See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/44587954

Assessment of Dynamic Risk Factors: An Independent

Validation Study of the Violence Risk Scale: Sexual
Offender Version

Article  in  Annals of Sex Research · June 2010

DOI: 10.1177/1079063210369014 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

77 873

2 authors, including:

Randolph Grace
University of Canterbury
164 PUBLICATIONS   4,272 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Smokefree New Zealand 2025 View project

CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND COUNSELING View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Randolph Grace on 29 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment
http://sax.sagepub.com

Assessment of Dynamic Risk Factors: An Independent Validation Study

of the Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version
Sarah M. Beggs and Randolph C. Grace
SEX ABUSE 2010; 22; 234
DOI: 10.1177/1079063210369014

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://sax.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/2/234

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

Additional services and information for Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment can be
found at:

Email Alerts: http://sax.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://sax.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://sax.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/22/2/234

Downloaded from http://sax.sagepub.com at University of Canterbury Library on May 14, 2010

 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment
Assessment of Dynamic 22(2) 234­–251
© The Author(s) 2010
Risk Factors: An Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Independent Validation DOI: 10.1177/1079063210369014
http://sajrt.sagepub.com

Study of the Violence

Risk Scale: Sexual
Offender Version

Sarah M. Beggs1 and Randolph C. Grace1

Abstract
The Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version (VRS:SO) is a rating scale designed to
assess risk among sexual offenders and the degree of change achieved in treatment.
The scale consists of 7 static and 17 dynamic risk items, with protocols for measuring
treatment change based on the Transtheoretical Change Model. The aim of the
current study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the VRS:SO on an
independent sample of 218 child molesters who received treatment at a prison-based
program in New Zealand and who were followed up for an average of 12.2 years.
Supporting the initial validation of the VRS:SO, the results indicated good interrater
reliability, concurrent validity, and predictive validity of the measure—VRS:SO scores
were predictive of sexual recidivism (for Dynamic and Total scores, area under the
curve value ~ .80), and the dynamic scale made significant incremental contributions
after controlling for static risk. The authors also analyzed the validity of the factor
structure of the VRS:SO dynamic scale and compared the measure with an alternative
measure of dynamic risk based on a self-report psychometric battery.

Keywords
sexual offenders, child molesters, recidivism, treatment change, VRS:SO, static and
dynamic risk

1
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:
Randolph C. Grace, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch, New Zealand
Email: randolph.grace@canterbury.ac.nz
Beggs and Grace 235

Sex offender risk assessments inform many decisions across the criminal justice
process, such as sentencing, security ratings, treatment indications, whether and when
to release, and probationary conditions. These decisions have important real-life
implications for many parties that need to be balanced against each other, including
the offenders and their families, the wider community, and potential future victims
(Doren, 2006). The validity of risk assessments is, therefore, of the utmost impor-
tance, and ongoing research is essential to improve their accuracy.
Modern risk assessments are actuarial in nature, based on objective evaluation of
factors empirically related to recidivism. The development of actuarial risk assess-
ments was motivated by evidence that unguided clinical judgments generally offered
poor predictive validity compared with more structured methods (e.g., Grove &
Meehl, 1996). Variables predictive of recidivism are known as risk factors and can be
classified as either static or dynamic (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Static factors are
unchangeable, often historical or offence related, such as the number of previous sexual
offences. Dynamic factors are variables related to recidivism that are changeable, at
least in principle, and thus can potentially serve as targets for intervention. It is impor-
tant to note, however, that relatively few studies have to date actually measured
dynamic risk at more than one point in time in order to investigate (a) the true “dynamic”
or changeable nature of these items and (b) whether change on these factors is in fact
associated with a reduction in risk. Examples of dynamic risk factors for sexual offend-
ing include sexual deviancy, antisocial orientation, poor social functioning, and dis-
torted cognitions (see Craissati & Beech, 2003, for review).
Meta-analyses have provided substantial evidence that both static and dynamic
factors are valid risk predictors for sexual reoffending. Hanson and Bussière (1998)
identified several primarily static risk factors with significant and reliable correla-
tions with sexual recidivism, such as young age, single marital status, antisocial per-
sonality, prior sexual and nonsexual offences, victim characteristics, deviant sexual
interests, and treatment noncompletion. Subsequently, Hanson and Morton-Bourgon
(2005) identified additional dynamic risk factors that have potential as treatment tar-
gets, including sexual deviance, antisocial orientation, self-regulation problems, and
distorted cognitions.
Over the past decade there has been much progress in the development of actuarial
risk prediction instruments. These instruments have been based most heavily on static
risk factors, because of their robust predictive validity and relative ease of assessment
compared with dynamic factors—for example, the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton,
1999) and the SORAG (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998). Actuarial static risk
measures have been shown consistently to predict sexual recidivism (e.g., see the meta-
analysis by Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009). However, a major disadvantage of
static risk instruments is that being based on historical factors, they are not sensitive to
change (e.g., reductions in risk as a result of treatment). Because they do not include
dynamic factors, these instruments are also not able to inform as to appropriate treat-
ment targets or criminogenic needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Identifying treatment
targets and evaluating treatment change are both important goals of real-world risk
assessments beyond mere prediction of the likelihood of recidivism.

