Construct Validity
Morton (2003) found that the ERASOR Total score was significantly correlated with the Total score for the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999), the Rapid Risk Assessment of Sexual Offense Recidivism (Hanson, 1997) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2002).
Skowron (2004) found that the total scores from the ERASOR and the YLS/CMI were significantly correlated.
We (Worling, 2004) found that ERASOR risk ratings were significantly higher for those adolescents in residential vs. community-based settings. In their investigation, Bourgon, Morton-Bourgon, and Madrigrano (2005) also found significant differences for 9 ERASOR factors when they compared 29 adolescents in residential treatment to 86 adolescents from a variety of community-based programs. Using a subset of this sample (n = 53), these authors also used several of the ERASOR’s dynamic, or potentially changeable, risk factors to track treatment impact over time.
Edwards et al. (2005) examined pretreatment data collected from files to predict treatment dropout for 49 adolescents who had offended sexually. Five of 7 ERASOR 2.0 factors studied significantly differentiated treatment dropouts from treatment completers: Attitudes supportive of sexual offending, Interpersonal aggression, Unwilling to alter deviant sexual interests/attitudes, Impulsivity, and Ever a male victim.
Bremer and Dellacecca (2006) examined ERASOR ratings made by clinicians following comprehensive evaluations of adolescents with a history of sexual offenses: 141 from a specialized residential setting and 256 attending a community-based center in the same state. Adolescents in the residential centre were significantly more likely to have risk factors rated as “Present” for 22 of the 25 ERASOR factors. On average, those in residential treatment had 15 risk factors rated as Present; those in community-based treatment had an average of 6 risk factors rated as “Present”.
Hersant (2006) reported concurrent validity data linking personality constructs (such as impulsivity and egocentricity) to increased risk scores and ratings from the ERASOR.
McCoy (2007) reported that the total scores from the ERASOR and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP-II; Prentky & Righthand, 2001) were significantly correlated.
Viljoen et al (2009) reported that both the Total score and the clinical judgment ratings from the ERASOR were significantly correlated with the YLS/CMI and the Static-99.
Chávez (2010) found that the clinical judgment rating from the ERASOR was significantly correlated with the clinical judgment rating from the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2003) and with the total scores from the J-SOAP-II and the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Tool-II (J-SORRAT-II; Epperson, Rawlston, Fowers, DeWitt, & Gore, 2006). It was also noted that ERASOR risk ratings were not significantly related to ethnicity (Caucasian vs. Non-Caucasian).
Rajlic and Gretton (2010) found that the Total score from the J-SOAP-II was significantly correlated with both the ERASOR Total score and the ERASOR clinical judgment ratings.
Chu et al. (2012) reported that both the ERASOR Total score and clinical rating were significantly correlated with total scores from the J-SOAP-II and the YLS/CMI.
Edwards, Whittaker, Beckett, Bishopp, & Bates (2012) employed several items from the ERASOR in a treatment follow-up study. They found that there were significant pre- to post-test changes following treatment with respect to risk factors in the Sexual interests, attitudes, and behaviours and the Psychosocial functioning domains.
Rojas Mejia (2013) noted that the ERASOR Total score was significantly correlated with the Total scores from the J-SOAP-II, the J-SORRAT-II, and the Violence Risk Scale: Youth Sexual Offender version (VRS:YSO). Clinical risk ratings were also significantly correlated with the Total scores from the J-SOAP-II and the VRS: YSO.
References
Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2003). Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Bourgon, G., Morton-Bourgon, K. E., & Madrigrano, G. (2005). Multisite investigation of treatment for sexually abusive juveniles. In B. K. Schwartz (Ed.), The sex offender: Issues in assessment, treatment, and supervision of adult and juvenile populations (Vol. 5; pp. 15-1 to 15-17). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Bremer, J. F., & Dellacecca, K. (2006, April). Evidence for a continuum of care: Sex offense risks for juveniles in residential and outpatient populations based on the use of the ERASOR. Poster presented at the 21st National Adolescent Perpetration Network Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
Chávez, V. (2010). Is everyone rated equal? An examination of factors related to sexual risk in ethnically diverse male adolescents who have sexually offended. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Nebraska.
Chu, M. C., Ng, Kynaston, Fong, J., & Teoh, J. (2012). Assessing youth who sexually offended: The predictive validity of the ERASOR, J-SOAP-II, and the YLS/CMI in a non-western context. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 153-174.
Edwards, R., Beech, A., Bishopp, D., Erikson, M., Friendship, C., & Charlesworth, L. (2005). Predicting dropout from a residential programme for adolescent sexual abusers using pre-treatment variables and implications for recidivism. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 139-155.
