The predictive validity of common risk assessment tools in men with intellectual disabilities and problematic sexual behaviors.
VRAG and SORAG give usable, middle-strength forecasts of sexual re-offense in intellectually disabled men—treat scores as risk flags, not fate.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fedoroff et al. (2016) checked how well three risk tools predict new sex crimes in men with intellectual disability.
They used the VRAG, SORAG, and SDRS with a group of adult male offenders.
The team looked at who committed another sexual or violent offense within the next few years.
What they found
The VRAG and SORAG gave moderate short-term warning signals for sexual re-offending.
The SDRS added extra value when the team looked at future violent acts, not just sexual ones.
Scores were helpful, but they were not perfect crystal balls.
How this fits with other research
Stancliffe et al. (2007) watched 103 men with ID in community care and saw a 10.7% sexual re-offense rate over six years. Paul et al. now give accuracy numbers for the same tools, turning a simple rate into a usable risk gauge.
Lindsay (2002) warned that most studies on sex offenders with ID were weak and tools were untested. Paul et al. answer that call by supplying real predictive data, moving the field from guess-work to evidence.
van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk et al. (2006) found that low sexual knowledge does not predict offending. That result sits beside Paul et al.: one paper says "knowledge scores don’t help," the other says "actuarial tools do." The two studies measure different things, so they don’t clash; together they tell you to skip trivia tests and use VRAG/SORAG instead.
Why it matters
You now have numbers to back risk decisions during staffing, discharge, or court reports. A moderate AUC means high scores still warrant tight supervision, but low scores can justify stepped-down restrictions. Pair the tools with ongoing behavior analytic treatment, not pills or short classes, and re-check scores every year to catch change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pull the most recent VRAG/SORAG on your client, mark the top three highest items, and build behavioral safeguards around those triggers.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This CIHR-funded study examined whether certain current risk assessment tools were effective in appraising risk of recidivism in a sample of sex offenders with intellectual disabilities (ID). Fifty men with ID who had engaged in problematic sexual behavior (PSB) were followed for an average of 2.5 years. Recidivism was defined and measured as any illegal or problematic behavior, as well as any problematic but not necessarily illegal behavior. At the beginning of the study, each participant was rated on two risk assessment tools: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG). During each month of follow-up, participants were also rated on the Short-Dynamic Risk Scale (SDRS), an assessment tool intended to measure the risk of future problematic behaviors. Data was analyzed using t-tests, Cohen's d and area under the curve (AUC) to test predictive validity of the assessment tools. Using the AUC, results showed that the VRAG was predictive of sexual (AUC=0.74), sexual and/or violent (AUC=0.71) and of any criminally chargeable event (AUC=0.69). The SORAG was only significantly predictive of sexual events (AUC=0.70) and the SDRS was predictive of violent events (AUC=0.71). The t-test and Cohen's d analyses, which are less robust to deviations from the assumptions of normal and continuous distribution than AUC, did not yield significant results in each category, and therefore, while the results of this study suggest that the VRAG and the SORAG may be effective tools in measuring the short term risk of sexual recidivism; and the VRAG and SDRS may be effective tools in appraising long term risk of sexual and/or violent recidivism in this population, it should be used with caution. Regardless of the assessment tool used, risk assessments should take into account the differences between sex offenders with and without ID to ensure effective measurement.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2016 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.06.011