Australian Psychologist

ISSN: 0005-0067 (Print) 1742-9544 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapy20

Prediction of the risk of male sexual reoffending in

Australia

Alfred Allan, Deborah Dawson & Maria M. Allan

To cite this article: Alfred Allan, Deborah Dawson & Maria M. Allan (2006) Prediction of
the risk of male sexual reoffending in Australia, Australian Psychologist, 41:1, 60-68, DOI:
10.1080/00050060500391886

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060500391886

Published online: 03 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 359

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapy20
Australian Psychologist, March 2006; 41(1): 60 – 68

Prediction of the risk of male sexual reoffending in Australia

ALFRED ALLAN1, DEBORAH DAWSON2, & MARIA M. ALLAN1

1
Clinical Forensic Psychology Program, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup and 2Offender Program Branch, Western
Australian Department of Justice, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Abstract
This paper reports the findings of a retrospective study designed, primarily, to investigate the predictive accuracy of the
Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offence Recidivism (RRASOR); the Static 99 and two models developed in Western
Australia, namely the Violent Offender Treatment Program Risk Assessment Scale (VOTPRAS) and the 3-Predictor model
on a Western Australian sample of violent and nonviolent sexual offenders. A secondary aim was to establish whether the
instruments are equally valid for Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and violent and nonviolent sexual offenders. The data of
538 convicted sexual offenders, who were assessed by the Sex Offender Treatment Program of the Western Australian
Department of Justice from 1987 to 2002, were used. The predictor variables were the total scores obtained for each
instrument and the outcome variable a conviction in a court for a further sexual offence and, in the case of the VOTPRAS,
also a further violent offence. In general the predictive accuracy of the 3-Predictor model was the best, followed by the Static
99, the RRASOR and last, the VOTPRAS. The study provides tentative support for the argument that risk assessment tools
that were developed overseas should not be used with Indigenous people without further research and that different
assessment tools should be developed for violent and nonviolent sexual offenders respectively.

The prediction of the risk of sexual reoffending
behaviour is an important task for psychologists
working in corrections settings. Probably the most
widely used method of doing this is the unstructured
clinical judgement approach. In response to criticism
(e.g., Hanson, 1998) of the reliance on clinical
expertise a number of instruments have been
developed to assist psychologists undertaking risk
assessments. Canadian research underpins most of
the instruments available, such as the Sexual
Offender Risk Assessment Guide (SORAG;
Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, & Harris, 1995); Sex
Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20; Boer, Wilson, Gauthier,
& Hart, 1997); Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual
Offence Recidivism (RRASOR; Hanson, 1997;
Hanson & Bussiere, 1996); and the Sexual Offender
Need Assessment Rating (SONAR; Hanson &
Harris, 2000a). A notable exception is an English
instrument, the Structured Anchored Clinical Judge-
ment (SACJ; Grubin, 1998) which was combined
with the RRASOR to form the Static 99 (Hanson &
Thornton, 1999, 2000). Most of these instruments
are strict actuarial instruments that use algorithms to
combine historical, and therefore static (unchange-
able) items to predict sexual recidivism. The SVR-
20, on the other hand, is an example of an
instrument that uses a structured professional judg-
ment approach that takes into account both static
and dynamic (changeable) factors that have been
empirically identified as predictors of sexual recidi-
vism in a specific population. The advantage of
structured professional judgment instruments is that
they allow psychologists to take into account current
circumstances and clinical observations. Instead of a
simple summation of risk factors, all the factors are
considered and integrated (Boer, Hart, Kropp, &
Webster, 1997). Both types of instruments, but
especially the actuarial instruments, rely heavily on
specific normative samples, and consequently care
should be taken when administering them in other
cultures and countries (Allan & Dawson, 2002;
Amenta, Guy, & Edens, 2003; Lennings, 2003).
The Offender Program Branch (OPB) has been
assessing and treating Western Australian sexual

Correspondence: A. Allan, Clinical Forensic Psychology Program, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia.
E-mail: a.allan@ecu.edu.au
ISSN 0005-0067 print/ISSN 1742-9544 online Ó The Australian Psychological Society Ltd
Published by Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00050060500391886
 Prediction of risk of male sexual reoffending 61

