-521
4. Barnoski R. Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Recidivism rates (2005), Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/series.asp?seriesid=1 (Document No. 05-08-1203). Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/series.asp?seriesid=1
5. Bartosh D.L., Garby T., Lewis D., and Gray S. Differences in the predictive validity of actuarial risk assessments in relation to sex offender type. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 47 (2003) 422-438
6. Borum R., and Verhaagen. Assessing and managing violence risk in juveniles (2006), Guilford Press, New York
7. Campbell T. Assessing sex offenders: Problems and pitfalls. 2nd ed. (2007), Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL
8. Cohen J., Cohen P., West S.G., and Aiken L.S. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. (2003), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
9. Conroy M.A., and Murrie D.C. Forensic assessment of violence risk: A guide to risk assessment and risk management (2007), Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ
10. Council on Sex Offender Treatment. Heath & Safety Code, Chapter 841. Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators (2007, October). http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_solaws.shtm Retrieved from http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_solaws.shtm
11. Doren D.M. Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil commitment and beyond (2002), Sage Publications, London
12. Epperson D.L., Kaul J.D., Huot S.J., Hesselton D., Alexander W., and Goldman R. Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) (1998), Minnesota Department of Corrections, St. Paul, MN
13. Epperson D.L., Kaul J.D., Hout S., Goldman R., Hesselton D., and Alexander W. Minnesota sex offender screening tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) technical paper: Development, validation, and recommended risk level cut scores (2003), Minnesota Department of Corrections, St. Paul, MN. http://www.psychology.iastate.edu Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu
14. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States, 2007 (2007). http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html
15. Finkelhor D., and Jones L. Why have child maltreatment and child victimization declined?. Journal of Social Issues 62 (2006) 685-716
16. Garson G.D. Cox regression (2008). http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/cox.htm Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/cox.htm
17. Gottfresson S.D., and Moriarty L.J. Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and new applications. Crime & Delinquency 52 (2006) 178-200
18. Grove W.M., and Meehl P.E. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2 (1996) 293-323
19. Grove W.M., Zald D.H., Lebow B.S., Snitz B.E., and Nelson C. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment 12 (2000) 19-30
20. Hanley J.A., and McNeil B.J. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148 (1983) 839-843
21. Hanson R.K. Does the Static-99 predict recidivism among older sexual offenders?. Sex Abuse 18 (2006) 343-355
22. Hanson R.K., Harris A.J.R., Scott T.L., and Helmus L. Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-05) (2007), Public Safety Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
23. Hanson R.K., and Morton-Bourgon K.E. The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment 21 (2009) 1-21
24. Hanson R.K., and Thornton D. Static-99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders (User Report 99-02) (1999), Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Ottawa
25. Hanson R.K., and Thornton D. Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior 24 (2000) 119-136
26. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2008, October). Recommendations for interpreting multiple norms for the STATIC-99. Paper presented at the Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Atlanta, GA.
27. Harris, A. J. R., Helmus, L., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2008, October). Are new norms needed for the STATIC-99? Paper presented at the Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Atlanta, GA.
28. Harris A., Phenix A., Hanson R.K., and Thornton D. Coding rules for the Static-99 Revised. Corrections research: Manuals and forms (2003), Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Ottawa
29. Helmus L. Relative risk for STATIC-99 scores (2009). http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/relativerisktablejanuary2009.pdf Retrieved from http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/relativerisktablejanuary2009.pdf
30. Helmus L., Hanson R.K., and Thornton D. The Forum: Newsletter for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 21 (2009) 38-45
31. Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. Sex offender assessment information survey (2007). http://www.interstatecompact.org/resources/surveys/survey_results/SexOffender_Assessment_042007.pdf Retrieved from www.interstatecompact.org/resources/surveys/survey_results/SexOffender_Assessment_042007.pdf
32. Jackson R.L., and Hess D.T. Evaluation of civil commitment of sex offenders: A survey of experts. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 19 (2007) 425-448
33. Jackson R.L., and Richards H.J. Sex offender civil commitment evaluations. In: Jackson R.L. (Ed). Learning forensic assessment (2008), Routledge/Taylor & Francis, New York 183-209
34. Janus A.E., and Prentky R.A. Forensic use of actuarial risk assessment with sex offenders: Accuracy, admissibility, and accountability. American Criminal Law Review 40 (2003) 1443-1499
35. Jones L.M., and Finkelhor D. Putting together evidence on declining trends in sexual abuse: A complex puzzle. Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 133-135