Downloaded from http://sax.sagepub.com at University of Canterbury Library on May 14, 2010

236 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 22(2)

The Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version (VRS:SO; Olver, 2003) was
designed as a comprehensive actuarial risk instrument for sexual offenders and
includes both static and dynamic risk factors that are empirically or theoretically
related to sexual recidivism. It was derived from the Violence Risk Scale (VRS;
Wong & Gordon, 2006), which had been previously developed to assess the risk of
violent offending. The VRS:SO has strong theoretical foundations, incorporating
both the risk–needs–responsivity approach to offender rehabilitation (Andrews &
Bonta, 2006) and elements of the Transtheoretical Change Model (Prochaska,
DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992). Apart from predicting recidivism risk, the VRS:SO
was also designed to integrate risk assessment with treatment by identifying crimi-
nogenic needs as potential treatment targets, to evaluate readiness to change on each
identified need according to the Transtheoretical Change Model (an important
responsivity consideration), and to assess changes in risk following treatment. The
VRS:SO has the potential to make a significant contribution to the practice of risk
assessment of sexual offenders, by drawing together and applying relevant theoreti-
cal bases and providing the means to assess dynamic factors and treatment change
alongside static risk.
The developers of the VRS:SO carried out initial analyses of the psychometric prop-
erties of the measure on a sample of 321 men who completed a treatment program for
sexual offenders in a maximum-security forensic unit (Olver, Wong, Nicholaichuk, &
Gordon, 2007). The interrater reliability, concurrent validity, and predictive validity of
the measure were evaluated, as well as the relationship between change on the dynamic
items and sexual recidivism. Additionally, an exploratory factor analysis was con-
ducted on the 17 dynamic items, from which an orthogonal three-factor structure was
suggested: Sexual Deviancy, Criminality, and Treatment Responsivity. Interrater reli-
ability was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (rICC) of .79 for the dynamic
scale. The concurrent validity of the VRS:SO as a risk measure was supported, as
VRS:SO static scale, pre- and posttreatment dynamic scale, and pre- and posttreatment
total scale scores all had significant positive correlations with the Static-99.
The predictive accuracy of the VRS:SO for sexual recidivism was also supported by
Olver et al.’s (2007) finding that the Static scale, pre- and posttreatment Dynamic scale,
and pre- and posttreatment Total scale scores were all significantly (p < .001) corre-
lated with sexual recidivism over an average 10-year follow-up. Correlations ranged
from .23 to .36, and area under the curve (AUC) values from .66 to .74, comparable
with the predictive validity of the Static-99, which had a significant correlation of .21
with sexual recidivism in their sample (AUC = .63). Pre- and posttreatment scores for
the three dynamic factors were also all significantly correlated with sexual recidivism
at follow-up. The VRS:SO Dynamic scale demonstrated significant incremental valid-
ity in the prediction of sexual recidivism over the VRS:SO Static scale and over the
Static-99. Predictive validity was also found for four interpretive risk categories of the
VRS:SO Total scores, as sexual recidivism rates increased linearly across the catego-
ries from low to high risk, with significant differences between the groups.
Although Olver et al.’s (2007) results are promising, it is important to determine
whether the VRS:SO performs at a comparable level when applied to a different
Beggs and Grace 237

sample by researchers not involved with the development of the original instrument.
Consequently, the purpose of the present study was to conduct an independent valida-
tion of the VRS:SO. The major question was whether the VRS:SO would show com-
parable reliability and validity for predicting sexual recidivism and show a similar
factor structure as reported by Olver et al. (2007). The present study focused exclu-
sively on the pre- and posttreatment VRS:SO scores; a comparative study of the
VRS:SO change scores and other measures of treatment change is given elsewhere
(Beggs & Grace, 2010). Our sample consisted of 218 men who were convicted of a
sexual offence against a child and completed the Kia Marama program between 1993
and 2000, a prison-based treatment program for child molesters in New Zealand. The
VRS:SO was rated retrospectively from file review. We were also able to compare
VRS:SO scores with measures of dynamic risk factors obtained from a self-report
psychometric battery, which participants completed before treatment (Allan, Grace,
Rutherford, & Hudson, 2007).

Method
Participants

Participants were 218 adult males who completed a treatment program for sexual
offenders against children while incarcerated at the Kia Marama Special Treatment
Unit in Rolleston, New Zealand, between 1993 and 2000. The rate of noncompletion
among those who commence this program was not recorded until 1998, and was 5.0%
for the period between 1998 and 2001 (personal communication, B. Rutherford, Prin-
cipal Psychologist at Kia Marama, February 2009). The present sample is a subsample
of that included in Allan et al. (2007), but with a longer follow-up time.
The men were aged between 18 and 74 years, with an average age of 41.1 years
(SD = 11.9 years). The majority (77.1%) were of New Zealand European ethnicity,
20.6% were New Zealand Maori, and the remaining 2.3% were from other ethnicities,
including Pacific Islanders. Participants were classified according to their victim type.
One hundred and twenty-three (56.4%) of the men were incest offenders, whose victims
came exclusively from within their own family. The remaining 95 (43.6%) were classi-
fied as extrafamilial offenders, some or all of whose victims were unrelated to them.

Measures and Data Collection Procedures

VRS:SO. The VRS:SO is a dynamic actuarial instrument for assessing pre- and post-
treatment risk for sexual offenders. It consists of a 7-item static scale and a 17-item
dynamic scale organized into three factors: Sexual Deviancy, Criminality, and Treat-
ment Responsivity (the dynamic items and associated factors are shown in the first two
columns in Table 1). VRS:SO ratings yield several scale component scores: VRS:SO
Static, pretreatment Dynamic and Total scores (i.e., Static plus pretreatment Dynamic),
posttreatment Dynamic and Total scores, and pre- and posttreatment scores on each of
238 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 22(2)

