Comparing sex offender risk classification using the Static-99 and LSI-R assessment instruments / Amanda L. Gentry, Catherine N. Dulmus, Matthew T. Theriot
In: Research on Social Work Practice . Tennessee. Vol. 15 (2005) , p. 557-563Idioma: Inglês.País: Estados Unidos.ISSN: 15527581Assunto: VIOLÊNCIA SEXUAL | OFENSORES SEXUAIS | ANÁLISE DE RISCO CDU: 343.8 Localização e Cota : 343.8GEN Resumo: Objective: This study compares sex offender risk classification using two popular actuarial risk assessment instruments—the Static-99 and the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R). Despite their extensive use, the two scales assess different types of risk factors and research has yet to compare them. Method: Static-99 and LSI-R risk assessments were compared for 30 adult male sex offenders attending a community-based treatment program. Results: A paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a significant difference (Z = –3.962, p < .001) between the instruments, with 63.3% of the sample classified as higher risk for reoffending by the Static-99 than by the LSI-R. Conclusions: The Static-99 may be a more conservative risk assessment tool. Yet because the LSI-R provides useful information about an offender’s current needs not included on the Static-99, treatment providers should use bothinstruments. This more comprehensive assessment of criminogenic risk and need will better inform supervision and intervention decisions.| Item type | Current location | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analíticos de Periódicos | Biblioteca da Direção-Geral de Reinserção e Serviços Prisionais | 343.8GEN (Browse shelf) | 9273 | Available | DGRSP9273 |
Objective: This study compares sex offender risk classification using two popular actuarial risk assessment
instruments—the Static-99 and the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R). Despite their extensive use, the two
scales assess different types of risk factors and research has yet to compare them. Method: Static-99 and LSI-R risk
assessments were compared for 30 adult male sex offenders attending a community-based treatment program.
Results: A paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a significant difference (Z = –3.962, p < .001) between the
instruments, with 63.3% of the sample classified as higher risk for reoffending by the Static-99 than by the LSI-R.
Conclusions: The Static-99 may be a more conservative risk assessment tool. Yet because the LSI-R provides useful information about an offender’s current needs not included on the Static-99, treatment providers should use bothinstruments. This more comprehensive assessment of criminogenic risk and need will better inform supervision and intervention decisions.
There are no comments for this item.