Coding Form Preamble
In some situations an item score may be tentative due to uncertainty about a decision (e.g., anticipated age at release) or insufficient or conflicting information (e.g., victim information) and it may make sense to complete separate coding sheets for both alternatives and clearly discuss the reason for the different scores and the associated impact on Static-99R results in all reports.
During audits of Static-99R scoring sheets the most commonly identified error is mechanical (e.g., incorrect summing of item scores). Consequently it is strongly recommended that evaluators sum the item scores and check the total at least twice. A mechanized process, such as specialized scoring software or an excel spreadsheet into which item scores may be entered and then summed electronically can be helpful to minimize mathematical errors.
Interestingly, Hanson, Helmus, and Harris (2015) found a meaningful difference between those community supervision officers who completed all the assessments requested of them and those officers who sent incomplete information (e.g., a STABLE-2007 score without a Static score). Among officers who completed all assessments, the predictive accuracy of Static-99R was very high (AUC = .80) and significantly higher than the Static-99R assessment of officers with incomplete assessment packages (AUC = .68). The lesson here is clear – commitment to the assessment can greatly improve your ability to predict sexual recidivism. Consequently, we recommend requiring evaluators to attest to the completeness of their scoring by signing their coding form. Organizations may want to consider including a standard statement such as the one at the bottom of the coding form linked above.
2. Offence Timeline Chart