Table 1. Four-Factor Loading Matrix for VRS: SO Dynamic Items

Original Sexual Treatment Self-

Dynamic Item Factora Deviance Responsivity Criminality Management

D1 Sexually deviant lifestyle SD .910 .105 .213 .108

D2 Sexual compulsivity SD .482 -.059 .448 .071
D3 Offence planning SD .631 -.009 .110 .179
D4 Criminal personality C .344 .297 .561 -.119
D5 Cognitive distortions TR .181 .718 .167 -.084
D6 Interpersonal aggression C .138 .087 .628 .175
D7 Emotional control b
.189 -.059 .149 .600
D8 Insight TR -.036 .717 .138 -.080
D9 Substance abuse C .060 -.054 .291 .345
D10 Community support C .046 .411 .250 -.149
D11 Release to high risk TR -.011 .484 .069 -.017
situations
D12 Sexual offending cycle SD .201 .003 .099 .708
D13 Impulsivity C .142 .116 .594 .193
D14 Compliance with C .069 .374 .564 -.106
community supervision
D15 Treatment compliance TR .082 .593 .445 -.035
D16 Deviant sexual preference SD .565 .005 .242 .096
b
D17 Intimacy deficits .435 .055 .083 .133
Note: VRS:SO = Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version; SD = Sexual Deviancy; C = Criminality;
TR = Treatment Responsivity.
a. Original factors based on exploratory factor analysis reported by Olver, Wong, Nicholaichuk, and
Gordon (2007).
b = Item did not load.

the three Dynamic factors. VRS:SO Total scores can also be translated into four risk
categories: low (score of 0-20), moderate-low (21-30), moderate-high (31-40), and
high (41-72).
According to VRS:SO scoring protocols (Wong, Olver, Nicholaichuk, & Gordon,
2006), each dynamic item is given a rating of 0 to 3 prior to treatment, with higher
scores being indicative of more risk. A motivational rating is also given for each item
pretreatment, based on the Stages of Change Model (Prochaska et al., 1992). For each
item, the individual is assessed in terms of five stages in the model—Precontemplation,
Contemplation, Preparation, Action, or Maintenance. Posttreatment VRS:SO ratings
are obtained by reassessing the stage of change for the individual on each dynamic
item and adjusting his score depending on evidence of motivational progression
during treatment. For each item, the posttreatment score is the pretreatment score
minus 0.5 times the number of stages in the transtheoretical model that were pro-
gressed as a result of treatment. For example, a reduction of 0.5 is scored for progress-
ing from Preparation to Action (one stage), or 1.0 for progressing from Contemplation
to Action (two stages). An exception is that no reduction is given for progression
Beggs and Grace 239

from Precontemplation to Contemplation because of the absence of any behavioral

change.
VRS:SO scores were rated retrospectively from reports and other information on
file by two raters who were blind to recidivism outcomes and Static-99 scores. The rat-
ers were both postgraduate clinical psychology students. Training was provided by
phone and the Internet by the VRS:SO authors. The structure of the Kia Marama reports
was well suited to the VRS:SO rating protocols, encompassing a description of the
offender and his risk factors based on extensive assessment prior to treatment, followed
by a detailed description of treatment progress and overall attitude to treatment.
Twenty-three cases (10.6% of the sample) were rated independently by both raters, to
allow for an analysis of the interrater reliability of the dynamic items.
Static-99. The Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999) is a well-validated and widely
used actuarial measure of risk among sex offenders. It consists of 10 static items rated
on a 0 to 1 scale (except one item, Prior Sex Offences, which is rated on a 0 to 3 scale)
resulting in a maximum total score of 12, with higher scores reflecting more risk. Total
Static-99 scores can be translated into risk categories, labeled low (total score of 0-1),
medium-low (2-3), medium-high (4-5), and high (6 plus). Static-99 scores had previ-
ously been rated according to file information for all cases in the present study.
Recidivism. Criminal history information for all men in the sample was obtained from
the computer database maintained by the New Zealand Department of Corrections as
of July 1, 2008. Convictions for sexual, violent, or general offenses that occurred
postrelease were noted. Sexual recidivism was defined according to the Static-99 scor-
ing criteria for Category A offenses (Harris, Phenix, Hanson, & Thornton, 2003), that
is, an offense with an identifiable victim (e.g., incest, sexual assault, exhibitionism).
Category B offenses (i.e., no identifiable victim) were excluded, except for possession
of child pornography. Violent recidivism was recorded when the offender had been
convicted for a nonsexual offense against a person (e.g., assault, robbery, kidnapping).
General recidivism was recorded for offenses that were neither sexual nor violent
(e.g., possession of cannabis). The time at large prior to each reconviction, or to the end
of the follow-up period, was calculated for each offender. The average follow-up time
was 12.24 years (minimum = 7.92 years; maximum = 14.88 years).
Psychometric measures of dynamic risk factors. Offenders completed a psychomet-
ric battery as part of the initial assessment phase of the program. Allan et al. (2007)
analyzed these data for a larger group of Kia Marama completers (N = 495), which
included the present sample as a subgroup. Results of a factor analysis suggested
that four factors—Social Inadequacy, Sexual Interests, Anger/Hostility, and Pro-
Offending Attitudes—provided a good account of individual differences in the battery.
Factor scores were calculated for individual cases by averaging the standardized
scores for tests that loaded on each factor. Resulting scores for each risk factor were
positively correlated with sexual recidivism, and logistic regression analyses showed
that Sexual Interests and Pro-Offending Attitudes, as well as an Overall Deviance
score (which aggregated all four risk factors) significantly predicted recidivism after
controlling for Static-99 scores.
240 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 22(2)

Data Analyses
Following data collection, analyses were conducted to examine the properties and
validity of the VRS:SO and to attempt to replicate the major findings of Olver et al.
(2007). We evaluated the interrater reliability of the dynamic items, the replicability
of the factor structure, descriptive statistics including comparisons between incest and
extrafamilial offenders, concurrent validity of the VRS:SO with the Static-99, and
finally, the predictive validity of the VRS:SO component scores with regard to recidi-
vism, their incremental validity controlling for static risk, and the predictive validity
of the VRS:SO risk categories. We also examined correlations between the VRS:SO
factor scores and measures of dynamic risk factors based on those derived from psy-
chometric self-reports by Allan et al. (2007).
Statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS (Version 15.0), with the exception
of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which was conducted with Statistica
(Version 8.0).

