Summarizing and Reporting J-SOAP-II Ratings (2024)

As noted, the J-SOAP-II does not use cutoff scores for mechanical assignment to risk bins (e.g., low, moderate, high). The reasons are threefold: (1) providing empirically determined cutoff scores requires a very large and diverse database that accounts for potential age and racial/ethnic differences, and includes excellent follow-up information on sexual recidivism; (2) cutoff scores rarely apply with comparable accuracy across samples unless the samples are very similar to the reference group with respect to potentially critical risk considerations, such as age and extent of nonsexual delinquency; (3) the presence of cutoff scores encourages conclusions about risk based exclusively on the score from the risk scale. It is for that reason that J-SOAP-II has avoided use of cutoff scores for risk levels. In that regard, J-SOAP would not be regarded as structured professional judgment. As pointed out by Vincent, Guy, and Grisso (2012), the MacArthur Foundation guide for assessing risk in juvenile justice settings cautions that risk assessment is not simply a matter of administering a risk assessment scale; it is a process.

We do not take this last point as an idle exhortation. We have always maintained that the only truly valid evaluation of risk with juveniles derives from an idiographic or comprehensive evaluation that includes the results from nomothetic sources, such as a risk assessment scale, but also includes all other risk-relevant information for a particular individual. Rather than assigning cutoff scores (or empirically unsupported clinical judgments), we concluded that the most prudent and responsible approach is to recommend the use of ratios to convey the findings, requiring no clinical inferences or judgment about the ratings, requiring users to integrate those findings into an idiographic evaluation.

As such, the score of each scale is divided by the total possible score for that scale. The total J-SOAP-II score can also be reported as a ratio. These ratios reflect the observed proportion (or “amount”) of risk rated as present for each scale and for the total score at a given point in time. As alluded to earlier, we intentionally provided no procedure for converting a proportion of risk into a categorical classification (i.e., low, moderate, high). Conclusions about risk (low, moderate, high) must derive from a comprehensive (idiographic) evaluation that includes J-SOAP-II but is not based exclusively on J-SOAP-II. Users report their findings from J-SOAP-II according to the proportion of risk observed on the date of testing (e.g., Scale 1: 4/16 (25%) or Full Scale: 18/56 (32%). These proportions arc illustrated in the following table.

Users and Caveats

As we discuss in the Manual, it is imperative that clinicians who assess adolescents’ risk for offending be knowledgeable about the significant risk-relevant challenges involved in assessing this population. As is well accepted by now, adolescent functioning is very much “in flux.”

No aspect of their adolescent development, including their cognitive, social, and emotional development, can be assumed “fixed” or permanent; change is a defining feature of adolescent development. In addition, the life circumstances of those we evaluate often are very unstable. In a very real sense, we are trying to assess the risk of “moving targets.” Since risk status may change, sometimes dramatically, in a brief period of time, we strongly recommend that youths be reassessed for risk at a minimum of every 6 months. At the very least, Scales 3 and 4 should be rescored every 6 months because, although new events may impact the static scales, the dynamic scale items arc expected to change over time. Certainly, reassessments should be done even more frequently if life circumstances dictate (i.e., if the examiner is aware of risk-relevant changes that have occurred).

Prior to usingJ-SOAP-II, users should have training and experience in assessing juveniles who commit sexual offenses and risk assessment in general, and users should be knowledgeable about the relevant and evolving research regarding risk assessment as it pertains to juvenile offending (sexual as well as nonsexual). In addition, prior to usingJ-SOAP-II, users should read the manual and be familiar with its contents. Further, before using the scale in any professional capacity, users should complete several practice cases and compare their scores with qualified others who have scored the same case to identify and resolve any scoring inconsistencies. It is also recommended that J-SOAP-II users periodically consult with each other about their scoring and attend continuing education workshops on juvenile sex offense risk and needs assessment.