offenders since 1987. In the absence of Australian-
developed instruments aimed at assessing the risk of
reoffending by male sexual offenders, psychologists
working for OPB use the Violent Offender Treat-
ment Program Risk Assessment Scale (VOTPRAS;
Ward & Dockerill, 1999). This instrument was
developed in Western Australia for the assessment
of violent offenders’ eligibility to a violent offenders’
treatment program. Other names used for this
instrument include Level of Service Need Inventory
(LOSNI); Violent Offender Risk Assessment Scale
(VORAS) and Violent Offender Risk Treatment
Assessment Scale (VOTRAS). To prevent confusion
we decided, in consultation with one of the devel-
opers of the instrument (K. Howells, personal
communication, 28 March 2005), to follow Ward
and Dockerill (1999). Little has been published
about the VOTPRAS, but five of its seven items are
related to previous and current criminal offences and
two to alcohol and drug use. These items were
unevenly weighted. The VOTPRAS has not been
cross-validated and the reported accuracy rates are
based on a limited sample of 50 Indigenous and
152 non-Indigenous violent offenders (Ward &
Dockerill, 1999; Table 1).
Although no published cross-validation studies of
the international instruments mentioned above have
to date been undertaken in Australia, a number have
been undertaken in European countries in respect of
the RRASOR and the Static 99, both of interest to
this study. In a Dutch study the predictive validity of
the Static 99, while still modest, was notably poorer
than that of the SVR-20 (De Vogel, de Ruiter, van
Beek, & Mead, 2004). The Swedish studies (Lång-
ström, 2004; Sjöstedt, 2002; Sjöstedt & Grann,
2002; Sjöstedt & Långström, 2001, 2002) indicated
that both instruments show modest accuracy regard-
ing sexual recidivism, with the Static 99 marginally
outperforming the RRASOR (Table 1), a finding
consistent with Canadian results (Barbaree, Seto,
Langton, & Peacock, 2001; Hanson & Thornton,
2000; Table 1). The Långström (2004) finding of
possible race differences in Sweden in the predictive
validity of the RRASOR and the Static 99, particu-
larly in respect of African Asian offenders (Table 1),
is of particular importance to this study.
After considering the meagre literature regarding
the validity of risk prediction instruments with
Indigenous people in Canada, Långström concluded
that ‘‘further studies of the accuracy of risk assess-
ment instruments across immigration status and
ethnicity are needed’’ (p. 117).
These European cross-validation studies suggest
that there may be some shrinkage in validity if the
RRASOR and Static 99 are used outside North
America. In particular the Långström (2004) find-
ings imply that it would be inappropriate to use the
RRASOR and Static 99 in Australia without a
thorough investigation of their validity for local
populations, especially with regard to Indigenous
Australians (Allan & Dawson, 2002, 2004), who are
overrepresented in the criminal justice system
(Baker, 2001; Walker & McDonald, 1995). The
culture of Indigenous people is notably different

Table 1. Predictive accuracy of risk assessment instruments for sexual reoffending among adult male sexual offenders in different countries

AUCa of different instruments

Study Sample RRASOR Static 99 VOTPRAS 3-P

Allan & Dawson (2002) WA Indigenous .97

Barbaree et al. (2001) Canadian .73 .68
Dempster (1998) Canadian .77
De Vogel et al. (2004) Dutch .71
Hanson (1997) Canadian .71
Hanson & Thornton (2000) Canadian and United Kingdom .68 .71
Långström (2004) Full Swedish .73 .75
Nordic .76 .76
Non-nordic European .77 .79
African Asian .48 .50
Sjöstedt & Långström (2001) Swedish .72 .76
Sjöstedt (2002) Swedish .73
Sjöstedt & Grann (2002) Swedish .73 .75
Ward & Dockerill (1999) WA Indigenous and non-Indigenousb .72 – .76c

