Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

psychopathology, and intermediate scores indicate

accurate item endorsement.

George J. Demakis and Ryan P. Kilmer

See alsoMalingering; Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory–2 (MMPI–2)

Further Readings

Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A.,

Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI–2

(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2): Manual

for administration, scoring, and interpretation(Rev. ed.).

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Graham, J. R. (2005). MMPI–2: Assessing personality and

psychopathology(4th ed.). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Greene, R. L. (2000). The MMPI–2: An interpretive manual

(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

MINNESOTASEXOFFENDER

SCREENINGTOOL–REVISED

(MNSOST–R)

The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised

(MnSOST–R) is a 16-item, “actuarial” risk assessment

tool initially developed for the Minnesota Department

of Corrections (MDOC) to provide empirically based

estimates of risk for sexual recidivism for incarcerated

male sex offenders. Indices of reliability have ranged

from .76 to .86 across four studies and have generally

been .80 or greater. The MnSOST–R has been success-

fully validated in Minnesota; North Dakota; and

Ontario, Canada; however, it failed to predict signifi-

cantly better than chance in an Arizona study.

Description and Development

The MnSOST–R was developed in response to a 1991

MDOC report calling for a more formal and uniform

process to identify predatory and violent sex offend-

ers. An actuarial approach was used in an attempt to

bring greater accuracy and utility to sex offender risk

assessments, enabling the MDOC to more effectively

use limited resources.

The development sample for the MnSOST–R

included 256 incarcerated sex offenders in Minnesota

who were released primarily in 1988 or 1990. This

sample excluded only those offenders whose offenses

consisted exclusively of “fondling” offenses against

family members that did notinvolve vaginal or anal

penetration of a child aged 13 or younger or the rape of

an older family member. Research on an earlier version

of the instrument indicated that this group was substan-

tially different from other sex offenders and generally

presented fewer concerns regarding release decisions

(e.g., level of supervision, level of community notifica-

tion, and potential referral for civil commitment).

Sex offenders were sampled from each relevant

Minnesota correctional facility, and the offenders

were 32–42 years, on average, with a range from 17 to

70 years. Sixty-six percent of the sample was White,

24% was Black, 5% was Hispanic, 4% was Native

American, and 2% were from other ethnic groups.

There was some oversampling of sexual recidivists in

the development sample to provide more stability in

any observed relationships between sexual recidivism

and potential predictor variables.

Potential predictors were drawn from research on an

earlier version of the tool and from an updated review

of the literature. Only variables based on information

routinely available in correctional records were consid-

ered as predictors to ensure that the resulting tool could

be scored for the majority of sex offenders based on a

file review. Sexual recidivism, the criterion variable,

was defined as a formal charge for a new sex offense

within 6 years of release from prison.

Empirically based item selection and scoring proce-

dures identified 16 items as the optimal predictors of

sexual recidivism, including 12 historical/static items

and 4 institutional/dynamic variables. The 12 historical

variables included the number of convictions for sex

offenses, length of sex offending history, commission

of a sex offense while under court supervision, com-

mission of a sex offense in a public place, use or threat

of force in any sex offense, perpetration of multiple sex

acts in a single event contact, offending against victims

from multiple age groups, offending against a 13- to

15-year-old victim with more than a 5-year age differ-

ence between the offender and the victim, victimization

of a stranger, persistent pattern of adolescent antisocial

behavior, recent pattern of substantial substance abuse,

and recent employment history. The four institutional

variables included discipline history, chemical depen-

dency treatment recommendations and outcomes, sex

offender treatment recommendations and outcomes,

and age of the offender at the time of release.

Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–Revised (MnSOST–R)——— 509

M-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 509