Dynamic risk and sexual offending: the conundrum of assessment

Casey, Sharon 2015, Dynamic risk and sexual offending: the conundrum of assessment, Psychology, crime and law, vol. 22, no. 1-2, Special issue : Dynamic risk factors: what role should they play in the explanation, assessment and rehabilitation of offenders?, pp. 104-123, doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2015.1111366.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Dynamic risk and sexual offending: the conundrum of assessment
Author(s) Casey, SharonORCID iD for Casey, Sharon orcid.org/0000-0002-6916-1000
Journal name Psychology, crime and law
Volume number 22
Issue number 1-2
Season Special issue : Dynamic risk factors: what role should they play in the explanation, assessment and rehabilitation of offenders?
Start page 104
End page 123
Total pages 20
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Place of publication London, Eng.
Publication date 2015
ISSN 1068-316X
Keyword(s) Dynamic risk
Predictive validity
Sexual offenders
Psychometric measures
Summary The potential to reduce sexual victimisation, promote community safety, and decrease incarceration costs has resulted in considerable progress in terms of how we understand and predict sexual recidivism. And yet, the past decade has seen a degree of fragmentation emerge as research attention has shifted away from relative risk prediction (with its focus on static risk factors) to the identification of factors capable of reducing risk through intervention (i.e. dynamic risk). Although static and dynamic risk are often treated as orthogonal constructs [Beech, A. R., & Craig, L. A. (2012). The current status of static and dynamic factors in sexual offender risk assessment. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4(4), 169–185. doi:10.1108/17596591211270671], there are arguments to support a claim that the two are in fact functionally related [see Ward, T. (2015). Dynamic risk factors: Scientific kinds or predictive constructs. Psychology, Crime & Law (in this issue); Ward, T., & Beech, A. R. (2015). Dynamic risk factors: A theoretical dead-end? Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(2), 100–113. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2014.917854]. This discussion clearly affects how we assess dynamic risk. This review considered several commonly used methods of assessment and the evidence offered for their predictive accuracy. Of note were differences in the predictive accuracy of single psychometric measures versus composite scores of dynamic risk domains and the conventions used for establishing effect sizes for risk assessment tools.
Language eng
DOI 10.1080/1068316X.2015.1111366
Field of Research 170199 Psychology not elsewhere classified
Socio Economic Objective 929999 Health not elsewhere classified
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2015, Taylor & Francis
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30080724

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Health
School of Psychology
Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 2 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 3 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 130 Abstract Views, 2 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 14 Jan 2016, 14:49:38 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.