Attending to the Positive: A Retrospective Validation of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors-Sexual Offence Version

Dynamic Protective Factors Relevant to Sexual Offending

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Focusing on protective factors rather than risk factors potentially better aligns assessment with strengths-based treatment. We examine research into the assessment of protective factors to see whether it can play this role relative to sexual offending.

RECENT FINDINGS

Structured asses sment of protective factors is well developed relative to violent offending but only recently studied relative to sexual offending. Nevertheless, multiple measures of protective factors have now been trialed with men who have committed sexual offenses and shown to predict reduced recidivism. Although research into individual scales is limited, overlapping content between scales suggests that protective factors aligning with constructs of Resilience, Adaptive Sexuality, and Prosocial Connection and Reward are all relevant to sexual offending. Protective factors relevant to sexual offending are sufficiently well identified that they can usefully be used for treatment need assessment, treatment planning during therapy, and case management. They can also make some contribution to risk assessment. The Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors against Sexual Offending (SAPROF-SO) is currently the most comprehensive measure of protective factors relevant to sexual offending.

Empirically-based dynamic risk and protective factors for sexual offending

This review provides an overview and update of empirical evidence for psychologically meaningful dynamic risk factors and protective factors for sexual offending. Using the review by Mann et al. (2010) as a starting point, we reviewed relevant literature that has appeared since this publication, focusing on meta-analyses, systematic and scoping reviews of dynamic risk factors, recent evaluations of commonly used dynamic assessment tools, and studies of dynamic risk and protective factors in community samples in addition to clinical or forensic samples. Two risk factors previously deemed promising by Mann et al. (2010), hostility towards women and dysfunctional coping (conceptualized as hostile masculinity and emotional regulation deficits, respectively, in this review), could now be considered supported using this review's criteria of three or more studies demonstrating an effect size of 0.15 or greater. No new risk factors were identified. We conducted a broader search of protective factors in recognition of the relative newness of this literature: Positive social support was the only protective factor identified as empirically supported. We also discuss situational risk and protective factors.