Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The present manuscript provides a review of best practice approaches for assessing dynamic risk of individuals who have sexually offended as a multi-step information gathering and data integration process, to identify historical and current signs of DRFs and offense analogue behaviours, evidence for changes in risk, and issues that may present as treatment barriers (i.e. responsivity issues). We review commonly used DRF assessment tools for sexual offending – the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version, STABLE-2007, Sex Offender Treatment Information and Progress Scale, Sexual Violence Risk-20, and Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol – and provide a meta-analytic summary and update of predictive validity studies. The practical and conceptual similarities between a measure of protective factors and a measure of dynamic risk factors is discussed, including the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors against Sexual Offending. We conclude with a discussion of applications of DRF tool information to communicate assessments of sexual offense risk.PRACTICE IMPACT STATEMENT There is a common set of psychological assessment procedures for evaluating dynamic risk factors (DRFs) for sexual offending, which begin with comprehensive information gathering from multiple information sources, using multiple methods, across multiple domains of functioning, and combining, integrating, and structuring assessment data utilising formalised DRF tools. DRF assessments should be used to drive services, appraise changes in risk, and inform sexual recidivism prevention initiatives to promote client reintegration and community safety and wellbeing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olver et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: