CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 863Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsCrime Patterns and Interventions

First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders

Hanson, R. Karl, Gordon, Arthur, Harris, Andrew J. R., Marques, Janice K., Murphy, William, Quinsey, Vernon L., Seto, Michael C.·2002·Sexual Abuse
DOI 10.1177/107906320201400207
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This meta-analytic review examined the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders by summarizing data from 43 studies (combined n = 9,454). Averaged across all studies, the sexual offence recidivism rate was lower for the treatment groups (12.3%) than the comparison groups (16.8%, 38 studies, unweighted average). A similar pattern was found for general recidivism, although the overall rates were predictably higher (treatment 27.9%, comparison 39.2%, 30 studies). Current treatments (cognitive-behavioral, k = 13; systemic, k = 2) were associated with reductions in both sexual recidivism (from 17.4 to 9.9%) and general recidivism (from 51 to 32%). Older forms of treatment (operating prior to 1980) appeared to have little effect. Future directions for improving the quality of sex offender treatment outcome evaluations are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/107906320201400207

Cites

1 of 1 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.”

    From Pharmacological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending (2015) · cites this paper as Hanson 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Government of Canada (CA)
  • Clearwater Treatment Centre, Monroe, Washington
  • California Department of Mental Health, Sacramento, California
  • University of Tennessee-Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Hanson, R. Karl
ORCID
Venue
Sexual Abuse
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-04
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
169-194
ISSN
  • 1079-0632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-286X
DOI
10.1177/107906320201400207
OpenAlex
W2110319753
Cited by
863
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 49
FWCI
47.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Sexual Abuse (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
sexual offenders, psychological intervention, recidivism, sexual recidivism, general recidivism, cognitive behavioral therapy, systemic therapy, treatment effectiveness, outcome measurement
MeSH terms
Forecasting, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Psychotherapy, Recurrence, Sex Offenses, 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