Do Some Dynamic Risk Factors Signal Imminent Recidivism? Testing the Conceptual Distinction Between Stable and Acute Dynamic Risk Factors

• Published date: 01 August 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231174903
• Author: Simon T. Davies,Caleb D. Lloyd,Devon L. L. Polaschek
• Date: 01 August 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 8, August 2023, 1120 –1139.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231174903

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1120

DO SOME DYNAMIC RISK FACTORS SIGNAL

IMMINENT RECIDIVISM?

Testing the Conceptual Distinction Between Stable

and Acute Dynamic Risk Factors

SIMON T. DAVIES

School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington

Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology and Forensicare

New Zealand Institute for Security and Crime Science, University of Waikato

CALEB D. LLOYD

Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology and Forensicare

DEVON L. L. POLASCHEK

New Zealand Institute for Security and Crime Science, University of Waikato

School of Psychology, University of Waikato

In correctional practice, acute and stable dynamic risk factors are conceptually distinct. This distinction, however, has limited

empirical support. We suggest that when compared with stable factors, change in acute risk factors over short time periods

should demonstrate a stronger association with imminent recidivism. Using a sample of high-risk New Zealand male parol-

ees, we examined recidivism and change in scores on the Acute and Stable subscales from the Dynamic Risk Assessment for

Offender Re-entry (DRAOR). Short-term acute change was more strongly associated with imminent recidivism than short-

term stable change. Notably, Acute change predicted imminent recidivism even after controlling for the most current acute

assessment. Furthermore, variability across Acute, but not Stable, subscale scores enhanced prediction of imminent recidi-

vism. These findings support the largely untested theoretical distinction between stable and acute risk factors, and tentatively

support using DRAOR’s Acute subscale to guide immediate intervention decisions.

Keywords: community corrections; dynamic risk; prediction; recidivism; risk assessment

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Some analyses in this article were previously presented in Simon T. Davies’s doctoral

thesis at Victoria University of Wellington (see Davies, 2019). The views expressed are those of the authors

and not necessarily those of the New Zealand Department of Corrections. Caleb D. Lloyd is a co-author of the

2017 version of the DRAOR scoring manual and co-developer of the DRAOR training program and training

certification. We thank the Department of Corrections for providing the data used in this article. Correspondence

concerning this article should be addressed to Simon T. Davies, Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science,

Swinburne University of Technology and Forensicare, Level 1, 582 Heidelberg Road, Alphington, Victoria

3078, Australia; e-mail: simonthomasdavies@gmail.com.

1174903CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231174903Criminal Justice and BehaviorDavies et al. / Stable and Acute Dynamic Risk Factors

research-article2023

Davies et al. / STABLE AND ACUTE DYNAMIC RISK FACTORS 1121

In the ongoing search for more accurate methods to predict recidivism, little attention has

been given to imminence. The ability to predict imminent recidivism could have impor-

tant implications for correctional practice, including more targeted intervention and risk

management. In theory, risk assessment measures that incorporate acute dynamic risk fac-

tors should be best suited to predicting imminent recidivism. Acute dynamic risk factors

are, conceptually, variables that change rapidly and are closely associated with the timing

of recidivism (Hanson & Harris, 2000). In other words, an increase in the presence or sever-

ity of acute risk factors may signal that recidivism is imminent. In contrast, stable dynamic

risk factors are, conceptually, variables that change relatively more slowly and are more

strongly associated with long-term risk potential (Hanson & Harris, 2000). There are now

several risk measures that incorporate this conceptual distinction between acute and stable

dynamic risk factors but with limited empirical research. In this study, we propose a method

for testing the distinction and apply the method to assessment data collected in routine prac-

tice, from a measure—the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR;

Serin, 2007)—that uses the stable-acute distinction.

TESTING THE CONCEPT OF DYNAMIC RISK FACTORS

Risk measures that assess conceptually dynamic (i.e., variable) risk factors are now in

routine use in correctional practice; however, there is surprisingly limited research showing

that these measures demonstrate dynamic properties. By definition (Andrews & Bonta,

1994), dynamic risk factors should demonstrate three essential criteria: (a) an association

with increased recidivism, (b) capacity to change over time, and (c) an association between

change and recidivism. Meta-reviews indicate few studies have found a clear link between

change in nominally dynamic risk factors and recidivism, especially when focusing on

dynamic risk constructs rather than risk tools (Beggs, 2010; Serin et al., 2013). There is

stronger emerging evidence for the dynamic properties of risk tools containing ratings of

multiple conceptually dynamic factors (for a review, see Davies et al., in press) but more

research is still needed to establish that nominally dynamic risk factors and composite

dynamic risk measures are dynamic.

For research examining the link between change and recidivism, it is essential that the

measure is reassessed on multiple occasions. Researchers can calculate change scores by

subtracting an initial, baseline assessment score from the reassessment score. When exam-

ining if change scores are associated with recidivism, change effects may be misleading

without also accounting for baseline scores in the model (Baglivio et al., 2017). Alternately,

researchers can more simply examine whether the reassessment score is associated with

recidivism after controlling for the baseline assessment score. Conceptually and statisti-

cally, testing the incremental validity of change scores over a baseline score is equivalent to

testing the incremental validity of reassessment scores over a baseline score; either incre-

mental effect coefficient provides the same information and interpretation (Laird & Weems,

2011). For example, consistent with Andrews and Bonta’s (1994) criteria, both Lloyd et al.

(2020) and Davies et al. (2022), using frequent assessments of DRAOR Stable and Acute

subscales, showed that change incrementally predicted recidivism beyond baseline scores.

They further showed that current scores predicted recidivism better than recent reassess-

ments combined into averages, representing even stronger support for these risk scores’

dynamic properties.