Does Reassessment Improve Prediction? A Prospective Study of the Sexual Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS)

• Author: Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie,Beatrice “Bean” E. Robinson,Nicholas Newstrom,Michael H. Miner,R. Karl Hanson,David Thornton
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20978204
• Published date: 01 December 2021
• Date: 01 December 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20978204

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(16) 1775 –1803

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20978204

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Does Reassessment

Improve Prediction?

A Prospective Study of

the Sexual Offender

Treatment Intervention

and Progress Scale (SOTIPS)

R. Karl Hanson1, Nicholas Newstrom2,

Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie3, David Thornton4,

Beatrice “Bean” E. Robinson2,

and Michael H. Miner2

Abstract

This prospective study examined the predictive validity of the Sex Offender

Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS; McGrath et al., 2012), a

sexual recidivism risk/need tool designed to identify dynamic (changeable) risk

factors relevant to supervision and treatment. The SOTIPS risk tool was scored

by probation officers at two sites (n = 565) for three time points: near the start of

community supervision, at 6 months, and then at 12 months. Given that conventions

for analyzing dynamic prediction studies have yet to be established, one of the

goals of the current paper was to demonstrate promising statistical approaches for

the analysis of longitudinal studies in corrections. In most analyses, static SOTIPS

scores predicted all types of recidivism (sexual, violent, and general [any]). Dynamic

SOTIPS scores, however, only improved the prediction of general recidivism,

and only when the analyses with the greatest statistical power were used (Cox

regression with time dependent covariates).

1Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

2University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

3Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

4FAsTR LLC, Madison, WI, USA

Corresponding Author:

R. Karl Hanson, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.

Email: rkarlhanson@gmail.com

978204IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20978204International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyHanson et al.

research-article2020

1776 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65(16)

Keywords

SOTIPS, dynamic prediction, sexual recidivism, community supervision, criminogenic

needs

Effective interventions for reducing criminal recidivism require knowing where to

intervene. When the targets for intervention are characteristics of individuals, such

characteristics have been referred to as criminogenic needs (Andrews et al., 1990),

psychologically meaningful risk factors (Mann et al., 2010), and dynamic risk factors

(Douglas & Skeem, 2005). Although the working definitions of these constructs vary,

the intention of all these constructs is to orient supervision and rehabilitation efforts

towards factors that are potentially changeable through deliberate intervention.

The major risk factors for general recidivism have been well summarized by

Andrews and Bonta (2010) as the Central Eight: history of antisocial behavior, antiso-

cial personality pattern, antisocial cognition, antisocial associates, poor family/marital

relationships, poor adjustment in school/work, aimless use of leisure time, and sub-

stance abuse. In addition, crime is more common among young males than any other

demographic group. Although there is a certain amount of specialization, the same

major risk factors are associated with both violent and nonviolent criminal behavior.

They are also associated with sexual crime and sexual recidivism (Brouillette-Alarie

et al., 2016; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005)

There are, however, certain sex crime specific risk factors that are positively related

to sexual recidivism but unrelated, or negatively related, to nonsexual recidivism

(Brouillette-Alarie et al., 2016; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). These sex crime

specific risk factors include deviant sexual interests and sexualized coping (Mann

et al., 2010). Consequently, risk assessments for individuals with a history of sexual

crime need to consider sex crime specific factors as well as the Central Eight. Sexual

crime is crime, so the common risk factors for rule violation also predict the onset of

sexual crime, as well as sexual recidivism.

More than 60 years ago, Meehl (1954) cogently argued for the benefits of statistical

prediction in applied psychology. Statistical prediction was usually more accurate than

unstructured professional judgment, and it limited the effects of certain types of per-

sonal and professional biases. His call has been largely ignored, except in the fields of

correctional and forensic psychology, where empirically derived prediction tools are

now ubiquitous (Bourgon et al., 2018; Kelley et al., 2020; Neal & Grisso, 2014). In

corrections, the first commonly used prediction tools were developed for general

recidivism and included primarily static, historical risk factors (Bonta, 1996; Bourgon

et al., 2018). Although static factors, such as age and prior criminal history, are effi-

cient predictors of criminal recidivism, they provide little information concerning

what needs to be done to mitigate this risk. Consequently, beginning in the 1990s,

there was increasing demand for risk/need assessment tools to identify targets for

supervision and rehabilitation efforts. These measures included the Level of Service/