Critical considerations in the development and interpretation of common risk language

Same Score, Different Audience, Different Message: Perceptions of Sex Offense Risk Depend on Static-99R Risk Level and Personality Factors of the Recipient

There are multiple ways to report risk scale results. Varela et al. (2014) found that Static-99R results were interpreted differently by prospective jurors based on risk level (high vs low) and an interaction between risk level and risk communication format (categorical, absolute estimate, and risk ratio). We adapted and extended Varela et al.'s (2014) study using updated Static-99R norms, recruiting a population-wide sample (n = 166), and adding variables assessing the personality factors 'cognitive motivation' (i.e., need for cognition) and 'attitudinal affect' (i.e., attitudes toward sex offenders, authoritarianism). We found a main effect of risk level and no effect of either communication format or the interaction between the two. Adding the personality variables increased explained variance from 9% to 34%, suggesting risk perception may be more about the personality of the person receiving the information than the information itself. We also found an interaction between attitudes toward sex offenders and risk level. Our results suggest risk perception might be better understood if personality factors are considered, particularly attitudes toward sex offenders. Because biases/personality of the person receiving the information are unknown in real world settings we argue that sharing multiple methods for communicating risk might be best and more inclusive.

Consistency and Construct Validity of the Five-Level System for Risk Communication Using Static and Dynamic Tools: An Investigation Using the Static-99R and VRS-SO

This study examined the Council of State Governments' five-level system for risk communication, as applied to the Static-99R and Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense Version (VRS-SO). Aims of the system include increasing consistency in risk communication and linking risk categories to psychologically meaningful constructs. We investigated concordance between risk levels assigned by the instruments, and distributions of VRS-SO dynamic needs associated with Static-99R risk levels, among a multisite sample (n = 1,404) of persons who have sexually offended. Concordant categorical risk ratings were assigned in just over a third of cases, suggesting that consistency remains a concern with the system, particularly when conceptually disparate tools are applied. Densities of criminogenic needs varied widely among persons assigned the same risk level by the Static-99R and diverged from the descriptions ascribed by the system. These findings can inform clinical assessments and further refinement of the system.

Improving Our Risk Communication: Standardized Risk Levels for Brief Assessment of Recidivism Risk-2002R

A Five-Level Risk and Needs system has been proposed as a common language for standardizing the meaning of risk levels across risk/need tools used in corrections. Study 1 examined whether the Five-Levels could be applied to BARR-2002R (N = 2,390), an actuarial tool for general recidivism. Study 2 examined the construct validity of BARR-2002R risk levels in two samples of individuals with a history of sexual offending (N = 1,081). Study 1 found reasonable correspondence between BARR-2002R scores and four of the five standardized risk levels (no Level V). Study 2 found that the profiles of individuals in Levels II, III, and IV were mostly consistent with expectations; however, individuals in the lowest risk level (Level I) had more criminogenic needs than expected based on the original descriptions of the Five-Levels. The Five-Level system was mostly successful when applied to BARR-2002R. Revisions to this system, or the inclusion of putatively dynamic risk factors and protective factors, may be required to improve alignment with the information provided by certain risk tools.

Police are Influenced by Anchoring and Risk When Allocating Resources for Scenario-based Intimate Partner Violence Cases

Sixty-six police officers were given four intimate partner violence (IPV) scenarios to rate for risk of future violence. At the start of the experiment, participants were provided with either a low-risk or high-risk "anchor" scenario of police attending an IPV incident. Next, participants were given three counterbalanced scenarios: high, medium, and low risk. Half the participants were given a structured professional judgment tool to guide their decisions. Participants given the low-risk anchor rated the following scenarios as being of greater risk than those given the high-risk anchor. Participants were consistent in identifying high-, medium-, and low-risk scenarios and the tool made no difference to these ratings. Participants were more confident in their higher risk judgments than their lower risk judgments. Officers distributed a disproportionately high amount of resources to the high-risk offenders and the results suggest that police officers can make decisions consistent with Risk-Need-Responsivity principles. However, anchoring effects and working in a context where violence is more severe and frequent has the potential to bias perceptions and make officers less sensitive to risk.