Skip to main content
. 2012 Apr;24(2):153–174. doi: 10.1177/1079063211404250

Table 2.

The Predictive Validity of ERASOR, J-SOAP-II and YLS/CMI for Sexual and Nonsexual Recidivism

Sexual recidivism Nonsexual recidivism
Risk assessment measure AUC (SE) 95% CI AUC (SE) 95% CI
ERASOR (N = 104)
Total score .74* (.07)a [.61, .88] .66* (.06)a [.54, .78]
Overall clinical rating .83**(.07)a [.70, .96] .69**(.06)a [.58, .80]
 Sexual interests, attitudes, & behaviors .64 (.10) [.45, .83] .67* (.06) [.54, .79]
 Historical sexual assaults .81** (.06)a [.70, .92] .54 (.06) [.42, .67]
 Psychosocial functioning .49 (.08) [.33, .65] .58 (.07) [.44, .71]
 Family/environmental functioning .49 (.11) [.28, .70] .66* (.06)a [.54, .77]
 Treatment .55 (.11) [.33, .78] .51 (.07) [.38, .63]
J-SOAP-II (N = 102)
Total score .51 (.09) [.33, .69] .79*** (.06)a [.68, .89]
 Sexual drive/ preoccupation .72* (.08)a [.56, .89] .52 (.07) [.39, .66]
 Impulsive/antisocial behavior .37 (.10) [.18, .56] .71** (.06)a [.60, .82]
 Intervention .41 (.10) [.22, .60] .79***(.05)a [.68, .89]
 Community stability/ adjustment .55 (.11) [.34, 76] .69** (.06)a [.58, .81]
YLS/CMI (N = 104)
Total score .29 (.08) [.15, .44] .65* (.06)a [.53, .76]
 Offenses/disposition .43 (.10) [.24, .61] .51 (.07) [.38, .64]
 Family circumstances & parenting .37 (.12) [.13, .60] .54 (.06) [.42, .66]
 Education/employment .31 (.08) [.15, .47] .66* (.06) [.54, .79]
 Peer relations .31 (.10) [.12, .50] .62 (.06) [.50, .73]
 Substance abuse .50 (.11) [.29, .71] .48 (.06) [.36, .61]
 Lesisure/recreation .56 (.10) [.35, .76] .57 (.06) [.44, .69]
 Personality/behavior .24 (.08) [.09, .40] .63* (.06) [.52, .75]
 Attitudes/orientation .36 (.10) [.16, .55] .66* (.06) [.54, .79]
a.

Denotes that the risk assessment measure significantly predicted recidivistic outcome even after Benjamini and Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) corrections.

*

p < .05. ** p < .01 ***p < .001.