36. Kansas v. Hendricks, 117 S. Ct. 2072 (1997).
37. LaFond J.Q. Preventing sexual violence (2005), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
38. Levenson J.S. Sexual predator civil commitment: A comparison of selected and released offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48 (2004) 638-648
39. Levenson J.S., and Morin J.W. Factors predicting selection of sexually violent predators for civil commitment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 50 (2008) 609-629
40. McGrath R.J., Cumming G.F., and Bouchard B.L. Current practices and trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2002 Nationwide Survey (2003), Safer Society Press, Brandon, VT
41. Meehl P.E. Clinical vs. statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence (1954), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
42. Miller H.A., Amenta A.E., and Conroy M.A. Sexually violent predator evaluations: Empirical evidence, strategies for professionals, and research directions. Law and Human Behavior 29 (2005) 29-54
43. Monahan J. Violence risk assessment. In: Goldstein A.M. (Ed). Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology 11 (2003), John Wiley & Sons, New York 527-540
44. Monahan J. A jurisprudence of risk assessment forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Virginia Law Review 92 (2006) 391-435
45. Mossman D. Another look at interpreting risk categories. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 18 (2006) 41-64
46. Mossman D. Analyzing the performance of risk assessment instruments: A response to Vrieze and Grove (2007). Law and Human Behavior 32 (2008) 279-291
47. Murrie D.C., Boccaccini M.T., Turner D., Meeks M., Woods C., and Tussey C. Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 15 (2009) 19-53
48. Pedhazur E.J. Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. 3rd ed. (1997), Harcourt, New York
49. Phenix A., Hanson R.K., and Thornton D. Coding rules for the Static-99. Corrections research: Manuals and forms (2000), Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Ottawa
50. Rice M.E., and Harris G.T. Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r. Law and Human Behavior 29 (2005) 615-620
51. Rice M.E., Harris G.T., and Lange C. Violent sex offenses: How are they best measured from official records?. Law and Human Behavior 30 (2006) 525-541
52. Seto M. Is more better? Combining actuarial risk scales to predict recidivism among adult sex offenders. Psychological Assessment 17 (2005) 156-167
53. Sreenivasan S., Garrick T., Norris R., Cusworth-Walker S., Weinberger L.E., Essres G., et al. Predicting the likelihood of future sexual recidivism: Pilot study findings from a California sex offender risk project and cross-validation of the Static-99. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 35 (2007) 454-468
54. Tabachnick B.G., and Fidell L.S. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. (2007), Allyn & Bacon, Boston
55. Texas Health & Safety Code § 841.000-841.150 (2000).
56. Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-903(c) (2005).
57. Vrieze S.I., and Grove W.M. Predicting sex offender recidivism. I. Correcting for item over-selection and accuracy overestimation in scale development. II. Sampling-error inducted attenuation of predictive validity over base-rate information. Law and Human Behavior 32 (2008) 266-278
58. Witt P.H., and Conroy M.A. Evaluation sexually violent predators (2009), Oxford University Press, New York
59. Wollert R. 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 (2002) 87-102
60. Wollert R. Additional flaws in the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised: A response to Doren and Dow. Journal of Threat Assessment 2 (2003) 65-78
61. Wollert R. Low base rates limit expert certainty when current actuarials are used to identify sexually violent predators. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law 12 (2006) 56-85
62. Woodworth G.G., and Kadane J.B. Expert testimony supporting post-sentence civil incarceration of violent sex offenders. Law, Probability, & Risk 3 (2004) 221-241