Note. AUC ¼ area under the receiver operating characteristics curve; RRASOR ¼ Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offence Recidivism;
3-P ¼ 3-Predictor model; VOTPRAS ¼ Violent Offender Treatment Program Risk Assessment Scale.
a
AUC is typically used as index in the assessment of accuracy in prediction of recidivism. This method is discussed in the Statistical Analysis
section, here it is adequate to say that Sjöstedt and Grann (2002) considered an AUC of 5.60 but 5.70 as marginal, 5.70 but 5.80 as
modest, 5.80 but 5.90 as moderate and 5.90 as high.
b
Violent offenders.
c
Violent reoffending based on varying time at risk.
62 A. Allan et al.
from that of non-Indigenous people. It cannot be
assumed that an instrument that was developed for
people from a different culture would be valid in an
Indigenous Australian population.
The retrospective study reported in this paper
was undertaken to investigate the predictive accu-
racy of a number of instruments taking into account
the race of offenders. This was done as part of an
ongoing study and to assist the OPB of the Western
Australian Department of Justice in identifying an
appropriate instrument to use to predict the risk of
sexual recidivism. Predictive accuracy was investi-
gated as a function of violent sexual and nonviolent
sexual offending because we believe that violent and
nonviolent sexual offenders should be treated as two
distinct groups when their risk of sexual offending is
assessed and that a clear distinction should also be
made between the risk of violent and nonviolent
sexual offending. This belief is based on previous
research with juvenile sexual offenders that sug-
gested that violent sexual offenders form a distinct
group that is likely to commit both sexual and
nonsexual violent offences (e.g., homicide) later
(Allan, Allan, Marshall, & Kraszlan, 2003; also see
Rubinstein, Yeager, Goodstein, & Lewis, 1993).
This is confirmed by the Allan and Dawson (2002)
study and reports by psychologists working for OPB
that they see qualitative differences between violent
and nonviolent sexual offenders.
When the study commenced OPB was considering
adopting the RRASOR as its instrument of choice to
assess the risk of sexual reoffending. The Static 99,
which was found to have modest predictive accuracy
with sexual offenders in Canada, the United King-
dom (Hanson & Thornton, 1999, 2000), the
Netherlands (De Vogel et al., 2004) and Sweden
(Långström, 2004; Sjöstedt, 2002; Sjöstedt &
Grann, 2002; Sjöstedt & Långström, 2001), was
included after the commencement of data collection
when the OPB identified it as a viable alternative to
the RRASOR. As a consequence of the late inclusion
the data collected and analysed to evaluate this
instrument came from a smaller sample.
We also examined the predictive validity of an
experimental instrument, the 3-Predictor model
(Allan & Dawson, 2002). This model was devel-
oped in the course of an earlier Western Australian
retrospective study that examined the factors that
predict whether Indigenous male sexual offenders
would reoffend violently and sexually, respectively.
We found that for sexual offenders (violent and
nonviolent) the three factors that best predicted
sexual reoffending were all dynamic, namely un-
realistic long-term goals, unfeasible release plans,
and poor coping skills prior to release (these
constructs are defined in the Method section).
The predictive accuracy of this instrument was very
good (Table 1), a finding that should be interpreted
with great caution given that only 39 of the sample
of 109 reoffended during the study period. When
92 non-Indigenous offenders (of whom 38 had
reoffended in the study period) were added to the
Indigenous group, the 3-Predictor model was still
found to be highly accurate, leaving very little
variance unaccounted for. Two factors prompted
the use of the 3-Predictor model in the present
study: (a) it served as a locally developed model
with which to compare the two internationally
developed instruments, and (b) it provided an
opportunity to determine whether the same levels
of accuracy reported for this instrument in Table 1
could be obtained for a larger sample of Indigenous
and non-Indigenous sexual offenders.
Method
Databases
Data used in this study were collected as part of a
comprehensive and ongoing research project aimed
at validating and developing risk prediction instru-
ments for Australian offender populations. The
OPB’s offender files contain extensive and detailed
information ranging from presentence reports, victim
impact statements, judges’ comments, psychiatric
and psychological reports to therapist notes. As part
of the project, a team of trained coders systematically
coded the data in the offender files and captured it in
electronic format. At the time this study was under-
taken two databases had been completed. The first
database contains information about 67 psychosocial
variables for 1838 Indigenous sexual and violent
offenders. The second database contains information
about 242 psychosocial variables for 1000 Indigen-
ous and non-Indigenous sexual offenders. Coders
used definition manuals that defined each variable.
These definitions were developed with reference to
the literature and each coder was trained until 85%
concordance was reached for each factor with all
coders. The research team worked in consultation
with an Indigenous Advisory Committee (Allan
& Dawson, 2004; Fong, Merson, Tittums,
O’Loughlin, & Yavu-Kama-Harathunian, 2002)
and where the definition of a factor was deemed
culturally inappropriate by this committee, an
appropriate definition was negotiated. Some defini-
tions important for an understanding of the study are
briefly provided next.
Definitions
Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Offenders who iden-
tified themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islanders at assessment were defined as Indigenous;