Results
Interrater Reliability

Reliability for the dynamic scores was assessed by computing intraclass correlation
coefficients (rICC) for the 23 cases that were scored by two raters. The majority of
dynamic items had significant single measure coefficients for both pre- and posttreat-
ment. Average measure intraclass correlations for scores on the three dynamic factors
were all significant for both pre- and posttreatment and ranged between rICC = .79 and
rICC = .95 (average r = .88). Total Dynamic scores showed very good interrater reli-
ability, rICC = .90, p < .001, for pretreatment, and rICC = .92, p < .001, for posttreatment.
Overall, the reliability of the VRS:SO dynamic scores was acceptable and comparable
with levels reported by Olver et al. (2007). The static items were coded from criminal
history record sheets by both raters, although reliability statistics were not computed
for the static items or total score.

Factor Analyses
We conducted a CFA to examine the extent to which the three-factor structure reported
by Olver et al. (2007) described the present data. We tested a model in which the
items loading on each of the three factors were the same as reported by Olver et al.
(see Table 1). These were as follows: Sexual Deviance—Sexually Deviant Lifestyle,
Sexual Compulsivity, Offence Planning, Sexual Offending Cycle, and Deviant Sexual
Preference; Criminality—Criminal Personality, Interpersonal Aggression, Substance
Abuse, Community Support, Impulsivity, and Compliance with Community Supervi-
sion; and Treatment Responsivity—Cognitive Distortions, Insight, Release to High
Risk Situations, and Treatment Compliance. Standard criteria of a “good” fit or an
Beggs and Grace 241

“acceptable” fit (i.e., a Steiger–Lind root mean square error approximation [RMSEA]
point estimate <.05 or <.08, respectively; Brown & Cudeck, 1993) were not met:
RMSEA = .091 (90% confidence interval [CI] = .078-.104); maximum-likelihood
(ML) c2(df = 90) = 257.25.
Following this, exploratory factor analyses on the present data were conducted. We
wanted to investigate whether a different factor structure might fit the data better, given
that the sample consisted only of sexual offenders against children and, therefore,
might be expected to have a different dynamic risk profile compared with Olver et al.’s
(2007) sample (which also included rapists). First we conducted a principal compo-
nents analysis with varimax rotation on the pretreatment scores for the 17 Dynamic
items. The scree plot and eigenvalues suggested that a four-factor solution was prefer-
able. First, however, we extracted three factors (accounting for 44.69% of the variance)
to assess whether the items would load consistently onto the same factors Olver et al.
reported. We found some consistency: of the 15 items that loaded onto a factor in their
study, 11 loaded onto the same factor in our analysis. Three items loading onto the
Criminality factor in Olver et al. instead loaded onto Treatment Responsivity, and one
item no longer loaded in our three-factor solution (Sexual Offending Cycle). A CFA for
this solution indicated a lack of acceptable fit, similar to results for Olver et al.’s factor
solution: RMSEA = .094 (90% CI = .080-.107); ML c2(df = 90) = 239.16.
Principal axis factoring with Promax oblique rotation (similar to Olver et al.,
2007) was then used to extract four factors as indicated by the scree plot and eigen-
values, which accounted for 53.1% of the total variance. The resulting factor loadings
are shown in Table 1.1 Applying a loading cutoff of .34, 13 out of the 17 dynamic
items loaded uniquely onto one of the four factors. The remaining four items loaded
on two different factors; these were assigned to the factor for which the loading was
highest (factor assignments are shown in boldface in Table 1). The resulting four-
factor structure was similar to Olver et al.’s solution, which is also listed in Table 1
to facilitate comparison. Three of the four factors were similar to the original Sexual
Deviance, Treatment Responsivity, and Criminality factors reported by Olver et al.
The fourth factor included three items: Emotional Control, Substance Abuse, and
Sexual Offending Cycle. This factor was labeled “Self-Management,” because of the
relevance of self- and emotion-regulation deficits as a commonality in the scoring
criteria for these items (cf. Thornton, 2002). Comparisons between the two models
indicate few differences. Two items were nonloading in Olver et al.’s model; 12 of
the 15 remaining items loaded onto the congruent factor in our four-factor model that
they did in Olver et al.’s three-factor model. A CFA verified that the four-factor
model was an acceptable fit for these data (Brown & Cudeck, 1993), Steiger–Lind
RMSEA = .072 (90% CI = .059-.084); ML c2(df = 118) = 261.99.

Descriptive Statistics and Offender Group Comparisons

Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for both the total sample and incest
and extrafamilial offenders separately for Static-99 scores, VRS:SO Static scores, and
242 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 22(2)

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Static-99 and VRS:SO Scale Scores for Incest
Offenders, Extrafamilial Offenders, and the Total Sample

Incest Offenders Extrafamilial Total Sample

(N = 123), Offenders (N = 218),
M (SD) (N = 95), M (SD) M (SD)

Static-99 1.3 (1.5) 3.4 (2.0)*** 2.2 (2.0)

VRS:SO Static 5.7 (4.1) 10.0 (4.3)*** 7.6 (4.7)
Dynamic (pre) 20.2 (5.9) 23.2 (5.5)*** 21.5 (5.9)
Dynamic (post) 15.8 (6.5) 18.6 (6.3)** 17.0 (6.5)
Total (pre) 25.9 (8.4) 33.2 (8.5)*** 29.1 (9.2)
Total (post) 21.5 (8.8) 28.5 (9.1)*** 24.5 (9.6)
F1 Sexual deviance (pre) 8.2 (2.4) 10.3 (2.7)*** 9.1 (2.7)
F1 Sexual deviance (post) 6.0 (2.5) 8.0 (2.8)*** 6.9 (2.8)
F2 Criminality (pre) 4.0 (2.9) 4.3 (3.2) 4.1 (3.0)
F2 Criminality (post) 3.8 (2.8) 4.0 (3.0) 3.9 (2.9)
F3 Treatment responsivity (pre) 4.2 (2.2) 4.4 (2.1) 4.3 (2.1)
F3 Treatment responsivity (post) 3.1 (2.3) 3.3 (2.4) 3.2 (2.3)
Note: VRS:SO = Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version.
**Significantly higher score than incest offenders, p < .01. ***p < .001.