Edwards, R., Whittaker, M. K., Beckett, R., Bishopp, D., & Bates, A. (2012). Adolescents who have sexually harmed: An evaluation of a specialist treatment programme. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 91-111. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2011.635317
Epperson, D. L., Ralston, C. A., Fowers, D., DeWitt, J., & Gore, K. S. (2006). Actuarial risk assessment with juveniles who sexually offend: Development of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II). In D. S. Prescott (Ed.), Risk assessment of youth who have sexually abused (pp. 118–169). Oklahoma City, OK: Wood N’ Barnes.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism. User report 1997-04. Ottawa, Canada: Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessment for sex offenders. User report 1999-02. Ottawa, Canada: Solicitor General of Canada.
Hersant, J. L. (2006). Risk assessment of juvenile sex offender reoffense. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2002). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory: User’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
McCoy, W. K. (2007). Predicting treatment outcome and recidivism among juvenile sex offenders: The utility of the JSOAP-II and ERASOR in an outpatient treatment program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sam Houston State University. Hunstville, Texas.
Morton, K. E. (2003). Psychometric properties of four risk assessment measures with male adolescent sex offenders. Unpublished master’s thesis. Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Prentky, R., & Righthand, S. (2001). Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol—II (J-SOAP-II): Manual. Unpublished document. Available from www.csom.org.
Rajlic, G., & Gretton, H. M. (2010). An examination of two sexual recidivism risk measures in adolescent offenders: The moderating effect of offender type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1066-1085.
Rojas Mejia, E. Y. (2013), Violence risk assessment with youth who have sexually offended: A psychometric examination of the Violence Risk Scale: Youth Sexual Offender Version (VRS:YSO). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Skowron, C. (2004, December). Differentiation and predictive factors in adolescent sexual offending. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Viljoen, J. L., Elkovitch, N., Scalora, M. J., & Ullman, D. (2009). Assessment of reoffense risk in adolescents who have committed sexual offenses: Predictive validity of the ERASOR, PCL:YV, YLS/CMI, and Static-99. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 981-1000.
Worling, J. R. (2004). The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR): Preliminary Psychometric Data. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 235-254.
Worling, J. R., & Curwen, T. (2001). Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (Version 2.0: The “ERASOR”). In M. C. Calder, Juveniles and children who sexually abuse: Frameworks for assessment (pp. 372-397). Lyme Regis, Dorset, UK: Russell House Publishing.
Morton (2003) found that the ERASOR Total score was significantly correlated with the Total score for the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999), the Rapid Risk Assessment of Sexual Offense Recidivism (Hanson, 1997) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2002).
Skowron (2004) found that the total scores from the ERASOR and the YLS/CMI were significantly correlated.
We (Worling, 2004) found that ERASOR risk ratings were significantly higher for those adolescents in residential vs. community-based settings. In their investigation, Bourgon, Morton-Bourgon, and Madrigrano (2005) also found significant differences for 9 ERASOR factors when they compared 29 adolescents in residential treatment to 86 adolescents from a variety of community-based programs. Using a subset of this sample (n = 53), these authors also used several of the ERASOR’s dynamic, or potentially changeable, risk factors to track treatment impact over time.
Edwards et al. (2005) examined pretreatment data collected from files to predict treatment dropout for 49 adolescents who had offended sexually. Five of 7 ERASOR 2.0 factors studied significantly differentiated treatment dropouts from treatment completers: Attitudes supportive of sexual offending, Interpersonal aggression, Unwilling to alter deviant sexual interests/attitudes, Impulsivity, and Ever a male victim.
Bremer and Dellacecca (2006) examined ERASOR ratings made by clinicians following comprehensive evaluations of adolescents with a history of sexual offenses: 141 from a specialized residential setting and 256 attending a community-based center in the same state. Adolescents in the residential centre were significantly more likely to have risk factors rated as “Present” for 22 of the 25 ERASOR factors. On average, those in residential treatment had 15 risk factors rated as Present; those in community-based treatment had an average of 6 risk factors rated as “Present”.
Hersant (2006) reported concurrent validity data linking personality constructs (such as impulsivity and egocentricity) to increased risk scores and ratings from the ERASOR.
McCoy (2007) reported that the total scores from the ERASOR and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP-II; Prentky & Righthand, 2001) were significantly correlated.
Viljoen et al (2009) reported that both the Total score and the clinical judgment ratings from the ERASOR were significantly correlated with the YLS/CMI and the Static-99.
Chávez (2010) found that the clinical judgment rating from the ERASOR was significantly correlated with the clinical judgment rating from the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2003) and with the total scores from the J-SOAP-II and the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Tool-II (J-SORRAT-II; Epperson, Rawlston, Fowers, DeWitt, & Gore, 2006). It was also noted that ERASOR risk ratings were not significantly related to ethnicity (Caucasian vs. Non-Caucasian).
