Evaluating the Predictive Accuracy of Six Risk Assessment Instruments for Adult Sex Offenders

By H. Barbaree, Michael C. Seto, Calvin M. Langton, E. Peacock. 2001

444 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd0f1800dc0a178318a6f30461e70c3f527babcc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Michael C. Seto
2. Leam A. Craig
3. R. Wollert
4. A. Beech
5. L. Harkins
6. D. Thornton
7. Beth m. Huebner
8. T. Bynum

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Michael C. Seto
2. R. Wollert
3. Leam A. Craig
4. A. Beech
5. L. Harkins
6. T. Bynum
7. Beth m. Huebner
8. D. Thornton

Citations in the corpus

• Actuarial Assessment of Risk for Reoffense Among Adult Sex Offenders (2007, methodology): “AUC values for the same five assessment instruments were calculated using data only from the new subset of 269 sex offenders in the sample across the three recidivism outcomes examined by Barbaree et al. (2001).”
• Some Misconceptions about the Hare PCL-R and Risk Assessment (2004, unknown): “(Some of the data for this study may have been included in the article by Barbaree and Seto, 1998, note that the values reported by Gendreau et al. were smaller than those listed in the Barbaree et al., 2001, article).”
• Evaluating the Predictive Validity of the Compas Risk and Needs Assessment System (2009, unknown): “Barbaree et al. (2001) reported AUCs of .69 in predicting serious reoffending and .77 when predicting any reoffense for sex offenders.”
• Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems and New Applications (2006, background): “and their validity extends beyond one type of offender as demonstrated in their ability to predict recidivism among “juvenile delinquents (Lipsey & Derzon, 1998), adult sex offenders (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998), adult offenders in general (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996), and mentally disordered off”
• Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? (2009, methodology): “, 2003), although some have also examined an arrangement with six risk levels (Barbaree et al., 2001). Hanson and MortonBourgon (2007) examined the MnSOST–R in their recent analysis of sexual recidivism prediction and found fairly strong predictive validity (mean Cohen’s 27 RISK MEASURE RATER AGREEM”
• Two studies on the prevalence and validity of personality disorder in three forensic intellectual disability samples (2006, background): “Several studies have replicated the predictive validity of the VRAG ( Barbaree, Seto, Langton, & Peacock, 2001; Harris et al., 2003) and its use and predictive validity have recently been extended to people with ID (Harris & Tough, 2004; Lindsay & Beail, 2004; Lindsay et al., 2006a; Quinsey et al.,”
• The Predictive Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Ontario Revision on General and Violent Recidivism among Various Offender Groups (2004, result): “…in the current study, the correlations between the General Risk/Need section of LSI-OR and general and violent reoffending for the sexual offenders included in the current study compared favorably to other subsets of offenders in the current study and to those reported by Barbaree et al. (2001).”
• Sexual offenders with learning disabilities: risk, recidivism and treatment (2005, background): “The Static-99 and SORAG were both significantly predictive of sexual, violent and any recidivism for extrafamilial child molesters, whereas all four tests were at least moderately predictive of sexual recidivism for incest offenders.”
• The Relationship of Statistical and Psychological Risk Markers to Sexual Reconviction in Child Molesters (2007, methodology): “These scores are broadly consistent with Barbaree et al. (2001).”