The Violence Risk Scale–Sexual Offender Version (VRS-SO) is a sexual offense risk assessment and treatment planning tool. The VRS-SO is made up of seven static (i.e., historical, generally unchanging) and 17 dynamic (i.e., potentially changeable) items linked to increased risk of sexual violence. It is designed to (a) assess risk of sexual violence, (b) identify targets for sex offender treatment intervention, (c) assess readiness for change, and (d) evaluate changes in risk from treatment or other change agents.
Assessing Sexual Violence Risk
In terms of risk assessment, each item is rated on a 4-point scale (0, 1, 2, and 3) with higher item ratings indicating increased risk of sexual violence. The items can then be summed to generate static (range 0–21), dynamic (range 0–51), and total (static + dynamic, range 0–72) scores. These scores indicate the individual’s level of risk of future sexual violence, with higher scores on the tool indicating higher levels of risk and the need for more intensive risk management efforts in order to prevent sexual violence. The VRS-SO yields both pretreatment and posttreatment scores; typically, only the dynamic items and resulting total score will change from treatment or other change agents. The pretreatment dynamic and total scores represent the individual’s baseline risk at the beginning of treatment, while the posttreatment dynamic and total scores are adjusted to reflect any possible changes in treatment and thus represent the individual’s level of risk at posttreatment.
Identifying Treatment Targets
The dynamic items of the VRS-SO are areas to focus treatment efforts. Items rated 2 or 3 are considered to be criminogenic, that is, they have strong links to sexual violence for that individual and should be prioritized in supervision. To assist with linking treatment targets to treatment planning, the VRS-SO dynamic items are organized into three factors termed sexual deviance (e.g., sexually deviant interests, sexual compulsivity), criminality (e.g., substance abuse, aggression, lack of community supports), and treatment responsivity (e.g., attitudes and thinking facilitative of sexual violence). An individual’s pattern of 2 and 3 ratings on these three factors creates a criminogenic profile of the individual’s treatment needs. For instance, a man incarcerated for sexually assaulting an adult woman might have few indicators of sexual deviance (e.g., preference for or arousal to rape, presence of other sexually deviant interests) but may have pronounced concerns in the criminality domain (e.g., history of fights and aggression, poor anger control, alcohol problems, lack of positive community supports) and on the treatment responsivity factor (e.g., negative attitudes toward women and his offense). Treatment for this individual would focus on addressing his negative attitudes and nonsexual criminogenic needs since these are most relevant to his risk of sexual violence, while it would be unnecessary to devote resources into altering his sexual interests and preferences.
Assessing Readiness to Change
The VRS-SO is also designed to assess readiness for, or motivation to, change. The VRS-SO does this through applying the stages of change (SOC) model to each dynamic item. The SOC model grew out of health psychology, and it contends that people go through a series of cognitive, behavioral, and experiential changes and they attempt to work on their problem areas. The SOC model employed is divided into five stages: precontemplation (no awareness of problem area or unwilling to change), contemplation (awareness of problem area but steps taken to address), preparation (recent behavioral changes to address problem area), action (sustained positive behavioral change over an extended period of time), and maintenance (sustained behavioral change that has withstood relevant challenges from high-risk situations). Thus, change occurs on a movable continuum, and people move up and down this continuum as they attempt to remediate a given problem area. These five stages are mapped out for each dynamic item. Individuals receiving a 2 or 3 rating at pretreatment are also assigned a baseline stage of change to indicate their level of awareness of the problem area and their willingness to address it. Very early SOC, such as precontemplation, call for different treatment engagement strategies than more advances areas (e.g., contemplation, preparation). For instance, an individual rated in Precontemplation on several areas may require motivational enhancement strategies (e.g., empathy and validation, gentle encouragement, rolling with resistance) to prepare the individual to look honestly at his or her issues and to address them in treatment.
Evaluating Risk Change
Risk change is evaluated on the VRS-SO using the SOC model through rating 2- or 3-rated items on their respective stage of change at the beginning and end of treatment. Individuals advancing one stage of progress (e.g., contemplation to preparation) on a given item receive a 0.5 deduction from their pretreatment score on that item, two stages a 1-point deduction (i.e., 2 × 0.5) up to a maximum of 1.5 points. The one exception is movement from precontemplation to contemplation, which is given no deduction since there is no risk-relevant behavioral change (i.e., the change is simply one of going from no awareness of a problem area to developing such an awareness, with no steps taken to manage it). The change ratings are then summed across each of the criminogenic items to generate a change score. The change score, in turn, is deducted from the pretreatment score to yield a posttreatment score. In turn, the change score and baseline pretreatment score are used to estimate rates of sexual and violent recidivism for a given case using an online electronic workbook. The VRS-SO can also be used with the Static-99R.
Relevant Research and Conclusions
Research from Canada, New Zealand, Germany, and Australia supports the validity and reliability of the VRS-SO. This body of research demonstrates that the VRS-SO is a strong predictor of sexual violence, with high scores predicting higher rates of sexual recidivism and low scores predicting lower rates of this outcome. The research has also shown that the static and dynamic scores on the VRS-SO play different roles in the prediction of sexual violence, and the two work better together than on their own, what is sometimes referred to as incremental validity. Finally, research on treated samples of sex offenders has shown that the men attending treatment tend to make significant gains from pre- to posttreatment. The resulting change scores have been found to be significantly associated with decreased sexual offending. That is, higher levels of positive change corresponding to decreases in risk have been associated with reduced offending behavior in the community following release. These research results support the VRS-SO as a promising tool for use with adult male sex offenders to assess risk and evaluate changes in risk to inform risk management.
References:
- Olver, M. E., Beggs Christofferson, S. M., Grace, R. C., & Wong, S. C. P. (2014). Incorporating change information into sexual offender risk assessments using the violence risk scale-sexual offender version. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26, 472–499. doi:10.1177/1079063213502679
- Olver, M. E., Wong, S. C. P., Nicholaichuk, T., & Gordon, A. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version: Assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychological Assessment, 19, 318–329.