Vrag Sorag
Vrag Sorag
Vrag Sorag
2. Did you interview this service recipient to gather data for this assessment?
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 2 of 14
Summary of Results
VRAG Results
SORAG Results
Raw Score
(Lowest)
________
_______
Items Scored as 0
Due to Lack of Information
________
Items Scored
as a Range
________
________
_______
*Risk Category
(Low, Medium, High)
based on VRAG/SORAG
scores alone
______________________________________________________________________________
*DO NOT specify a risk category for females. Simply indicate N/A in the space provided. Research on the VRAG
with women has not supported its predictive validity in this population [See Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 2002, Law and
Human Behavior 26 (4)]
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 3 of 14
Childhood & Adolescent Taxon Scale
1. Elementary School Maladjustment
No Problems................................................. 0
Slight (Minor discipline or attendance)
or Moderate Problems ..................................0
Severe Problems (Frequent disruptive
behavior and/or attendance or behavior
resulting in expulsion or serious suspensions)
......................................................................1
Evidence:
7. Parent alcoholism:
No .................................................................. 0
Yes................................................................. 1
Evidence:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONDUCT DISORDER SYMPTOMS
(Unless otherwise noted, circle any item that the person did before the age of 18):
1. Often bullied, threatened or intimidated others
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 4 of 14
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) Items:
1. Lived with both biological parents to age 16
(except for death of parent):
Yes ........................................................... -2
No ............................................................ +3
Evidence:
No boxes checked.................................... -1
1 or 2 boxes checked .............................. . 0
3 boxes checked ..................................... +1
4 or 5 boxes checked .............................. +2
Evidence:
4. Marital status (at the time of or prior to index
offense):
Ever married (or lived common law in the
same home for at least six months) ......... -2
Never married.......................................... +1
Evidence:
5. Criminal history score for nonviolent
offenses prior to the index offense
Score 0 ..................................................... -2
Score 1 or 2............................................... 0
Score 3 or above ..................................... +3
(from the Cormier-Lang system, see below)
6. Failure on prior conditional release (includes
parole or probation violation or revocation,
failure to comply, bail violation, and any new
arrest while on conditional release):
No...............................................................0
Yes .......................................................... +3
Evidence:
7. Age at index offense
Enter Date of Index Offense: ___/___/_____
Enter Date of Birth: ___/___/_____
Subtract to get Age:
39 or over ................................................. -5
34 - 38 ...................................................... -2
28 - 33 ...................................................... -1
27 ...............................................................0
26 or less................................................. +2
Evidence:
9. Any female victim (for index offense)
Yes ........................................................... -1
No (includes no victim)............................. +1
Evidence:
10. Meets DSM criteria for any personality
disorder (must be made by appropriately
licensed or certified professional)
No............................................................. -2
Yes .......................................................... +3
Evidence:
11. Meets DSM criteria for schizophrenia (must
be made by appropriately licensed or
certified professional)
Yes ........................................................... -3
No ............................................................ +1
Evidence:
12. a. Psychopathy Checklist score (if available,
otherwise use item 12.b. CATS score)........
4 or under ................................................. -3
5 9.......................................................... -3
10-14 ........................................................ -1
15-24 ......................................................... 0
25-34 ....................................................... +4
35 or higher ........................................... +12
Note: If there are two or more PCL scores,
average the scores.
Evidence:
12. b. CATS score (from the CATS worksheet)
0 or 1 ........................................................ -3
2 or 3 ..........................................................0
4 ...............................................................+2
5 or higher ............................................... +3
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 5 of 14
Offense
Arrests/Charges Weight Score
Robbery (bank, store).......................................................
_________...... X 7 = _____
Robbery (purse snatching) ............................................
_________...... X 3 = _____
Arson and fire setting (church, house, barn) .............................
_________...... X 5 = _____
Arson and fire setting (garbage can)...................
............................ _________......X 1 = _____
Threatening with a weapon ......................................................
