Evaluating the Whole Person in Sex-Offender Risk Assessments

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce I. Frumkin
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offender ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Whole Person

scholarly journals Use and perceived utility of structured violence risk assessments in English medium secure forensic units

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 129-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reena Khiroya ◽  
Tim Weaver ◽  
Tony Maden
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offender ◽  
Risk Measures ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Risk Matrix ◽  
Risk Appraisal ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Perceived Utility ◽  
Dynamic Factors ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised

Aims and MethodWe surveyed the usage and perceived utility of standardised risk measures in 29 forensic medium secure units (a 62% response rate).ResultsThe most common instruments were Historical Clinical Risk–20 (HCR–20) and Psychopathy Checklist – revised (PCL–R); both were rated highly for utility. the Risk Matrix 2000 (RM2000), Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) and Static-99 were the most common sex offender assessments, but the Sexual Violence Risks–20 (SVR–20) was rated more positively for its use of dynamic factors and relevance to treatment.Clinical ImplicationsMost medium secure units use structured risk assessments and staff view them positively. As HCR–20 and PCL–R/PCL–SV (Psychopathy Checklist – Screening Version) are so widely used they should be the first choices considered by other services.

Sex Offender Risk Assessments in the Child Protection Context. Helpful or Not?

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Broadley
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Dynamic Risk ◽  
Sex Offender Risk Assessment ◽  
Dynamic Risk Assessment

When a convicted or alleged child sex offender is living, or having contact, with his own children or stepchildren, the obvious worry is that these children are victims or will become victims of sexual abuse. One way of determining the risk of this occurring is for the convicted or alleged offender to undergo a forensic sex offender risk assessment. In this article I raise questions regarding the usefulness of sex offender risk assessments within the statutory child protection context. Most importantly, I ask whether static and dynamic risk assessment instruments can accurately predict the risk an alleged or convicted sex offender poses to his own children. I conclude that ‘high’, ‘moderate’, and ‘low’ risk outcomes of forensic sex offender risk assessments in the child protection context are unreliable and can result in error, and explain that these errors have consequences that, within the child protection context, have consequences that can be dangerous to children.

Actuarial methods for violence and sex-offender risk assessments

2003 ◽  
pp. 750-755
Author(s):  
Shoba Sreenivasan ◽  
Patricia Kirkish ◽  
Thomas Garrick ◽  
Linda Weinberger
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offender ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Actuarial Methods

Two-, Three-, and Four-Factor PCL-R Models in Applied Sex Offender Risk Assessments

Assessment ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Weaver ◽  
Robert G. Meyer ◽  
James J. Van Nort ◽  
Luciano Tristan
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offender ◽  
Risk Assessments

Sampling Extreme Groups Invalidates Research on the Paraphilias: Implications for DSM-5 and Sex Offender Risk Assessments

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 554-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Wollert ◽  
Elliot Cramer
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offender ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Extreme Groups

Differences in the Predictive Validity of Actuarial Risk Assessments in Relation to Sex Offender Type

2003 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 422-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darci L. Bartosh ◽  
Tina Garby ◽  
Deborah Lewis ◽  
Steve Gray
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Actuarial Risk

Recent Research (N = 9,305) Underscores the Importance of Using Age-Stratified Actuarial Tables in Sex Offender Risk Assessments

Sexual Abuse ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Wollert ◽  
Elliot Cramer ◽  
Jacqueline Waggoner ◽  
Alex Skelton ◽  
James Vess
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offender ◽  
Risk Assessments

Quick Consult: Quick Consult: Acromioplasty

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Keyword(s):  
Glasgow Coma Scale ◽  
Outcome Assessment ◽  
High Probability ◽  
Vegetative State ◽  
Behavioral Impairment ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Ordinal Scales ◽  
Probability Of Death ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Assessment Scales

Abstract Different jurisdictions use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) for different purposes, and this article reviews a specific jurisdictional definition in the Province of Ontario of catastrophic impairment that incorporates the AMA Guides. In Ontario, a whole person impairment (WPI) exceeding 54% or a mental or behavioral impairment of Class 4 or 5 qualifies the individual for catastrophic benefits, and individuals who do not meet the test receive a lesser benefit. By inference, this establishes a parity threshold among dissimilar injuries and dissimilar outcome assessment scales for benefits. In Ontario, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) identifies patients who have a high probability of death or of severely disabled survival. The GCS recognizes gradations of vegetative state and disability, but translating the gradations for rating individual impairment on ordinal scales into a method of assessing percentage impairments cannot be done reliably, as explained in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition. The AMA Guides also notes that mental and behavioral impairment in Class 4 (marked impairment) or 5 (extreme impairment) indicates “catastrophic impairment” by significantly impeding useful functioning (Class 4) or significantly impeding useful functioning and implying complete dependency on another person for care (Class 5). Translating the AMA Guides guidelines into ordinal scales cannot be done reliably.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document