Based on the results of this study, the RSVP appears to perform fairly well in terms of interrater reliability, concurrent validity and predictive validity, and to be psychometrically comparable with the other, widely used, sexual violence risk assessment instruments. These findings suggest that the RSVP is appropriate for routine use in sexual violence risk assessments. As noted earlier, one of the main advantages of the RSVP is that it helps to identify key issues related to risk formulation and treatment/management recommendations. This is an important advantage as the purpose for violence risk assessments often includes the need for an understanding of offenders’ treatment and/or management needs so as to reduce their risk for
reoffending. The RSVP is also versatile in that it can be used at various stages of the legal process (e.g., sentencing or parole) or in different settings (e.g., inpatient or
outpatient settings). One consideration though in terms of using the RSVP is that a good number of the risk factors are dynamic in nature. The presentation of dynamic risk factors can change quickly and therefore; the offender’s level of risk can also change quickly. The implications of this are that the accuracy of the assessment is contingent on how recently the RSVP was coded, and speaks to the need for periodic reassessment of the offender so as to monitor changes in risk level.
The RSVP interrater reliability in this study was fairly consistent with previous research (Watt et al., 2006), that also found generally good to excellent interrater reliability. However, other research (Sutherland et al., 2012; Wilson, 2013) reported more variable RSVP interrater reliability and indicated that the level of training of the raters was related to interrater reliability. Further, there is a positive relationship between interrater reliability and predictive accuracy for sexual violence risk factors (Smid et al., 2014). These findings highlight the importance of assessors being well trained on the
RSVP and other sexual violence risk assessment instruments.
The present study considered both RSVP total scores and Summary Risk ratings with regards to predictive accuracy, which is consistent with previous research in this area (Dargee et al., 2016; Wilson, 2013). The results of the current study suggest that RSVP total scores and Case Prioritization had similar predictive accuracy. These findings may lead someone to assume that RSVP total scores can be relied on in terms of implying a certain level of risk. While it is true that in general, the more risk factors present, the higher the total score and also the greater the risk level for an offender. However, focusing on totals scores negates the reality that an offender may have only a few risk factors but still be at high risk for sexual recidivism. Therefore, it is important that assessors using the RSVP and other structured professional guidelines not rely on total scores to estimate risk.
The relationship between age and sexual offending appears to be unclear (Lussier & Cale, 2013) although some research (e.g., Hanson, 2001) suggests that the effects of age are dependent on the type of sex offender. Although actuarial instruments typically take type of sex offence and age into consideration as main effects, they do not take the interaction between these factors into account. The RSVP and other structured
professional judgement guidelines are in a better position to consider whether there appears to be an interaction between two such factors, and whether there are mitigating factors, such as illness, impacting an offender’s level of risk. Further, a structured
professional judgement approach is able to consider other individual characteristics such as race, and disability, which may influence the extent to which risk factors contribute to future sexual violence.
It has been recommended that both actuarial and structured professional judgement instruments are utilized as part of sexual violence risk assessments (Rettenberger & Hucker, 2011). In terms of determining the appropriate type of
instrument(s) to be used in a violence risk assessment, it is important to take the referral question(s) into consideration. For example, a referral may simply request an
assessment determine the likelihood that an offender will sexually reoffend. In this case, the results of this study suggest that it may be redundant and unnecessary to include both an RSVP and actuarial risk assessment instrument in a sexual violence risk
assessment given that both types of instruments performed equally well overall and showed good concurrent validity. In other words, the predictive accuracy and risk ratings were generally consistent between the RSVP and the actuarial instruments. However, different risk assessment approaches may not always have high agreement on the same individual (Jung, Pham, & Ennis, 2013). If multiple risk assessment instruments are used in a sexual violence risk assessment, it would be helpful to include the offender’s level of risk for each instrument and an explanation for how the final risk rating was obtained. For example, if discrepancies exist between the risk ratings, how did the evaluator resolve these differences and determine the offender’s level of risk for future sexual violence? In the case where the referral for the sexual violence risk assessment is requesting an estimate of risk to reoffend and also treatment and management recommendations, then it may be appropriate to use both actuarial and structured professional judgement instruments. However, given that structured professional judgement instruments, such as the RSVP, are able to address both risk and
treatment/management strategies, it appears that using both an actuarial and structured professional judgement approach is unnecessary.