offenders identifying themselves as of any other
origin were defined as non-Indigenous.
Sexual offence. Any offence identified by OPB as an
offence requiring a sexual offender intervention
program was deemed to be a sexual offence
irrespective of whether the person had undergone
such a program. Offences considered requiring such
intervention included unwanted and illegal contact
of a sexual nature and those with a covert sexual
motive, such as administration of a stupefying drug
and abduction with intent.
Violent and nonviolent sexual offences. Sexual of-
fences involving assault causing physical harm to the
victim were regarded as violent sexual offences; sexual
offences in the absence of assault causing physical
harm were regarded as nonviolent sexual offences. To
meet the criteria for sexual violence the act of violence
had to be supported by medical reports, material facts
or sentencing remarks in the relevant file.
Time at risk. This was calculated from the senten-
cing date of the original offence to the sentencing or
incarceration date of the subsequent offence (ex-
cluding prison time).
Poor coping skills. This was coded if there was
evidence on file that the offender had used alcohol or
other maladaptive behaviours as a coping strategy.
For Indigenous offenders the offender may state he
uses one or more maladaptive behaviours to deal
with hurting inside (Memmott, Stacy, Chambers, &
Keys, 2001).
Unfeasible release plans. This was coded when there
was evidence on file that the offender did not have
feasible or realistic release plans when he was
released from prison or court, for example, where
the offender planned to return to a high-risk
environment such as where they would be in close
contact with young children.
Unrealistic long-term goals. This was coded if there
was evidence on file that the offender was unable to
plan for the future in a realistic way. For example,
plans in respect of relationships and work (pattern of
meaningful activity for Indigenous offenders) that
were clearly nonachievable given the offender’s
history and circumstances.
Participants
The coded data of 538 convicted sexual offenders (347
Indigenous and 191 non-Indigenous; 161 violent and
377 nonviolent) taken from the two databases men-
tioned above were used in this study. The offences that
Prediction of risk of male sexual reoffending 63
led to the assessment (index offence) ranged from
wilful exposure to rape. The mean age at first offence
was 21 and at time of the index offence, 31. The
average time at risk for this sample was 9 years 3
months and during this period 179 reoffended in a
nonviolent sexual manner; 69 in a violent sexual
manner and 239 in a nonsexual violent manner.
Due to the fact that a smaller number of variables
were coded in the first database than the second, the
sample sizes vary for the different analyses. The data
of these 538 offenders remained after the exclusion
of the data of a number of offenders from the two
databases. Data of Indigenous offenders known to be
deceased was excluded for cultural reasons. The data
of offenders who had been used in the development
of the 3-Predictor model (Allan & Dawson, 2002)
and in a pilot study for the present study (Bell, 2002;
Bell & Allan, 2002) were also not used to avoid
inflating accuracy rates.
Procedure
The four instruments (RRASOR, VOTPRAS, Static
99 and 3-Predictor model) were scored using data
available in the databases. In order to ensure
consistency one research assistant scored each case
while at least one other research assistant checked
the scores. Where there was a difference of opinion
the scorers, in consultation with the senior research
assistant, discussed the case until consensus was
reached. The senior research assistant also did a
random audit of the scoring of cases where there was
no difference of opinion. Data on recidivism was
retrieved from the relevant Western Australian and
national databases and offenders were followed up
until their last recorded conviction. When we inves-
tigated the accuracy of prediction for all sexual
offenders, we included all future sexual offences, but
for the VOTPRAS an additional investigation was
undertaken to determine the accuracy of prediction for
subsequent nonsexual violent offences. These include
violence with or without physical harm, but not
behaviour involving acts of a sexual nature. For the
separate investigations of the nonviolent and violent
groups in the sample we included future nonviolent
sexual and violent sexual offences, respectively.
A subsequent offence that was committed while on
