Comparing STATIC-99R and STABLE-2007 between persons with and without intellectual disabilities
| Pages | 58-68 |
| Published date | 29 August 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-01-2019-0003 |
| Date | 29 August 2019 |
| Author | Monique Delforterie,Jan Willem van den Berg,Betto Bolt,Teunis van den Hazel,Leam Craig,Robert Didden |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Learning & intellectual disabilities,Offending behaviour,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Deviant behaviour,Education,Special education/gifted education,Emotional/behavioural disorders |
Comparing STATIC-99R and
STABLE-2007 between persons
with and without intellectual disabilities
Monique Delforterie, Jan Willem van den Berg, Betto Bolt, Teunis van den Hazel,
Leam Craig and Robert Didden
Abstract
Purpose –While there is a significant proportion of people with a mild intellectual disability (MID) or borderline
intellectual functioning (BIF) who commit sexual offenses, little research has focused on the risk factors
for sexual recidivism in people with MID-BIF. The purpose of this paper is to compare the scores on the
STATIC-99R and STABLE-2007 between persons with sexual offense histories with and without MID-BIF.
Design/methodology/approach –Data using the STATIC-99R and STABLE-2007 were collected in 85
male patients divided into an MID-BIF group (IQ 50–85, n ¼50) and comparison group (IQW95, n ¼35).
Findings –The MID-BIF group and comparison group did not differ significantly on the static risk factors and
total score of the STATIC-99R. However, of the 13 dynamic risk factors of the STABLE-2007, the MID-BIF
group scored significantly higher on the items Impulsive acts, Poor problem solving skills and Lack of concern
for others, while the comparison group scored significantly higher on the item Deviant sexual preference.
Originality/value –The higher score on a number of dynamic risk factors for patients with MID-BIF could
partly be explained by the characteristics associated with MID-BIF. Although dynamic criminogenic risk
factors which are usually identified as targets for treatment appear the same for people with and without
MID-BIF who commit sexual offenses, adaptations to the modality of treatment will still need to be made for
people with MID-BIF.
Keywords Risk assessment, Sexual offending, Borderline intellectual functioning,
Mild intellectual disability, STABLE-2007, STATIC-99R
Paper type Research paper
When treating persons with sexual offense histories, risk assessment instruments are used to
estimate the likelihood of relapses in sexual offenses. Research shows that when persons with
sexual offensehistories with a higher risk ofrecidivism receive a longer andmore intensive forensic
treatment, the ris k of recidivism decreases (Bon ta and Andrews, 201 7; Hanson et al.,2009;
Smid, Kamphuis,Wever and Van Beek, 2014). Withinrisk assessment, a distinctionmay be made
between static and dynamic risk factors. Static risk factors, such as age and the number of
previous convictions, cannot be influenced by treatment.Dynamic risk factors, such as impulsivity,
hostility toward women and sexual preoccupation, can be influenced by treatment.
In addition, there are various methods of risk assessment. Roughly speaking, there are three
methods of forensic risk assessment: unstructured clinical judgment, structured clinical
judgement and the actuarial method (Craig and Rettenberger, 2016; Rettenberger and Craig,
2017). Within unstructured clinical judgment, the professional makes an assessment of the
chance of recidivism based on personal expertise without rules on the decision-making process
or reference to a structured framework. A risk assessment framework is used in the method of
structured clinical judgement, which guides the professional through the decision-making
process and considers a list of risk factors, which have been generated from literature reviews,
and which must be considered as part of the risk assessment. The risk assessment in the
actuarial method is based on norm group data obtained in scientific research. This is typically
Received 25 January 2019
Revised 26 April 2019
Accepted 30 April 2019
Monique Delforterie is based at
Trajectum, Zwolle, The
Netherlands.
Jan Willem van den Berg is
based at the Forensic Care
Specialists, Utrecht, The
Netherlands; Transfore/
De Tender, Deventer,
The Netherlands and Catholic
University of Leuven,
Leuven, Belgium.
Betto Bolt and Teunis van den
Hazel are both based at
Trajectum, Zwolle,
The Netherlands.
Leam Craig is based at the
Forensic Psychology Practice
Ltd, Sutton Coldfield,
Birmingham, UK; and Centre
for Applied Psychology,
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK and
School of Social Sciences,
Birmingham City University,
Birmingham, UK.
Robert Didden is based at
Trajectum, Zwolle, The
Netherlands and Radboud
University, Nijmegen,
The Netherlands.
PAGE58
j
JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES AND OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
j
VOL. 10 NO. 3 2019, pp.58-68, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8824 DOI 10.1108/JIDOB-01-2019-0003
To continue reading
Request your trial