pre- and posttreatment VRS:SO Dynamic scores, Total scores, and factor scores. Note
that these and all subsequent analyses are based on the dynamic risk factors as defined
by Olver et al. (2007). As Table 2 shows, extrafamilial offenders had significantly
higher risk scores than incest offenders on all measures except for Criminality and
Treatment Responsivity. A similar pattern was also reported by Olver et al. (2007),
who found that extrafamilial child molesters had significantly higher pretreatment risk
scores than incest offenders on all scales except Criminality and Treatment Respon-
sivity (note that their sample also included rapists and offenders with both adult and
child victims).
Overall, the mean risk scores in the present study were somewhat lower than those
reported by Olver et al. (2007). For example, the average VRS:SO posttreatment Total
score in the present study was 24.5 (SD = 9.6), compared with 32.4 (SD = 9.9) in Olver
et al. The average Static-99 score in our sample was 2.2 (SD = 2.0), which falls in the
moderate-low risk category, compared with the average of 4.4 (SD = 2.0) reported by
Olver et al., which falls in the moderate-high risk category (Hanson & Thornton,
1999). Thus, the present sample represented an overall lower risk profile compared
with that studied by Olver et al. The exception is that mean scores on the Sexual Devi-
ance factor were higher for our sample (pretreatment M = 9.1, SD = 2.7) compared
with Olver et al. (pretreatment M = 6.3, SD = 4.0). An explanation for this difference
is that the current sample consisted entirely of child molesters, who typically display
somewhat greater sexual deviance than those who offend exclusively against adults
(e.g., Yates & Kingston, 2006); this pattern was also found in Olver et al.
Beggs and Grace 243

Concurrent Validity
The concurrent validity of the VRS:SO was assessed by computing correlations with
the Static-99. Correlations between the Static-99 and VRS:SO scores were positive:
r = .81 with the VRS:SO Static scale; r = .53 with pretreatment Dynamic; r = .48 with
posttreatment Dynamic; r = .76 with pretreatment Total; and r = .73 with posttreat-
ment Total (all ps < .001). Additionally, the Static and Dynamic components of the
VRS:SO were correlated with each other: r = .49, p < .001, pretreatment; and r = .43,
p < .001, posttreatment. These correlations are comparable with those reported by
Olver et al. (2007).

Predictive Validity
During the follow-up period (M = 12.24 years), 13.3% (n = 29) of all cases received
convictions for a new sexual offence, 13.8% (n = 30) for a new violent offence, and
37.2% (n = 81) for a new general offence (nonsexual and nonviolent). Overall, serious
recidivism rates were lower than those reported by Olver et al. (2007; their rates were
24.6% for sexual and 35.8% violent), consistent with the lower risk profile of the cur-
rent sample. For those cases that reoffended, the average time between release and
reoffence was 4.02 years (SD = 2.94; range 36 days to 10.15 years) for sexual, 4.24 years
(SD = 2.94; range 33 days to 11.69 years) for violent, and 4.29 years (SD = 3.88; range
7 days to 14.14 years) for general recidivism.
Results of correlational and receiver operating characteristic analyses of the predic-
tive accuracy of VRS:SO scale scores (pre- and posttreatment) and the Static-99 for
sexual, violent, and general recidivism are presented in Table 3. The Static-99 and
VRS:SO Static scales were significantly related to sexual recidivism, and the latter also
predicted general recidivism, whereas correlations with violent recidivism were weaker
for both measures. The Dynamic and Total scales of the VRS:SO significantly pre-
dicted sexual recidivism for both pre- and posttreatment scores, with correlations rang-
ing from r = .38, p < .001, for pretreatment Total to r = .42, p < .001, for posttreatment
Dynamic. Similarly, all VRS:SO factor scores were significantly related to sexual
recidivism both pre- and posttreatment, ranging from r = .27, p < .001, for pretreatment
Sexual Deviance to r = .36, p < .001, for posttreatment Sexual Deviance.
Pre- and posttreatment VRS:SO Dynamic and Total scales were also significantly
related to general recidivism (nonsexual and nonviolent), although correlations and
AUC values were generally lower than those for sexual recidivism. Criminality factor
scores were more strongly correlated with general recidivism than sexual, rs = .38 and
.36, both ps < .001, respectively, for pre- and posttreatment, and also significantly
predicted violent recidivism. In contrast, Sexual Deviance and Treatment Responsiv-
ity factor scores did not predict general or violent recidivism. The VRS:SO Dynamic
and Total scales were significantly related to violent recidivism, but correlations were
lower than for sexual recidivism, averaging r = .20. Overall, these results are generally
comparable with those reported by Olver et al. (2007), although in their data VRS:SO
244
Table 3. Predictive Accuracy of the Static-99 and VRS:SO Scale Scores (Pre- and Posttreatment) for Sexual, Nonsexual Violent, and General
(Nonviolent) Recidivism