bail, but adjudicated at the same time as the index
offence, was classified as a reoffence.
Statistical analysis
In the current study we were concerned with how
well the total score on the various risk instruments
predicted group membership (reoffenders and non-
reoffenders). This was assessed using a classification
matrix generated by discriminant function analysis
64 A. Allan et al.
(DFA) that depicts the number of cases that were
classified correctly and those that were misclassified.
Each participant’s discriminant score (generated via
total scores on each instrument) was utilised to
determine the posterior probabilities of being in each
of the two groups (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Although not reported here due to a focus on the
comparison between the various tools and differing
offender groups, sensitivity and specificity for various
cut-off points were assessed using receiver operating
characteristics (ROC).
Despite limitations (Amenta et al., 2003; Dolan &
Doyle, 2000) ROC analysis appears to be the
preferred method to investigate the predictive value
of prediction tools (Dolan & Doyle, 2000; Gardner,
Lidz, Mulvey, & Shaw, 1996; Mossman, 1994a,
1994b, 2000; Mossman & Somoza, 1991; Rice &
Harris, 1995a, 1995b, 1997; Steadman, 2000). The
ROC curve is a plot of the true positive rate
(sensitivity) as a function of the false positive rate
(1 minus specificity). The area under the curve
(AUC) is a statistical index that represents the average
difference in true positive and false positive rates
across all possible cut-offs. The AUC can range from
0 to 1 (implying perfect performance), with an AUC
of .5 indicative of no better than random prediction.
In the case of the prediction of sexual reoffending,
the AUC represents the probability that a randomly
selected person who commits a new sexual offence
has a higher score on the specific instrument than a
randomly selected person who does not.
Results
VOTPRAS
A sample of 538 was used to investigate the
VOTPRAS. As Table 2 shows, the AUC for all
sexual offenders was .53, and DFA analysis revealed
Table 2. Predictive accuracy of risk assessment instruments for sexual reoffending among adult male sexual offenders in Western Australia
n RRASOR
All sexual offenders 538 .71
Race
Non-Indigenous 191 .74
Indigenous 347 .65
Offence type
Nonviolent sexuala 377 .72
Violent sexualb 161 .46
Non-Indigenous nonviolent sexuala 144
Notes. AUC ¼ area under the receiver operating characteristics curve; RRASOR ¼ Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offence Recidivism;
3-P ¼ 3-Predictor model; VOTPRAS ¼ Violent Offender Treatment Program Risk Assessment Scale.
a
Prediction of nonviolent sexual reoffending.
b
Prediction of violent sexual reoffending.
c
n ¼ 226.
that all reoffenders had been incorrectly classified
(nonreoffenders 100% accurately classified). The
AUC was .52 for nonviolent sexual offenders and .70
for violent sexual offenders, with all reoffenders
classified incorrectly and all nonreoffenders classified
correctly in both groups. The prediction accuracy for
sexual offences in general was not investigated as the
results were very different for nonviolent and violent
sexual offences.
As would be expected of a violence prediction tool,
when only subsequent nonsexual violent offending
was considered for the total sample, an AUC of .79
was achieved. The classification accuracy was 72.2%
for nonreoffenders and 73.8% for reoffenders.
The VOTPRAS was more accurate in the pre-
diction of sexual reoffending for non-Indigenous
(AUC ¼ .53) than Indigenous offenders (AUC ¼ .48).
Classification accuracy for both groups was poor, with
all reoffenders being incorrectly classified (100%
classification accuracy for nonreoffenders). Given
the notable difference in the prediction accuracy for
violent and nonviolent sexual offenders it would have
been preferable to investigate violent and nonviolent
Indigenous and non-Indigenous sexual offenders
separately, but the sample size was too small for
separate investigations.
When only the prediction of subsequent nonsexual
violent offending was considered, the VOTPRAS
had an AUC of .65 for Indigenous offenders and .75
for non-Indigenous offenders. Classification accu-
racy for non-Indigenous offenders was 87.8% for
reoffenders and 47.5% for nonreoffenders. For
Indigenous reoffenders the accuracy was 96.3% for
reoffenders and 25.9% for nonreoffenders.
RRASOR
In comparison to the VOTPRAS, greater rates of
accuracy were found for the RRASOR in respect to
AUC of different instruments
VOTPRAS Static 99 3-P
.53 .84c
.53
.48
.52
.70
.78

