Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.664317
Title: Sex offender risk assessment
Author: Tully, Ruth
Awarding Body: University of Nottingham
Current Institution: University of Nottingham
Date of Award: 2012
Availability of Full Text:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Restricted access.
Please contact the current institution’s library for further details.
Abstract:
This thesis examined sex offender risk assessment. A systematic review of the literature found that the predictive validity of tools that take an actuarial approach, and tools that take a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach is promising, but that the quality of available research in this field is variable. Further evaluation of tools taking the SPJ approach was recommended, as was further validation of sex offender risk assessment tools on sex offender sub-groups. A case study of an adult male sex offender demonstrated the complexities involved in sex offender risk assessment in clinical practice, and the challenges clinicians face in making assessments and recommendations following sex offender treatment. Following this, the RM2000/S (Thornton et aI., 2003) was critically appraised, and finally an empirical research study was preformed whereby the predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Risk and Need Treatment Needs Analysis (SARN TNA; Thornton, 2002) was assessed. Despite widespread use ofthe SARN TNA by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) of England and Wales, its level of predictive power was found to be small. The findings suggest that the SARN TNA should not be relied on as a predictor scale for sexual recidivism. This highlights the need for further evaluation of the tool, which could result in the method of assigning risk group being modified. The final chapter of the thesis summarises the findings of the thesis chapters, and concludes that further evaluation of the effectiveness of sex offender risk assessment tools is necessary to be able to use these tools to aid defensible decision-making.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (D.Foren.Psychol.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.664317  DOI: Not available
Share: