1 / 21

R. Karl Hanson Public Safety Canada

Researching Sex Offenders: A Workshop on Conceptualizing and Implementing Sex Offender Research Projects. R. Karl Hanson Public Safety Canada Presentation at the 13 th Annual Conference of the NYATSA, Saratoga Springs, NY, May 14, 2008. Big Questions.

adia
Download Presentation

R. Karl Hanson Public Safety Canada

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Researching Sex Offenders: A Workshop on Conceptualizing and Implementing Sex Offender Research Projects R. Karl Hanson Public Safety Canada Presentation at the 13th Annual Conference of the NYATSA, Saratoga Springs, NY, May 14, 2008

  2. Big Questions • Impact of criminal justice and social policy interventions (e.g., community notification, residency restrictions, civil commitment, risk assessment) • Assessment of reduced risk in high risk offenders • Active components in sexual offender treatment • Social policy for prevention on onset

  3. Evaluation of Sex Offender Treatment Programs

  4. Collaborative Outcome Data Committee • Formed in 1997 Goals: • Define standards for research on treatment outcome for sexual offenders (develop consensus) • Organize existing sexual offender outcome studies • Promote high quality evaluations

  5. Anthony Beech Darren Bisshop Guy Bourgon Dawn Fisher R. Karl Hanson Andrew Harris Calvin Langton Roxanne Lieb Janice Marques Michael Miner William Murphy Michael Seto Vernon Quinsey David Thornton Pamela Yates CODC contributors

  6. CODC Study Quality Guidelines • Structured rating scale • Definition of study quality • “…judgement of minimal bias can be made with high confidence.” • 20 items (plus 1 additional item rated for cross-institutional designs) • Items fall under 7 categories • Items assess either confidence OR bias (including direction of bias)

  7. I) Administrative control of independent variables • Defining treatment (confidence) • Defining comparison group (confidence) • Miscellaneous incidental factors (bias)

  8. II) Experimenter expectancies • Experimenter involvement (bias) • Blinding in data management (bias)

  9. III) Sample size • Sample size of treatment (confidence) • Sample size of comparison (confidence) • Sample size of institutions (confidence) (for cross-institutional designs only)

  10. IV) Attrition • Subject selection (bias) • Program attrition (bias) • Intent-to-treat (bias) • Attrition in follow-up (bias)

  11. V) Equivalency of groups • A priori equivalency of groups (bias) • Adequacy of search of differences (confidence) • Findings on group differences (bias)

  12. VI) Outcome variables • Length of follow-up (confidence) • Validity/reliability of recidivism information (confidence) • Equivalency of follow-up (bias)

  13. VII) Correct comparison conducted • Data dredging (confidence) • Effectiveness of statistical controls (confidence) • Computation of least bias comparison (bias)

  14. Global Rating • All items considered in making overall judgment of bias and confidence • Same three-point scales as individual items • Bias and confidence are considered separately

  15. Global Rating Categories • Strong • High confidence AND negligible bias • Good • High confidence and some bias, OR • Some confidence and negligible bias • Weak • Some confidence and some bias • Reject • Little confidence, OR • Considerable bias

  16. Reliability Study 1: Students • 2 senior undergrad students • Approximately one week training (8 practice studies) • 10 real studies rated independently

  17. Results: Global Ratings • Overall 9/10 (ICC = 0.95) • Global confidence 10/10 (ICC = 1.00) • Global bias 9/10 (ICC = 0.69) • Direction of bias 7/10

  18. Reliability Study 2: Experts • 12 Experts in sex offender research evaluation • No training on guidelines • 10 hypothetical studies ranging in quality • Rated 1-6 studies each (3 ratings per study)

  19. Guy Bourgon Andrew Harris Grant Harris Niklas Langstrom Roxanne Lieb Ruth Mann Robert McGrath William Murphy Vernon Quinsey Marnie Rice David Thornton Pamela Yates Expert Raters

  20. Expert Reliability • Some agreement on individual items • No agreement on global ratings

  21. www.publicsafety.gc.ca • Collaborative Data Outcome Committee. (2007). Sex offender treatment outcome research: Guidelines for Evaluation (CODC Guidelines). Part 1: Introduction and overview. Corrections User Report No 2007-02. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. • Collaborative Data Outcome Committee. (2007). The Collaborative Outcome Data Committee’s Guidelines for the evaluation of sexual offender treatment outcome research. Part 2: CODC Guidelines. Corrections User Report No 2007-03. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.

More Related