RT Article
T1 Where Should We Intervene, 20 Years Later? Case–Control and Prospective Cohort Designs Provide Similar Answers
JF Criminal justice and behavior
VO 52
IS 3
SP 464
OP 486
A1 Blais, Julie
A2 Hanson, R. Karl
A2 Harris, Andrew J. R. 1961-
LA English
YR 2025
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1917866720
AB In 2000, this journal published an influential case–control study identifying dynamic risk factors for sexual recidivism (Hanson & Harris, 2000). In 2017, updated recidivism information for the same sample was obtained with an average follow-up of 20 years. The current study compared the risk factors that differentiated between sexual recidivists and nonrecidivists between the two research designs: original case–control and updated prospective cohort. Of the 82 comparisons, 50 favored the prospective design while 32 favored the case–control; however, most of the differences were small and nonsignificant. Static and dynamic risk factors were approximately equivalent between study designs. Factors identified as sex-specific (e.g., sexual deviancy) were also equivalent between designs while general risk factors (e.g., substance use) were more likely identified in the prospective design. Overall, case–control studies can be used for the identification of risk factors, especially for low base rate behaviors such as sexual recidivism.
K1 Sexual Recidivism
K1 static risk factor
K1 dynamic risk factor
K1 prospective cohort
K1 case–control
DO 10.1177/00938548241291155