The Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS) is a statistically derived dynamic risk assessment instrument for adult males who have been convicted of sexually abusive behavior.
Mental health clinicians, correctional caseworkers, and probation and parole officers use the SOTIPS to assess an individual’s sexual reoffense risk, treatment and supervision needs, and treatment progress. The SOTIPS is designed to be scored at the time an individual begins a treatment or supervision program and thereafter as frequently as every 6 months.
The SOTIPS surveys 16 potentially changeable domains (i.e., criminogenic needs or dynamic risk factors) that are related to risk of future sexual offending. The SOTIPS may be used alone or in conjunction with a static sexual offender risk assessment instrument, such as the Static-99R or the Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk-2, which is composed of unchangeable risk factors. When used in conjunction with a static risk instrument, SOTIPS scores can be used to adjust baseline recidivism risk predictions. This article explores the items on the SOTIPS and then explains the criteria for its use, the interpretation of scores, and how to implement this risk assessment tool.
SOTIPS Items
The 16 SOTIPS items are scored on a scale of 0–3, with higher scores indicating greater treatment need and dynamic risk. Most SOTIPS items are scored to reflect an individual’s cognitive and behavioral functioning for the previous 6 months. SOTIPS items can be clustered into five conceptual categories: sexuality and risk responsibility, criminality, treatment and supervision cooperation, self-management, and social stability and supports.
Sexuality and Risk Responsibility
The sexuality and risk responsibility category contains 5 items related to sexuality and sexual abuser treatment motivation. The Sexual Offense Responsibility item measures the extent to which an individual internalizes responsibility for his sexual offending behavior. Sexual Behavior measures the proportion of the individual’s non-abusive behavior to offense-supportive sexual behaviors during the previous 6 months. Offense-supportive behavior includes engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior, using pornography in violation of supervision or treatment rules, and engaging in illegal sexual behavior. Sexual attitude addresses the cognitions and beliefs that drive sexually abusive behaviors, including viewing sexual urges as uncontrollable or viewing sexual activity with children as not harmful. Sexual interest quantifies the degree to which the individual’s overall sexual interests focus on offense-related themes, including greater sexual interest in children or rape than interest in consensual sexual activity with consenting adults. Sexual risk management evaluates the individual’s understanding of his risk factors for sexual reoffending and the adequacy of his plan and its implementation to manage his risk in the community.
Criminal Behavior
The second SOTIPS category contains 2 items that are related to antisocial behaviors and attitudes. Criminal and rule-breaking behavior quantifies behaviors associated with breaking criminal laws, not adhering to probation or parole conditions, or failing to abide by correctional facility rules. Criminal and rule-breaking attitude measures the extent of cognitions and beliefs supporting such behaviors (e.g., “It is only wrong if you get caught” and “Rules are made to be broken”).
Treatment and Supervision Cooperation
The third SOTIPS category contains 3 items. The stage of change item evaluates an individual’s engagement in the change process (i.e., whether he believes in the need to change to reduce risk to sexually reoffend, is ambivalent about change, is actively making changes, or is maintaining positive changes that he have already made). Cooperation with treatment and cooperation with community supervision evaluate the individual’s adherence to the expectations of sexual offender treatment and community supervision, respectively.
Self-Management
The first self-management item is emotion management, which evaluates an individual’s ability to manage intense emotional states (e.g., loneliness, anger, jealousy, and depression). Problem-solving concerns the individual’s ability to consider problems rationally, develop prosocial plans of action, and successfully carry out plans to resolve such problems. Impulsivity gauges the individual’s overall ability to engage in behavior that is thoughtful, deliberate, and planned.
Social Supports and Stability
The final 3 items pertain to general social functioning and the capacity to lead a prosocial lifestyle. Employment quantifies an individual’s ability to retain full-time employment or educational enrollment. Residence measures an individual’s stability of and satisfaction with recent accommodations. Social influence weighs the impact, both positive and negative, of an individual’s family, friends, and other associates on his behaviors. Positive family and friends support an individual’s prosocial lifestyle. Negative family and friends are those who hold antisocial values, engage in crime or substance abuse, and otherwise do not model or support prosocial lifestyle.
Criteria for Use
The SOTIPS has been developed for use only with adult males who have been convicted of at least one qualifying sexual offense against an identified child or nonconsenting adult victim. The definition of a qualifying sexual offense is based on the Static-99R risk instrument criteria for category A offenses, which include rape, child molestation, and exhibitionism. The SOTIPS is not recommended for use with individuals who have been convicted of only Static-99R category B offenses, which are convictions for sexual behavior that is illegal but the parties were consenting or no identifiable victims were involved (e.g., possessing child pornography, engaging in consenting sexual behavior in a public place, soliciting a prostitute). In addition, the SOTIPS is not recommended for use with juvenile males or with female offenders of any age.
The SOTIPS is recommended for use with any adult male offender meeting the above criteria, regardless of intellectual capability. An earlier version of the SOTIPS, the Treatment Intervention Progress Scale for Sexual Abusers with Intellectual Disabilities, was adapted for use with individuals who have an intellectually disability.
The SOTIPS is most commonly used with individuals residing in the community. This typically involves individuals who are being supervised by probation or parole officers, participating in outpatient sexual offender treatment, or both; rarely would SOTIPS be used for an individual in the community apart from community supervision or treatment. Residential application of the SOTIPS has been less thoroughly examined, but it can also be used with individuals in correctional facilities and other residential environments.
