instrumental-affective dimensional approach in which
instrumental and affective motives for serial murder are
allowed to coexist. Finally, more research needs to be
devoted to prediction—not just as a way of narrowing
down the field of suspects in a series of seemingly
related murders but also as a way of understanding the
factors that lead to serial murder and how some of these
features can be ameliorated, altered, or changed.Glenn D. WaltersSee alsoProfiling; PsychopathyFurther Readings
Beasley, J. O. (2004). Serial murder in America: Case studies
of seven offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,
22,395–414.
Canter, D. V., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., & Wentink, N. (2004).
The organized/disorganized typology of serial murder:
Myth or model? Psychology, Policy, and Law,
10,293–320.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Psychopathy Checklist–Revised
(2nd ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hickey, E. W. (2002). Serial murderers and their victims
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Holmes, R. M., & DeBurger, J. (1988). Serial murder.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kraemer, G. W., Lord, W. D., & Heilbrun, K. (2004).
Comparing single and serial homicide offenses.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22,325–343.SEXOFFENDERASSESSMENT
Although clinical psychological assessment is gener-
ally expected to be specific to particular interventions
with demonstrated efficacy, there is insufficient empir-
ical evidence on which to prescribe clinical assessment
practice with sex offenders. The best strategy is to exam-
ine interventions that target personal and circumstantial
characteristics empirically related to commission of sex
offenses or to recidivism among sex offenders. The
most reliable and robust empirical differences between
sex offenders and other people pertain to sexual prefer-
ences. The best available assessments of the risk of
recidivism are provided by actuarial systems that
include indicators of deviant sexual preferences and of
persistent antisociality across the life course. The Hare
Psychopathy Checklist is the best available measure ofsuch antisociality. Equivocal evidence supports the use
of some assessments of specific attitudes and symp-
toms. This entry discusses the psychological assess-
ment of men who have sexually assaulted women and
children; much of the discussion also applies to assess-
ment of adolescent male sex offenders.Forensic Psychological
Practice With Sex Offenders
At the time of this writing (early 2007), crucial lacunae
affect clinical practice with sex offenders. Despite sev-
eral decades of research, there are no generally accepted
scientific explanations for sex offending. There is also
no empirically conclusive evidence about what specific
interventions, if any, reduce the likelihood of subsequent
offending among sex offenders. Regarding psychologi-
cal treatment, the most authoritative and comprehensive
meta-analysis concluded in 2002 that the available evi-
dence suggestedthat some psychological therapies were
effective, but a firm conclusion could not be drawn. A
glaring problem highlighted by meta-analyses is the
absence of useful data pertaining to which specific
changes in psychological or clinical constructs induced
by therapy were responsible for reductions in recidivism
(if indeed any had occurred). The intervening 5 years
has seen no improvement. Most of the experts’ efforts
over the past several years appear to have been devoted
to debating, with no evident resolution, whether existing
evidence convincingly demonstrated treatment effects.
Although novel therapies were recommended and tried,
no new effects of sex offender treatment were demon-
strated. Consequently, forensic psychologists planning
interventions are not in a strong empirical position to
know what clinical constructs ought to be assessed for
sex offenders. The most appropriate course for psychol-
ogists in such circumstances is to implement interven-
tions that specifically target those ostensibly changeable
characteristics that distinguish men who commit sex
offenses from those who do not or that distinguish those
sex offenders who recidivate from those who do not.
The intensity of intervention (including supervision and,
in the very highest risk cases, incapacitation) should be
related to the measured risk of recidivism. Assessment
would generally then give greatest priority to assessing
this risk of recidivism and the measurement of those
constructs selected for intervention.
Some historical and sociodemographic variables are
clearly related to offenders’ status as sex offenders or to
sex offenders’ risk of recidivism but will mostly be716 ———Sex Offender AssessmentS-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 716