Sexual Recidivism Violent Recidivism General Recidivism

r AUC AUC 95% CI r AUC AUC 95% CI r AUC AUC 95% CI

Static-99 .34** .72*** .61-.83 .14* .60 .50-.71 .16* .60* .53-.68
VRS:SO scales
Static .26*** .70** .60-.80 .11 .59 .49-.69 .28*** .67*** .60-.74
Dynamic (pre) .39*** .78*** .69-.88 .21** .65* .53-.77 .19** .60* .52-.68
Dynamic (post) .42*** .81*** .72-.89 .20** .64* .52-.75 .16* .58 .50-.66
Total (pre) .38*** .79*** .69-.88 .19** .64* .52-.75 .27*** .65*** .58-.73
Total (post) .41*** .80*** .71-.89 .19** .63* .52-.74 .25*** .64** .56-.71
F1 Sexual deviance (pre) .27*** .72*** .62-.82 .11 .60 .49-.71 .02 .51 .43-.59
F1 Sexual deviance (post) .36*** .77*** .68-.87 .12 .61 .50-.72 .04 .52 .44-.60
F2 Criminality (pre) .28*** .69** .59-.79 .36*** .76*** .67-.85 .38*** .71*** .64-.78
F2 Criminality (post) .30*** .70** .61-.80 .37*** .77*** .67-.86 .36*** .70*** .63-.77
F3 Treatment responsivity (pre) .27*** .73*** .65-.82 -.02 .49 .38-.60 .01 .51 .43-.59
F3 Treatment responsivity (post) .28*** .74*** .65-.83 -.03 .47 .35-.58 -.01 .49 .41-.57
Note: VRS:SO = Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version; CI = confidence interval; AUC = area under the curve under the receiver operating
characteristic curv.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Beggs and Grace 245

Survival Curves for Sexual Recidivism by VRS:SO Risk Category

Complete Censored

1.0

0.9
Cumulative Proportion Surviving

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time at Large (Days)

Low Moderate-Low Moderate-High High

Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival plot showing cumulative sexual recidivism failure rates as a
function of VRS:SO risk level

Static scores were a stronger predictor of sexual recidivism compared with the present
sample, whereas Dynamic, Factor and Total scores were somewhat weaker predictors.

Risk Categories
The sample was divided into four groups based on the posttreatment VRS:SO Total
scores according to the risk category cutoffs suggested by Olver et al. (2007). These
categories were as follows: low risk (VRS:SO Total score 0-20, n = 79), moderate-low
risk (21-30, n = 81), moderate-high risk (31-40, n = 42), and high risk (41-72, n = 16).
Rates of sexual recidivism were significantly different across the risk categories,
c2(df = 3) = 37.32, p < .001, and the percentage reconvicted of a sexual offence
increased monotonically with each risk category (low = 3.8%, moderate-low = 8.6%,
moderate-high = 23.8%, high = 56.2%). A Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was also
conducted to compare the survival rates of the four groups (Figure 1). Pairwise com-
parisons (generalized Wilcoxon, df = 1) showed that the high-risk group had a
246 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 22(2)

significantly higher rate of recidivism compared to all other groups: c2 = 8.08, p < .01,
with moderate-high; c2 = 29.37, p < .001, with moderate-low; and c2 = 45.60, p < .001,
with the low-risk group. Additionally, the moderate-high group reoffended at a sig-
nificantly higher rate than the moderate-low and low-risk groups, c2 = 5.12, p < .05,
and c2 = 13.07, p < .001, respectively. These results support the use of the VRS:SO
risk categories to discriminate according to the likelihood of reoffending. Although
the recidivism rates were somewhat lower in the present sample than in Olver et al.
(2007) at 10-year follow up, a similar degree of differentiation across risk categories
was observed.

Contributions of Dynamic Risk Controlling for Static Risk

Hierarchical survival analyses (Cox regression, proportional hazards model) were
carried out to examine the incremental predictive validity for sexual recidivism of the
VRS:SO posttreatment Dynamic scale beyond that predicted by static risk measures.
Results showed that posttreatment VRS:SO Dynamic scores were significantly related
to sexual recidivism after controlling for the VRS:SO Static scale, c2 = 25.61, p < .001,
Static Wald (1) = 0.87, ns, B = 0.04 (SE = .04), Exp(B) = 1.04, and Dynamic Wald
(1) = 24.91, p < .001, B = 0.16 (SE = .03), Exp(B) = 1.17; and after controlling for the
Static-99, c2 = 18.75, p < .001, Static-99 Wald (1) = 2.45, ns, B = 0.14 (SE = .09),
Exp(B) = 1.15, and VRS:SO Dynamic Wald (1) = 18.47, p < .001, B = 0.14 (SE = .03),
Exp(B) = 1.15.

VRS:SO and Psychometric Measures of Dynamic Risk

Finally, we examined correlations between pretreatment VRS:SO dynamic factor
scores and the factors computed by Allan et al. (2007) based on the pretreatment psy-
chometric battery scores—Social Inadequacy, Sexual Interests, Anger/Hostility, and
Pro-Offending Attitudes. These correlations are shown in Table 4 and provide some
evidence for the convergent validity of the VRS:SO and psychometric scores as mea-
suring different components of dynamic risk. The first VRS:SO dynamic factor, Sexual
Deviance (F1) was positively correlated with Sexual Interests, r = .32, p < .001. This
correlation was significantly greater than those between VRS:SO F1 and Social Inad-
equacy, t(215) = 2.13, p < .05, Anger/Hostility, t(215) = 2.25, p < .05, and Pro-offending
Attitudes, t(215) = 2.46, p < .05. Treatment Responsivity (F3) was positively correlated
with Pro-Offending Attitudes, r = .34, p < .001, which was significantly greater than
correlations between VRS:SO F3 and Sexual Interests, t(215) = 3.64, p < .05, and
Anger/Hostility, t(215) = 2.43, p < .05. Finally, Criminality (VRS:SO F2) was posi-
tively correlated with Anger/Hostility, r = .18, p < .01, although this factor was similarly
correlated with Sexual Interests and Pro-Offending Attitudes (rs = .20 and .19, respec-
tively, both ps < .01).
The Overall Deviance score was correlated with the Dynamic Total score, r = .34,
p < .001. The general pattern of correlations was supportive of the view that the
VRS:SO and psychometric self-reports were measuring similar dynamic risk factors.
Beggs and Grace 247