sexual reoffending. The AUC was .71 for all sexual
offenders (n ¼ 538). Classification accuracy was good
for nonreoffenders (92.6%) but poor for reoffenders
(27.1%). The results were similar for nonviolent
sexual offenders with an AUC of .72, and 91.6% of
nonreoffenders classified correctly and 31% of
reoffenders. In contrast, the AUC was .46 for violent
sexual offenders, with only 2.9% of reoffenders
classified correctly even though 98.7% of nonreof-
fenders were classified correctly.
For Indigenous offenders the AUC was .65 and
again classification accuracy was poor for reoffenders
(nonreoffenders ¼ 95%; reoffenders ¼ 17.1%). For
non-Indigenous offenders the AUC was .74 and
classification accuracy was 91.3% for nonreoffenders
and 33.6% for reoffenders.
Static 99
Due to the late inclusion of the Static 99 in the study
we were unable to examine differences as a function
of ethnicity and offence type. Therefore the following
results are for a small sample (n ¼ 144) of non-
Indigenous nonviolent sexual offenders. The AUC
was .78 and classification accuracy was moderate for
reoffenders (52.5%), but good for nonreoffenders
(91.3%).
3-Predictor
There were 226 offenders of the 538 in the sample
who had data available for the testing of the 3-
Predictor model. These offenders represented a
combined group of Indigenous and non-Indigenous
offenders and nonviolent sexual and violent sexual
offenders. Due to the small sample size discrete
analyses were not possible for the various groups.
The 3-Predictor model achieved high levels of
accuracy (AUC ¼ .84). The classification accuracy
was 90% for nonreoffenders and 75% for reoffen-
ders. The accuracy rate for reoffenders increased to
82.5% when violent sexual offenders were removed
from the sample.
Discussion
If the relative predictive accuracy of the four
instruments is compared it is clear that the 3-
Predictor model was the best predictor of sexual
reoffending in Western Australia despite shrinkage
(AUC ¼ .84). However, the findings in respect of the
3-Predictor model should be interpreted cautiously
given the relatively small sample.
The predictive accuracy of the Static 99 is in
accordance with that found in Canada (Barbaree
et al., 2001; Hanson & Thornton, 2000); Sweden
(Långström, 2004; Sjöstedt & Grann, 2002; Sjöstedt
Prediction of risk of male sexual reoffending 65
& Långström, 2001) and the Netherlands (De Vogel
et al., 2004). Despite its modest AUC (.78) the Static
99 was the next most accurate instrument after the 3-
Predictor model, but once again the findings must be
viewed with caution due to the small sample size and
the fact that it consisted of only non-Indigenous
nonviolent sexual offenders.
As in most other studies, the Static 99 out-
performed the RRASOR in terms of predictive
accuracy (Hanson & Thornton, 2000; Långström,
2004; Sjöstedt & Grann, 2002; Sjöstedt & Lång-
ström, 2001), but for a contra result see Barbaree
et al. (2001). Even with Indigenous people in the
sample the predictive accuracy of the RRASOR
(AUC ¼ .71) is in accordance with that found in
Canada (Barbaree et al., 2001; Dempster, 1998;
Hanson, 1997; Hanson & Thornton, 2000) and
Sweden (Långström, 2004; Sjöstedt, 2002; Sjöstedt
& Grann, 2002; Sjöstedt & Långström, 2001). It was
nevertheless considerably poorer in respect of the
Indigenous offenders when a discrete analysis was
done (AUC ¼ .65).
Given that the VOTPRAS was developed for
violent offenders it is not surprising that compared
to the other instruments, its predictive accuracy was
poor for sexual offenders. However, what is notable
is that its predictive accuracy was much better for
violent (AUC ¼ .70) than for nonviolent
(AUC ¼ .52) sexual offenders. The predictive accu-
racy was poor for both Indigenous and non-
Indigenous sexual offenders, but slightly better for
the non-Indigenous group (AUC of .53 vs. .48). It
should be noted that the predictive accuracy in
respect of violent reoffending was better for the
sexual offenders in the present study than that found
by Ward and Dockerill (1999) for violent offenders
(AUC of .79 vs. .73).
While we acknowledge that more research is
required, the results with respect to the RRASOR
provide support for our belief that instruments
developed in other countries should preferably not
be used with Indigenous people without a proper
investigation. The AUC for non-Indigenous Western
Australians in this study was .74, very similar to that
found in Canada where the RRASOR was developed
(Table 1), while it was only .65 for Indigenous
people in our study.
The findings of this study also support the opinion
of the OPB clinicians that there are qualitative
differences between violent and nonviolent sexual
offenders, and our own conclusion that these two
groups require different assessment instruments
(Allan & Dawson, 2002). The predictive accuracy
of the RRASOR, a sexual offending risk assessment
instrument, was poor (AUC ¼ .46) for violent sexual
offenders compared to nonviolent sexual offenders
(AUC ¼ .72). In contrast the VOTPRAS, which was
66 A. Allan et al.
developed to assess the eligibility for treatment of
high-risk violent offenders, was much better at
predicting reoffending by violent sexual offenders
(AUC ¼ .70) compared to the AUC of .52 for
nonviolent sexual offenders.
These disparate findings for violent and nonviolent
sexual offenders add support to the notion that group
differences should be considered in the development,
and examination of the predictive accuracy, of risk
assessment instruments (Miller, Amenta, & Conroy,
2005). Despite earlier findings that there are no
offender type differences in actuarial prediction of
sexual recidivism (Hanson & Thornton, 2000;
Sjöstedt & Långström, 2001), Bartosh, Garby,
Lewis, and Gray (2003) found that the effectiveness
of the four instruments they examined were related
to offender type. Although our study does not make
the more traditional distinction between different
types of sexual offenders, it does indicate that further
research is warranted examining possible group
differences.
The relative superiority of the VOTPRAS for
violent sexual offenders in this study also suggests
that other instruments used to assess the risk of future
violent behaviour, such as the Psychopathy Check-
list – Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991), may be more
accurate in predicting the risk of violent sexual
reoffending than instruments such as the RRASOR,
developed specifically to assess the risk of sexual
offending in general. We are aware of findings that the
PCL-R on its own is not a good predictor of sexual
recidivism in general (e.g., Barbaree et al., 2001), but
it is well-established that violent sexual offenders are
more likely to be convicted of a new nonsexual violent
offence than a new sexual offence (Allan et al., 2003;
Hildebrand, De Ruiter, & De Vogel, 2004; Prentky,
Lee, Knight, & Cerce, 1997; Rubinstein et al., 1993;
Sjöstedt & Långström, 2002).
It is notable that the 3-Predictor model is entirely
