Racial differences in static and dynamic sexual risk assessment instruments: Static-99R and Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender.

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-15 DOI:10.1037/pas0001481
Norma E Garza, James C Mundt, Jeffrey C Sandler, Ryan S Hampton, Leah M Efferson, Naomi J Freeman
{"title":"Racial differences in static and dynamic sexual risk assessment instruments: Static-99R and Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender.","authors":"Norma E Garza, James C Mundt, Jeffrey C Sandler, Ryan S Hampton, Leah M Efferson, Naomi J Freeman","doi":"10.1037/pas0001481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individuals who commit sexual offenses are evaluated for reoffense risk using assessments of dynamic and static personal characteristics. Two of the most frequently used sexual risk assessments are the revised version of Static-99 (Static-99R) and Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender Version (VRS-SO), which have been largely developed and validated in non-Hispanic White samples. Using diverse, above-average risk U.S. samples, this study sought to (a) investigate racial differences in scoring on the Static-99R and the VRS-SO and (b) replicate the factor structure of the VRS-SO from Olver et al. (2007). A total of 1,104 assessment scores were collected from the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center and the New York State Office of Mental Health. All assessments were scored by trained forensic psychology evaluators at these institutions. Results showed racial differences in Static-99R and VRS-SO assessments. Specifically, non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to have higher scores in constructs related to sexual deviancy, while non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have higher scores in constructs related to general criminality. We did not replicate the original factor structure of Olver et al. and found the factor structures of VRS-SO items differ systematically across the two racial groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"673-682"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001481","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individuals who commit sexual offenses are evaluated for reoffense risk using assessments of dynamic and static personal characteristics. Two of the most frequently used sexual risk assessments are the revised version of Static-99 (Static-99R) and Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender Version (VRS-SO), which have been largely developed and validated in non-Hispanic White samples. Using diverse, above-average risk U.S. samples, this study sought to (a) investigate racial differences in scoring on the Static-99R and the VRS-SO and (b) replicate the factor structure of the VRS-SO from Olver et al. (2007). A total of 1,104 assessment scores were collected from the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center and the New York State Office of Mental Health. All assessments were scored by trained forensic psychology evaluators at these institutions. Results showed racial differences in Static-99R and VRS-SO assessments. Specifically, non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to have higher scores in constructs related to sexual deviancy, while non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have higher scores in constructs related to general criminality. We did not replicate the original factor structure of Olver et al. and found the factor structures of VRS-SO items differ systematically across the two racial groups.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
静态和动态性风险评估工具的种族差异:静态- 99r和暴力风险量表-性犯罪者。
使用动态和静态个人特征评估性犯罪者的再犯罪风险。最常用的两种性风险评估是修订版的Static-99 (Static-99R)和暴力风险量表-性犯罪者版本(VRS-SO),这两种评估主要是在非西班牙裔白人样本中开发和验证的。使用不同的、高于平均风险的美国样本,本研究试图(a)调查在Static-99R和VRS-SO得分上的种族差异,(b)复制Olver等人(2007)的VRS-SO的因素结构。从沙岭安全治疗中心和纽约州心理健康办公室共收集了1104份评估分数。所有的评估都由这些机构训练有素的法医心理学评估人员打分。结果显示,在Static-99R和VRS-SO评估中存在种族差异。具体来说,非西班牙裔白人患者在性变态相关构念中得分更高,而非西班牙裔黑人患者在一般犯罪相关构念中得分更高。我们没有复制Olver等人的原始因子结构,发现两个种族群体的VRS-SO项目的因子结构存在系统性差异。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
期刊最新文献
Assessing International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision (ICD-11) borderline psychopathology: Psychometric validation of the German Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS) in a psychiatric sample. Psychometric properties of the 13-Item Proposed Specifiers for Conduct Disorder–Parent Version (PSCD-PV). Assessing eating disorders in adults with type 1 diabetes: An item response theory analysis of the Diabetes Eating Problems Survey-Revised (DEPS-R). Adult reports and direct assessments of preschoolers' executive function: Patterns of convergence and divergence. Improving validity and efficiency of digital dyslexia screening through trial-by-trial feedback.
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1