Table 4. Correlations Between Factor Scores Derived From Psychometric Self Reports by
Allan et al. (2007) and VRS:SO Dynamic Risk Scores and Sexual Recidivism

VRS:SO Factor

Deviance Sexual Criminality Treatment VRS:SO Sexual

Dimension Deviance (F1) (F2) Responsivity (F3) Dynamic Total Recidivism

Social Inadequacy .10 .02 .18** .17* .14*

Sexual Interests .32*** .20** -.05 .26*** .22**
Anger/Hostility .09 .18** .07 .19** .10
Pro-Offending .05 .19** .34*** .26*** .23**
Attitudes
Overall Deviance .22** .23** .24*** .34*** .25***
Note: VRS:SO = Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4 also provides correlations between the psychometric factor scores and
sexual recidivism. With the exception of Anger/Hostility, all the factor scores were
significantly related to sexual recidivism, with the highest correlation for the Over-
all Deviance score, r = .25, p < .001. These correlations are generally comparable
with those reported by Allan et al. (2007), who found that significant correlations
were obtained for each factor score and sexual recidivism.2 Comparison with
Table 3 shows that for the present data, the VRS:SO pretreatment dynamic scores
were more strongly predictive of sexual recidivism than scores based on psychomet-
ric self-reports; however, the difference in AUC values (.78 for VRS:SO Dynamic
vs. .70 for Overall Deviance) was not statistically significant, z = 1.36 (Hanley &
McNeil, 1983).

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties and predictive
validity of the VRS:SO for sexual recidivism. The VRS:SO is a recently developed
risk instrument for sex offenders designed to integrate assessment with treatment by
including dynamic items as well as static. Scores on the Dynamic scale are intended to
identify treatment targets, and the measure includes protocols for measuring change
on these across treatment in addition to estimating risk (Olver et al., 2007). Our results
supported the initial validation work by the VRS:SO developers: We found good
interrater reliability and evidence of concurrent validity of the measure. Our findings
also indicated good predictive validity with regard to sexual recidivism of the VRS:SO
scale scores and risk categories. Thus our study extends the validation of the VRS:SO
to a different cultural and geographical context and to a lower risk sample consisting
exclusively of child molesters.
248 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 22(2)

Results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested that a four-factor

solution provided a better fit to the present data than the three factors proposed by Olver
et al. (2007). The emergence of the fourth factor, Self-Management, in the present
sample of medium-low risk child sexual offenders (with rapists excluded) is supported
by theory and empirical findings (Thornton, 2002). The items loading onto this factor
in our analysis were Emotional Control, Sexual Offending Cycle, and Substance Abuse
(with a relatively low loading weight). Descriptions of these items in the VRS:SO cod-
ing manual (Wong et al., 2003) refer to sexual offending occurring following some
situational, interpersonal, or personal trigger; strong emotions that are poorly con-
trolled; or in some cases substance intoxication. This type of offense cycle, character-
ized by poor self-regulation (under-control or misregulation), has features of what has
been described as avoidance–goal offense pathways, in which the individual desires to
avoid sexually offending but either lacks the necessary skills or employs ineffective
strategies to achieve this goal (Ward & Hudson, 1998). Although offense pathways
vary between offender types and for individual offenders at different times, a recent
study found that offenders classified as following an avoidant pathway were much
more likely (80%) to be child molesters (including both those with intrafamilial victims
and those with extrafamilial victims) than rapists or mixed offenders and that lower
risk offenders as measured by the Static-99 were also more likely to fall within the
avoidance–goal pathways rather than approach (Yates & Kingston, 2006). These find-
ings may help explain the different distribution of scores on dynamic risk items and the
emergence of the Self-Management factor in this sample, given that it consists entirely
of child molesters and with an overall medium-low risk profile. Consistent with this
view, Olver et al.’s (2007) three-factor structure has been replicated on a separate
Canadian sample of high-risk sex offenders including rapists and child molesters
(Kingston, 2003).
VRS:SO scores correlated moderately with the Static-99 in this study and in Olver
et al. (2007), supporting its concurrent validity as a risk instrument. Additionally, the
significant positive relationship between VRS:SO Dynamic scores and Allan et al.’s
(2007) Overall Deviance and factor scores derived from a self-report psychometric bat-
tery suggest the convergent validity of the two measures as methods of assessing
dynamic risk among sex offenders. The assessment of dynamic factors and optimal
methods of incorporating these into sex offender risk assessments is a relatively new
area of research, and as previously noted, the legitimacy of the intuitive relationship
between dynamic change and recidivism is yet to receive robust empirical support. The
VRS:SO and Allan et al.’s Deviance framework represent two different approaches in
this area, one based on structured therapist judgment and the other on psychometric
self-report. Therapist judgments hold the advantage of avoiding the potential social
desirability bias of self-report scales. Although not a statistically significant difference,
the VRS:SO scores were better predictors of sexual recidivism than the Deviance
scores derived from psychometric tests. This may suggest that structured therapist
judgment is a more effective methodology for risk assessment than self-reports. Future

Downloaded from http://sax.sagepub.com at University of Canterbury Library on May 14, 2010

