Cited by 151Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsCrime Patterns and Interventions

The size and sign of treatment effects in sex offender therapy

RICE, MARNIE E., HARRIS, GRANT T.·2003·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We review scientific criteria for the minimally useful evaluation of psychosocial treatment for sex offenders. The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers recently supported a meta-analysis ((Hanson et al., 2002)) of the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. It was concluded that current treatments for sex offenders reduce recidivism. In this chapter, we reevaluate the evidence. Whereas the random assignment studies yielded results that provided no evidence of treatment effectiveness, Hanson et al. reviewed approximately a dozen others (called "incidental assignment" studies), which yielded substantial positive results for treatment. Upon close inspection, we conclude that such designs involve noncomparable groups and are too weak to be used to draw inferences about treatment effectiveness. In almost every case, the evidence was contaminated by the fact that comparison groups included higher-risk offenders who would have refused or quit treatment had it been offered to them. We conclude that the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders remains to be demonstrated. Furthermore, we outline solutions that we think will lead to progress in the field of sex offender treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07323.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rice and Harris observed that many methodologically flawed studies were included in the Hanson review and that the 'best' studies showed no effect.

    “Rice and Harris observed that not only were many methodologically flawed studies included, but that the 'best' studies showed no effect.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
RICE, M. E., & HARRIS, G. T.
Affiliations
Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (CA)
Corresponding author
RICE, MARNIE E.
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-06
Volume
989
Issue
1
Pages
428-440
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
OpenAlex
W2106491827
Cited by
151
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
recidivism, treatment effectiveness, psychosocial interventions, treatment refusal, meta-analysis critique
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychotherapy, Sex Offenses, United States, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review