1. Proposed SORB Regulations Risk Factors Critique Raymond Knight, Ph.D.

2. Reliability & Validity No evidence for the reliability or the predictive validity of the proposed operationalizations of the purported risk factors or the overall risk judgment is provided. There is no empirical guarantee that the proposed factor definitions actually capture the predictive variance for the domain measured. No evidence for the reliability or the predictive validity of the proposed operationalizations of the purported risk factors or the overall risk judgment is provided. There is no empirical guarantee that the proposed factor definitions actually capture the predictive variance for the domain measured.

3. Qualitative vs. Quantitative qualitatively quantitative The revised instrument remains a qualitatively judged assortment of vaguely defined purported risk factors. There is substantial evidence that even the best of such “Structured Clinical Guidelines” is inferior in predictive validity to quantitative “Mechanical or Empirical Actuarials.” (e.g., Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009)

4. Strategies for Improvement The refusal to quantify the individual factors precludes any investigation of the reliability of the factors or their individual contribution to predicting recidivism. Empirical strategies for improving the instrument have been rejected.

5. Problematic Risk Factors The “Factors” continue to include numerous domains that either have no or extremely weak and inconsistent empirical support as recidivism predictors, for instance— –#5 Committed; –#6 Maximum Term of Incarceration; –#11 Victim impact; –#16 Recent Treats. The “Factors” continue to include numerous domains that either have no or extremely weak and inconsistent empirical support as recidivism predictors, for instance— –#5 Committed; –#6 Maximum Term of Incarceration; –#11 Victim impact; –#16 Recent Treats.

6. Concrete Anchors Lacking The Factors are defined vaguely and lack concrete anchors for presence of absence. When semi-clear anchors are suggested, so many allowances for clinical adjustment are added that the criteria will not be reliably applied.

7. Anchor Example Factor 2: Repetitive and Compulsive 1.“engages in two or more separate episodes of sexual misconduct” 2.Multiple adjustments— a.Intervening intervention b.“Uncontrollable urges and desires” c.“Ritualistic pattern” Factor 2: Repetitive and Compulsive 1.“engages in two or more separate episodes of sexual misconduct” 2.Multiple adjustments— a.Intervening intervention b.“Uncontrollable urges and desires” c.“Ritualistic pattern” “Episode” ambiguous (?alleged, self-reported, arrested, charged, convicted?) “Episode” ambiguous (?alleged, self-reported, arrested, charged, convicted?) “Sexual misconduct” ambiguous (?paraphilic, nuisance, serious sexual?) “Sexual misconduct” ambiguous (?paraphilic, nuisance, serious sexual?)

8. Link of Factor to Support There is no indication how the references that are provided support the validity of the factor for which they are cited. No consistent criteria are provided for what aspects of empirical studies were used to determine purported “support” for each factor.

9. Linkage Example Factor 1: Mental Abnormality 1.Four review articles cited 2.These depend on same four “studies” a.Root & Marks (1974) – trt of exhibitionists article. b.Prentky, Knight, & Lee (1997) – only child molesters c.Epperson et al. (1995) – ATSA presentation; not subsequently included in MnSOST. d.Miner (2002) unpublished data on 129 juveniles 3.None include diagnosis with “a paraphilic disorder” Factor 1: Mental Abnormality 1.Four review articles cited 2.These depend on same four “studies” a.Root & Marks (1974) – trt of exhibitionists article. b.Prentky, Knight, & Lee (1997) – only child molesters c.Epperson et al. (1995) – ATSA presentation; not subsequently included in MnSOST. d.Miner (2002) unpublished data on 129 juveniles 3.None include diagnosis with “a paraphilic disorder”

10. Factor Covariation No indication of factor covariation is provided and simple constructs like frequency of offending permeate multiple factors.

11. Factor Proliferation The proliferation of factors from 24 to 40 from the prior to the proposed factors increases the problem that different judges will focus on different factors in making their judgments, thereby increasing problems of reliability.

12. ConclusionConclusion

13. It is hard to justify that the proposed criteria could provide a preponderance of evidence “preponderance of evidence” judgment; much less clear and convincing evidence “clear and convincing evidence” of high recidivism risk. It is hard to justify that the proposed criteria could provide a preponderance of evidence “preponderance of evidence” judgment; much less clear and convincing evidence “clear and convincing evidence” of high recidivism risk.