based on dynamic risk factors. This is in sharp
contrast with the Hanson and Bussiere (1998)
finding, when they reviewed 61 sexual offending
studies, that long-term recidivism was best pre-
dicted by static factors. However, Hanson and
Harris (2000b) found that even after controlling
for pre-existing differences in static risk factors,
dynamic factors continued to be strongly associated
with recidivism. Furthermore, studies on nonsexual
offenders have found that dynamic risk factors
predict recidivism at least as well as static variables
(Gendreau, Little, & Goggom, 1996; Zamble &
Quinsey, 1997). Given that the 3-Predictor model is
still under development, our finding that the three
best predictors of sexual reoffending were all
dynamic should be treated with caution. Never-
theless it indicates that research in respect of the
dynamic risk factors for sexual offenders is im-
portant. Future research should in particular
investigate whether the combination of the dynamic
factors of the 3-Predictor model and the static
factors measured by an instrument such as the
Static 99 would predict better than instruments
based exclusively on static or dynamic factors.
Some of the limitations of the present study have
already been referred to. In particular, the relatively
small number of participants made it impossible to
investigate the predictive accuracy of all instruments
separately for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offen-
ders, and violent and nonviolent sexual offenders.
Other limitations common to studies in which data
are collected retrospectively from official records
were that there were missing data and that the
accuracy of some records was uncertain. This was
dealt with by comparing our data with that from
other official sources where possible. It is also
impossible to be certain how representative the
sample is of the total population of sexual offenders
in Western Australia because the use of convictions
as recorded in official records is notoriously unreli-
able (Friendship & Thornton, 2001; Mayhew, Elliot,
& Dowds, 1989; Taylor, 1999). To compound the
problem in the present study, not all sexual offenders
convicted by the courts are assessed by OPB and
therefore the data of some offenders may not be
included in the databases we used. It should also be
noted that because Australian Indigenous people
come from a large number of distinct language, skin
and geographical subgroups the findings of the
present study cannot be generalised to all Australian
Indigenous people.
Nevertheless, the present study provides support
for the contention that risk assessment instruments
developed in other countries and cultures should
not be applied in Australia, and particularly with
Indigenous people, without proper investigation.
The study further demonstrated that it is possible to
develop an instrument specifically for an Australian
population of Indigenous and non-Indigenous sex-
ual offenders that is more accurate than other
instruments currently in use. It further confirms
that instruments consisting of dynamic factors are
useful predictors of risk, and suggests that dynamic
factors may play an important role in the sexual
reoffending of sexual offenders. Finally, it supports
our belief that it is necessary to develop different
risk prediction instruments for violent and
nonviolent sexual offenders.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by an Edith Cowan
University and Western Australian Department of
Justice collaborative grant. However, the views
expressed in this paper and inferences made are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
official opinion of either Edith Cowan University or
the Department of Justice. The authors acknowledge
the contribution of two anonymous reviewers,
Fran Bell, Mary Edwards, Peter Marshall, Ranjini
Sathyanath and the student research assistants work-
ing on the Offender Program Edith Cowan research
project.
References
Allan, A., Allan, M. M., Marshall, P., & Kraszlan, K. (2003).
Recidivism among male juvenile sexual offenders in Western
Australia. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 10, 359 – 378.
Allan, A., & Dawson, D. (2002). Developing a unique risk of violence
tool for Australian Indigenous offenders (No. CRC 6/00-01).
Canberra: Criminology Research Council.
Allan, A., & Dawson, D. (2004). Assessment of the risk of reoffending
by Indigenous male violent and sexual offenders (Trends and issues
in crime and criminal justice No. 280). Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Amenta, A. E., Guy, L. S., & Edens, J. F. (2003). Sex offender risk
assessment: A cautionary note regarding measures attempting
to quantify violence risk. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice,
3, 39 – 50.
Baker, J. (2001). The scope for reducing indigenous imprisonment rates
(Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 55). Sydney:
New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J.
(2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk instru-
ments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28,
490 – 521.
Bartosh, D. L., Garby, T., Lewis, D., & Gray, S. (2003).
Differences in the predictive validity of actuarial risk assess-
ment in relation to sex offender type. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 422 – 438.
Bell, F. A. (2002). Sexual and violent recidivism in Western
Australian sex offenders: Assessing the predictive accuracy of risk
assessment. Unpublished Bachelor of Arts (Psychology) Hon-
ours thesis, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia.
Bell, F. A., & Allan, A. (2002, 23 – 24 September). Predicting sexual
and violent recidivism in Western Australian sexual offenders. Paper
presented at the Probation and Community Corrections:
Making the Community Safer Conference, Perth, Western
Australia.
Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997).
Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk – 20: Professional guidelines for
assessing risk of sexual violence. Vancouver: Mental Health, Law
and Policy Institute Simon Fraser University.
Boer, D. P., Wilson, R. J., Gauthier, C. M., & Hart, S. D. (1997).
Assessing risk of sexual violence: Guidelines for clinical
practice. In C. D. Webster, & M. A. Jackson (Eds.),
Impulsivity: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 327 – 342).
New York: The Guilford Press.
De Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., van Beek, D., & Mead, G. (2004).
Predictive validity of the SVR-20 and Static 99 in a Dutch
sample of treated sex offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 28,
235 – 251.
Dempster, R. J. (1998). Prediction of sexually violent recidivism:
A comparison of risk assessment instruments. Unpublished
Master of Arts (Psychology), Simon Fraser University,
Vancouver.
Dolan, M., & Doyle, M. (2000). Violence risk prediction. Clinical
and actuarial measures and the role of the Psychopathy
Checklist. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 303 – 311.