Beggs and Grace 249

research should also consider the potential incremental contribution of both clinician
ratings and self-report questionnaires.
Overall, the VRS:SO showed strong predictive validity in the present study, with
pretreatment and posttreatment Dynamic and Total scales and pre- and posttreatment
scores on all three Dynamic factors being significantly related to sexual recidivism,
with AUCs in the range of .80 for the Dynamic and Total scales. The validity of the
VRS:SO risk categories (low, moderate-low, moderate-high, high) was also sup-
ported, with incremental increases in recidivism rates across the categories (the high-
risk category was particularly discriminatory). The VRS:SO Static scale (AUC = .70)
was also significantly related to sexual recidivism; however, importantly, the Dynamic
scale was a significant predictor of sexual recidivism after controlling for static mea-
sures. This finding adds to growing evidence (e.g., Allan et al., 2007; Hanson & Harris,
2000; Olver et al., 2007) that dynamic factors can make independent contributions to
risk predictions among sex offenders beyond that predicted by static factors. In fact, in
this study neither the VRS:SO static scale nor the Static-99 contributed significant
variance after the Dynamic scale was controlled for. This superior predictive ability of
dynamic (changeable) factors over static highlights the potential for efficacious treat-
ment that targets these variables to have a significant impact on recidivism rates.
Further research into the relationship between dynamic change and recidivism, how-
ever, would be required to substantiate this. Ongoing research into which treatment
targets (i.e., dynamic factors) are most strongly related to recidivism, and strategies to
maximize and maintain treatment gains, could also be important for further reducing
recidivism. Recently, arguments have been made for a more individualized approach
to sex offender treatment (Bickley & Beech, 2003; Looman, Dickie, & Abracen, 2005).
Besides being a risk assessment tool, the VRS:SO has the additional function of
identifying specific treatment targets for individual offenders based on pretreatment
dynamic ratings, which could form the basis of a structured, personalized treatment
program.
Alternatively, the predictive accuracy of the VRS:SO Dynamic scale may not
reflect promising treatment targets but markers of more enduring or static factors
(Hanson & Harris, 2000). The greater predictive accuracy of the VRS:SO Dynamic
scale compared with the VRS:SO Static scale may simply reflect its increased breadth
and comprehensiveness (i.e., 17 items vs. 7). A necessary next step to investigate
these possibilities is to examine the changes offenders achieve on the dynamic items
across treatment and the relationship between dynamic change and recidivism rates.
Olver et al. (2007) reported that although the correlation between change scores on
the VRS:SO Dynamic scale and sexual recidivism did not reach significance, r = -.09,
p = .10, after controlling for risk level (VRS:SO Static and pretreatment Total scores)
in a survival analysis, positive treatment change significantly predicted a reduction in
recidivism.
In summary, our study provides independent support for the reliability and validity
of the VRS:SO as an assessment instrument for static and dynamic risk factors with
child molesters. The measure showed good interrater reliability, concurrent and
250 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 22(2)

convergent validity, and compared favorably with other measures of static and
dynamic risk in the prediction of sexual recidivism.

Notes
1. The full correlation matrix with the VRS:SO dynamic items is available from the authors
on request.
2. Correlations between psychometric factor scores and sexual recidivism reported by Allan
et al. (2007) were as follows: Social Inadequacy, r = .12, p < .05; Sexual Interests, r = .21,
p < .001; Anger/Hostility, r = .12, p < .05; Pro-Offending Attitudes, r = .22, p < .001;
Overall Deviance, r = .28, p < .001.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication
of this article.

Funding
The research was supported by a Ryoichi Young Leaders Fellowship to the first author and the
New Zealand Department of Corrections.

References
Allan, M., Grace, R. C., Rutherford, B., & Hudson, S. M. (2007). Psychometric assessment of
dynamic risk factors for child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treat-
ment, 19, 347-367.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ:
LexisNexis/Anderson.
Beggs, S. M., & Grace, R. C. (2010). Measuring treatment outcome for child molesters: A com-
parative validity study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bickley, J. A., & Beech, A. R. (2003). Implications for treatment of sexual offenders of the
Ward and Hudson model of relapse. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
15, 121-134.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen
& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445-455). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Craissati, J., & Beech, A. R. (2003). A review of dynamic variables and their relationship to risk
prediction in sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 9, 41-55.
Doren, D. M. (2006). Recidivism risk assessments: Making sense of controversies. In
W. L. Marshall, Y. M. Fernandez, L. E. Marshall, & G. A. Serran (Eds.), Sexual offender
treatment: Controversial issues (pp. 3-15). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impres-
sionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical
controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating
characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839-843.
Beggs and Grace 251

Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender
recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of
sexual assault recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6-35.
Harris, A., Phenix, A., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). STATIC-99 coding rules
revised–2003. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual
offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments
for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment,
21, 1-21.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for
sex offenders (User Rep. 1999-02). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor
General of Canada.
Kingston, D. A. (2003). Violence Risk Scale: Sex Offender Version: A re-validation of a scale
to assess re-offence risk among sexual offenders (Unpublished Honours Project), Carleton
University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Looman, J., Dickie, I., & Abracen, J. (2005). Responsivity issues in the treatment of sexual
offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 330-353.
Olver, M. E. (2003). The development and validation of the Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender
Version (VRS:SO) and its relationship to psychopathy and treatment attrition (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Olver, M. E., Wong, S. C. P., Nicholaichuk, T. P., & Gordon, A. E. (2007). The validity and
reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender Version: Assessing sex offender risk
and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychological Assessment, 19, 318-329.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change:
Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (Eds.). (1998). Violent offenders:
Appraising and managing risk. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 139-153.
Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1998). A model of the relapse process in sexual offenders. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 700-725.
Wong, S. C. P., & Gordon, A. (2006). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale:
A treatment-friendly violence risk assessment tool. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12,
279-309.
Wong, S., Olver, M., Nicholaichuk, T., & Gordon, A. (2003). Violence Risk Scale: Sexual
Offender Version (Manual provided by authors).
Yates, P. M., & Kingston, D. A. (2006). The self-regulation model of sexual offending: The
relationship between offence pathways and static and dynamic sexual offence risk. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 259-270.

Downloaded from http://sax.sagepub.com at University of Canterbury Library on May 14, 2010

View publication stats