Risk Levels, Treatment Duration, and Drop Out in a Clinically Composed Outpatient Sex Offender Treatment Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research in the Netherlands documented that clinical judgment may yield a substantial amount of treatment referrals for sexual offenders that are inconsistent with actuarial risk assessment and the Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) principles. The present study tested the risk level distribution of a high-intensity, open-format outpatient treatment group. Eighty patients were enrolled during a 620-week period, and their STATIC-99R risk levels were retrospectively determined. The distribution of risk levels in this treatment group did not differ from the distribution of a representative sample of sex offenders referred to outpatient treatment in the Netherlands between 1996 and 2002 (n = 145), nor from the combined Canadian samples (n = 2011) used to assess STATIC-99R normative percentile. These findings suggest that no selection in terms of actuarial risk level occurred between conviction and treatment, leading to over-inclusion of low risk offenders in this high-intensity outpatient treatment group. It is concluded that the standard use of structured risk assessment for the compilation of treatment groups may improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of sex offender treatment in the Netherlands.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".