Prediction of risk of male sexual reoffending 67
Fong, N., Merson, N., Tittums, J., O’Loughlin, H., &
Yavu-Kama-Harathunian, C. (2002). Indigenous advisors: A
‘‘blueprint’’ for the future. Paper presented at the Probation and
Community Corrections: Making the Community Safer,
Perth, Western Australia, 23 – 24 September, 2002.
Friendship, C., & Thornton, D. (2001). Sexual reconviction for
sexual offenders discharged from prison in England and Wales.
British Journal of Criminology, 41, 285 – 292.
Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1996).
Clinical versus actuarial predictions of violence in patients with
mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64,
602 – 609.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggom, C. E. (1996). A meta-
analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What
works! Criminology, 34, 575 – 607.
Grubin, D. (1998). Sex offending against children: Understanding the
risk (Police research series paper No. 99). London: Home
Office.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial scale for
sexual offence recidivism (User report No. 97 – 04). Ottawa:
Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R. K. (1998). What do we know about sexual
offender risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
4, 50 – 72.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1996). Predictors of sexual
offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Retrieved 24 March, 1997,
from http://www.sgc.gc.ca
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, 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. (2000a). The sex offender need
assessment rating (Sonar): A method for measuring change in risk
levels. Retrieved 10 April, 2000, from http://www.sgc.gc.ca
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2000b). Where should we
intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6 – 15.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving risk
assessments for sex offenders. Retrieved 16 August, 2002, from
http://www.sgc.gc.ca
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assess-
ments for sexual offenders: A comparison of three actuarial
scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119 – 136.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised
Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hildebrand, M., De Ruiter, C., & De Vogel, V. (2004).
Psychopathy and sexual deviance in treated rapists: Association
with sexual and nonsexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research and Treatment, 16, 1 – 24.
Långström, N. (2004). Accuracy of actuarial procedures for
assessment of sexual offender recidivism risk may vary across
ethnicity. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16,
107 – 120.
Lennings, C. J. (2003). The use of the RSV-20 in a forensic
sample: A research note. International Journal of Forensic
Psychology, 1, 147 – 153.
Mayhew, P., Elliot, D., & Dowds, L. (1989). The British crime
survey (Home Office Research Study No. 111). London: Home
Office.
Memmott, P., Stacy, R., Chambers, C., & Keys, C. (2001).
Violence in Indigenous communities. Canberra: Commonwealth
Attorney-General’s Department.
Miller, H. A., Amenta, A. E., & Conroy, M. A. (2005). Sexually
violent predator evaluations: Empirical evidence, strategies for
professionals, and research directions. Law and Human
Behavior, 29, 29 – 54.
Mossman, D. (1994a). Assessing predictions of violence: Being
accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 62, 783 – 792.
68 A. Allan et al.
Mossman, D. (1994b). Further comments on portraying the
accuracy of violence prediction. Law and Human Behaviour,
18, 587 – 593.
Mossman, D. (2000). Commentary: Assessing the risk of violence
– Are ‘‘accurate’’ predictions useful? The Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 272 – 281.
Mossman, D., & Somoza, E. (1991). ROC curves, test accuracy,
and the description of diagnostic tests. Journal of Neuropsy-
chiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 3, 330 – 333.
Prentky, R. A., Lee, A. F. S., Knight, R. A., & Cerce, D. (1997).
Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A metho-
dological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 635 – 659.
Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T.
(1995). Predicting sexual offences. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.),
Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sex offenders, batterers, and
child abusers (pp. 114 – 137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995a). Psychopathy, schizophrenia,
alcohol abuse, and violent recidivism. International Journal of
Law & Psychiatry, 18, 333 – 342.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995b). Violent recidivism:
Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 63, 737 – 748.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1997). Cross-validation and
extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for child
molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 231 – 241.
Rubinstein, M., Yeager, C. A., Goodstein, C., & Lewis, D. O.
(1993). Sexually assaultive male juveniles: A follow-up.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 262 – 265.
Sjöstedt, G. (2002). Violent recidivism among sexual offenders: Risk
factors and assessment procedures. Unpublished Doctor of
Philosophy dissertation, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
Sjöstedt, G., & Grann, M. (2002). Risk assessment: What
is being predicted by actuarial prediction instruments?
International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1, 179 –
183.
Sjöstedt, G., & Långström, N. (2001). Actuarial assessment of sex
offender recidivism risk: A cross-validation of the RRASOR
and the Static-99 in Sweden. Law and Human Behavior, 25,
629 – 645.
Sjöstedt, G., & Långström, N. (2002). Assessment of risk
for criminal recidivism amongst rapists: A comparison
of four different measures. Psychology, Crime and Law, 8,
25 – 40.
Steadman, H. J. (2000). From dangerousness to risk assessment of
community violence: Taking stock at the turn of the century.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28,
265 – 271.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, R. (1999). Predicting reconvictions for sexual and violent
offences using the revised offender group reconviction scale.
(Research Findings No. 104). London: Home Office Research
and Statistics Directorate.
Walker, J., & McDonald, D. (1995). The over-representation of
Indigenous people in custody in Australia (Trends and issues in
crime and criminal justice No. 47). Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Ward, A., & Dockerill, J. (1999). The predictive accuracy of the
Violent Offender Treatment Program Risk Assessment Scale.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 125 – 140.
Zamble, E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1997). The criminal recidivism
process. New York: Cambridge University Press.