ABSTRACT
The present study aimed to revise the Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk (VASOR) Reoffense Risk Scale, a commonly used sex offender risk assessment tool. The revised tool was named the VASOR-2. Among models tested to revise the scale, a logistic regression model showed the best balance between simplicity of use, goodness of fit, and internal validity (as tested with K-10 cross-validation), and maximized predictive accuracy. Predictive accuracy was tested using four meta-analytically combined data sets drawn from Canada and Vermont (N = 1,581). At 5-year fixed follow-up, the predictive accuracy for sexual recidivism for VASOR-2 (AUC = .74) was similar to the VASOR (AUC = .71). The findings show the VASOR-2 is well calibrated with observed recidivism rates for all but the highest risk sex offenders. The instrument showed good interrater reliability (ICC = .88). An advantage of the VASOR-2 is that it has fewer items and simpler scoring instructions than the VASOR. Norms are presented for a contemporary, nonselected, routine sample of Vermont sex offenders (n = 887).
Subject(s)
Actuarial Analysis , Criminals , Risk Assessment , Sex Offenses , Adult , Canada , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Reproducibility of Results , Vermont , Young AdultABSTRACT
This study compared a group of 104 adult male sex offenders who received community cognitive-behavioral treatment, correctional supervision, and periodic polygraph compliance exams with a matched group of 104 sex offenders who received the same type of treatment and supervision services but no polygraph exams. Polygraph exams focused on whether participants were following their conditions of community supervision and treatment and had avoided committing new sexual offenses. The two groups were exact pair-wise matched on three variables: (1) Static-99 risk score (Hanson & Thornton 2000, Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136), (2) status as a completer of prison sex offender treatment, and (3) date placed in the community. At fixed 5-year follow-up periods, the number of individuals in the polygraph group charged with committing a new non-sexual violent offense was significantly lower than in the no polygraph group (2.9% versus 11.5%). However, there were no significant between-group differences for the number of individuals charged for new sexual (5.8% versus 6.7%), any sexual or violent (8.7% versus 16.3%), or any criminal offense (39.4% versus 34.6%). The results are discussed in terms of their clinical and research implications.