Since the SOTIPS is a dynamic risk instrument, it is designed to account for an individual’s improving or worsening on potentially changeable risk factors (i.e., criminogenic needs). Thus, it is recommended that individuals be scored on the SOTIPS every 6 months. With only a few very specific exceptions that are detailed in scoring rules, information used in scoring is based on the individual’s behavior during the 6 months prior to the SOTIPS evaluation.
Interpreting SOTIPS Scores
SOTIPS items are scored on a 4-point scale of 0–3. A score of 0 represents no or minimal need for improvement, 1 is some need for improvement, 2 is considerable need for improvement, and 3 represents very considerable need for improvement. The scores of the 16 items together form an aggregated score range of 0–48. This total score can be interpreted without further adjustment, which quantifies the overall level of treatment need and risk of future offending behavior. Alternatively, consecutive scores may also be clustered into relative risk/need categories, suggested as low (0–10), moderate (11–20), and high (21 and above) levels of treatment need and risk of recidivism. These categories may be used to inform general resource allocation or treatment dose within a population of individuals convicted of qualifying sexual offenses. Individuals with low treatment needs would receive no or minimal treatment services, and those with greater treatment needs would receive correspondingly greater amounts of treatment services.
Specific reoffense data, or norms, are provided by the SOTIPS developers or may be derived specifically with a population on which the SOTIPS is being used. Correct application of SOTIPS norms requires the user to evaluate the similarity of the normative sample characteristics with the characteristics of the offending individual’s population. Developer-provided norms are designed to predict the likelihood of a new offense 1 year and 3 years following SOTIPS scoring.
The SOTIPS can be used alone, but it is most commonly used in conjunction with a static risk instrument such as the Static-99R or the Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk-2. Combined static–dynamic recidivism risk norms are commonly reported as an adjustment of the static risk level. A static risk level can be treated as an individual’s baseline risk, with low dynamic risk suggesting that the overall risk level is below the static baseline and high dynamic risk suggesting an adjustment of the risk level above the baseline. Alternatively, combined static–dynamic risk information can be presented as a two-dimensional risk matrix, with each matrix cell representing a unique category of risk information. Although this provides more precise information, it is less efficiently employed.
Statistical Consideration With Repeated-Measures Risk Assessment
A dynamic measure that examines multiple points at which the offending individual may be evaluated is known as a repeated-measures design. The SOTIPS is designed to evaluate an individual’s recidivism risk and treatment needs every 6 months, and no theoretical ceiling on how often it can be used has been established. Unlike static assessment methods, repeated-design assessments require additional methods for evaluation and implementation.
Analyses of predictive validity are of the foremost concern. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) statistic is commonly used in evaluating the accuracy of statistically derived risk measures such as the SOTIPS. Briefly, this statistic presents the probability that an individual’s likelihood to reoffend is correctly identified (i.e., true positive) versus incorrectly identifying the individual as a potential recidivist (i.e., false positive). AUC values range from 0 to 1, with 0.5 representing chance-level prediction and 1 representing perfect prediction. In the case of the SOTIPS, multiple SOTIPS scorings recorded over time for those evaluated can be used to statistically evaluate its predictive accuracy using the AUC. An important consideration in such an evaluation is the value of the SOTIPS in combined static–dynamic assessment schemes over static-only assessments. In these analyses, aggregating repeated SOTIPS scores from an evaluated person is preferable when combined with single-scored instruments such as the Static99R. Such an implementation does show a slight incremental improvement in the AUC value over the Static-99R alone (AUC = .74 vs. AUC = .72). These AUC values represent moderate predictive validity and are similar to those of other sex offender risk assessment instruments.
SOTIPS as Part of Collaborative Treatment
Contemporary treatment planning methods favor a collaborative approach when working with individuals who have sexually offended. With guidance, clients in sexual offender treatment can effectively complete a SOTIPS evaluation. This exercise serves two functions: First, it can provide treatment professionals better insights into their patients’ treatment needs, which may not be readily evident for the service provider. Second, it can better educate individuals who have sexually offended about the processes of assessment and treatment.
References:
- Lasher, M. P., McGrath, R. J., Wilson, D., & Cumming, G. F. (2015). Collaborative treatment planning using the sex offender treatment intervention and progress scale (SOTIPS): Concordance of therapist evaluation and client self-evaluation. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 14(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/14999013.2014.974087
- McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., & Lasher, M. P. (2013). The Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS) Manual—2013 Version. Middlebury, VT.
- McGrath, R. J., Lasher, M. P., & Cumming, G. F. (2011). A model of static and dynamic risk assessment (Document No. 236217). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
- McGrath, R. J., Lasher, M. P., & Cumming, G. F. (2012). The Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS): Psychometric properties and incremental predictive validity with the Static-99R. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 431–458. doi:10.1177/1079063211432475
- McGrath, R. J., Livingston, J. A., & Falk, G. (2007). A structured method of assessing dynamic risk factors among sexual abusers with intellectual disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 112, 221–229. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2007)112 [221:ASMOAD]2.0.CO;2
- Stinson, J. D., Becker, J. V., & McVay, L. A. (2015). Treatment progress and behavior change following 2 years of inpatient treatment: A pilot investigation of safe offender strategies. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1079063215570756