Week 4 Flashcards
Risk assessment:
Key characteristics of a sex offender
andrews and bonta
Andrews and Bonta (2006) concerning general offenders:
- Criminal history
- Procriminal attitudes
- Procriminal associates
- Antisocial personality
- social factors
- family/marital circumstances
- substance abuse
- prosocial leisure pursuits
Risk Matrix 2000-S (Thornton, 2007)
1,814 released from jail, predictive accuracy = .82 Stage One Age Sexual appearances Criminal appearances Stage Two Male Stranger Single Non-contact
‘True’ rates of Sexual Recidivism (Thornton, 2007)
see slide 6
The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)
Psychopathy Checklist Score
Elementary school maladjustment
Age at index offense
DSM III personality disorder
Separation from parents before age 16
Failure on prior conditional release
History of nonviolent offenses
The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)
continued?
The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)
Never married
DSM III schizophrenia
Victim injury in index offense
History of alcohol abuse
Male victim in index offense
Hastings et al. (2011)
Figure 1 Observed 1-year postrelease recidivism from current sample compared with the 7-year recidivism data from original Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) sample.
see graph on slide 9
PCL-R Administration
Must refer to the Manual
Conduct interview
Conduct collateral review
Interviews (pcl-r?)
Topics:
education, employment, relationships, behaviours
Purpose:
observe interactional style
assess consistency
obtain background information
Format of interviews
Must be structured around the items
Must be sufficiently long, e.g., for inconsistencies to be revealed
Across several sessions to allow for reflection and consistency
Must include challenges
What if offender is unavailable?
Assessment is possible with file only information
Must be documented that this is not standard
May underestimate or increase scoring
Collateral review
Multi-source
–Police/corrections; police/court records, PSR’s, parole probation reports
–Mental health evaluations, ward reports
–Family, community, interviews with family friends
Employment and employer’s comments
Aim of collateral review
Obtain background information
evaluate credibility
assess interpersonal characteristics
Cannot complete on interview data alone
Absence of collateral information?
Try to obtain from existing sources
‘
Wait for information to accumulate from the current situation
Conflicting information
Determine extent of conflicts
Assess credibility of sources
—Ignore trivial conflicts
Weigh information according to credibility of sources
If sources are equally credible, give more weight to information suggestive of greater pathology
Item scoring
Item scores based on usual functioning
- -rate person’s behaviour at most times, in most situations/domains
- -timeframe is lifetime in most domains
When scoring consider
- -intensity, frequency, and duration of behaviours associated with item
- -behaviours not listed in definition
Item scoring
Global or prototypicality ratings
2- applies reasonably good match
1- applies to some extent; matches but too many exceptions; conflicts between interview and collateral information
0- does not apply; exhibits behaviours or traits that are inconsistent with or opposite to item
Rating Biases
Halo effect
Manipulation by the offender
Ways to minimise
- rate items one at a time
- review evidence
- do not focus on one domain
- do not resolve in one direction only
Omitting items
Insufficient file and interview data
Omissions
- Total, no more than 5 items
- -For factors, no more than 2
- –Prorate scores
Diagnostic cut offs and SEM
PCL-R 30 or greater
SE PCL-R total 3.25
PCL-R factors 1.75
Percentile ranks available