Rajlic and Gretton (2010) found that the Total score from the J-SOAP-II was significantly correlated with both the ERASOR Total score and the ERASOR clinical judgment ratings.
Chu et al. (2012) reported that both the ERASOR Total score and clinical rating were significantly correlated with total scores from the J-SOAP-II and the YLS/CMI.
Edwards, Whittaker, Beckett, Bishopp, & Bates (2012) employed several items from the ERASOR in a treatment follow-up study. They found that there were significant pre- to post-test changes following treatment with respect to risk factors in the Sexual interests, attitudes, and behaviours and the Psychosocial functioning domains.
Rojas Mejia (2013) noted that the ERASOR Total score was significantly correlated with the Total scores from the J-SOAP-II, the J-SORRAT-II, and the Violence Risk Scale: Youth Sexual Offender version (VRS:YSO). Clinical risk ratings were also significantly correlated with the Total scores from the J-SOAP-II and the VRS: YSO.
References
Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2003). Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Bourgon, G., Morton-Bourgon, K. E., & Madrigrano, G. (2005). Multisite investigation of treatment for sexually abusive juveniles. In B. K. Schwartz (Ed.), The sex offender: Issues in assessment, treatment, and supervision of adult and juvenile populations (Vol. 5; pp. 15-1 to 15-17). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Bremer, J. F., & Dellacecca, K. (2006, April). Evidence for a continuum of care: Sex offense risks for juveniles in residential and outpatient populations based on the use of the ERASOR. Poster presented at the 21st National Adolescent Perpetration Network Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
Chávez, V. (2010). Is everyone rated equal? An examination of factors related to sexual risk in ethnically diverse male adolescents who have sexually offended. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Nebraska.
Chu, M. C., Ng, Kynaston, Fong, J., & Teoh, J. (2012). Assessing youth who sexually offended: The predictive validity of the ERASOR, J-SOAP-II, and the YLS/CMI in a non-western context. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 153-174.
Edwards, R., Beech, A., Bishopp, D., Erikson, M., Friendship, C., & Charlesworth, L. (2005). Predicting dropout from a residential programme for adolescent sexual abusers using pre-treatment variables and implications for recidivism. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 139-155.
Edwards, R., Whittaker, M. K., Beckett, R., Bishopp, D., & Bates, A. (2012). Adolescents who have sexually harmed: An evaluation of a specialist treatment programme. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 91-111. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2011.635317
Epperson, D. L., Ralston, C. A., Fowers, D., DeWitt, J., & Gore, K. S. (2006). Actuarial risk assessment with juveniles who sexually offend: Development of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II). In D. S. Prescott (Ed.), Risk assessment of youth who have sexually abused (pp. 118–169). Oklahoma City, OK: Wood N’ Barnes.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism. User report 1997-04. Ottawa, Canada: Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessment for sex offenders. User report 1999-02. Ottawa, Canada: Solicitor General of Canada.
Hersant, J. L. (2006). Risk assessment of juvenile sex offender reoffense. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2002). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory: User’s manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
McCoy, W. K. (2007). Predicting treatment outcome and recidivism among juvenile sex offenders: The utility of the JSOAP-II and ERASOR in an outpatient treatment program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sam Houston State University. Hunstville, Texas.
Morton, K. E. (2003). Psychometric properties of four risk assessment measures with male adolescent sex offenders. Unpublished master’s thesis. Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Prentky, R., & Righthand, S. (2001). Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol—II (J-SOAP-II): Manual. Unpublished document. Available from www.csom.org.
Rajlic, G., & Gretton, H. M. (2010). An examination of two sexual recidivism risk measures in adolescent offenders: The moderating effect of offender type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1066-1085.
Rojas Mejia, E. Y. (2013), Violence risk assessment with youth who have sexually offended: A psychometric examination of the Violence Risk Scale: Youth Sexual Offender Version (VRS:YSO). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Skowron, C. (2004, December). Differentiation and predictive factors in adolescent sexual offending. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Viljoen, J. L., Elkovitch, N., Scalora, M. J., & Ullman, D. (2009). Assessment of reoffense risk in adolescents who have committed sexual offenses: Predictive validity of the ERASOR, PCL:YV, YLS/CMI, and Static-99. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 981-1000.
Worling, J. R. (2004). The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR): Preliminary Psychometric Data. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 235-254.
Worling, J. R., & Curwen, T. (2001). Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (Version 2.0: The “ERASOR”). In M. C. Calder, Juveniles and children who sexually abuse: Frameworks for assessment (pp. 372-397). Lyme Regis, Dorset, UK: Russell House Publishing.