_________...... X 3 = _____
Threatening (uttering threats).................................................... _________...... X 2 = _____
Theft over * (includes car theft and possession stolen prop) ...... _________...... X 5 = _____
Mischief to public or private property over * ............................... _________...... X 5 = _____
Break and enter and commit indictable offense (burglary) .......... _________...... X 2 = _____
Theft under *(includes possession stolen goods under) .............. _________...... X 1 = _____
Mischief to public or private property under * (also public) ......... _________...... X 1 = _____
Break and enter (includes break and enter with intent) ............... _________...... X 1 = _____
Fraud (extortion, embezzlement) .............................................. _________...... X 5 = _____
Fraud (forged check, impersonation) ........................................ _________...... X 1 = _____
Possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon ....................... _________...... X 1 = _____
Procuring a person for, or living on the avails of prostitution ....... _________...... X 1 = _____
Trafficking in narcotics..............................................................
_________...... X 1 = _____
Dangerous driving, impaired driving (including DWI)...................._________...... X 1 = _____
Obstructing peace officer (including resisting arrest)................... _________...... X 1 = _____
Causing a disturbance..............................................................
_________...... X 1 = _____
Wearing a disguise with the intent to commit an offense............. _________...... X 1 = _____
Indecent exposure...................................................................
_________ .. X2 =
_____
TOTAL CORMIER LANG NONVIOLENT SCORE ..................... .................................
_____
* Roughly equivalent to larceny versus grand larceny, based on the value of the stolen property. In 1997, the critical value was
$1000.
___________________________________
1 Please see attached scoring for additional information about the Cormier-Lang System.
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 6 of 14
Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) Items:
1. Lived with both biological parents to age
16 (except for death of parent):
Yes ........................................................... -2
No ............................................................ +3
(Same as VRAG)
2. Elementary School Maladjustment:
No Problems............................................. -1
Slight (Minor discipline or attendance)
or Moderate Problems............................. +2
Severe Problems (Frequent disruptive
behavior
and/or attendance or behavior resulting in
expulsion or serious suspensions) .......... +5
(Same as CATS Item)
3. History of alcohol problems (Check if present):
Parental Alcoholism
Teenage Alcohol Problem
Adult Alcohol Problem
Alcohol involved in prior offense
Alcohol involved in index offense
No boxes checked.................................... -1
1 or 2 boxes checked ................................ 0
3 boxes checked ..................................... +1
4 or 5 boxes checked .............................. +2
(Same as VRAG)
4. Marital status (at the time of or prior to
index offense):
Ever married (or lived common law in the
same home for at least six months) ......... -2
Never married.......................................... +1
(Same as VRAG)
5. Criminal history score for nonviolent
offenses (from Cormier-Lang system)
Score 0 ..................................................... -2
Score 1 or 2............................................... 0
Score 3 or above ..................................... +3
(Same as VRAG)
6. Criminal history score for violent
offenses
Score 0 ..................................................... -2
Score 1 or 2............................................... 0
Score 3 or above ..................................... +6
(From the Cormier-Lang system, below)
7. Number of previous convictions for
sexual offenses (pertains to convictions
known from all available documentation
to be sexual offenses prior to the index
offense) Count any offense known to be
sexual, including, for example, incest
0 ............................................................... -1
1 or 2 ....................................................... +1
3 or more.................................................. +5
Evidence:
8. History of sex offenses only against girls
under 14 (including index offenses; if
offender was less than 5 years older
than victim, always score +4)
Yes .............................................................0
No............................................................. +4
Evidence:
_____
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 7 of 14
2 Please see attached scoring guide for additional information about the Cormier-Lang System
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 8 of 14
__________________________________________________________________________________________
II.
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 9 of 14
VRAG
VRAG Score
Category of Risk
-24
-23
-22
-20
-19
-18
-17
-16
-15
-14
-13
-12
-11
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
32
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 10 of 14
SORAG
SORAG Score
-17
-16
-15
-14
-13
-12
-11
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Category of Risk
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 11 of 14
Index Offense
In our research, the index offense was the criminal or antisocial activity that resulted in the offender becoming a
subject in our research. In most cases, this was a criminal charge or conviction that directly resulted in his
admission to Oak Ridge. Especially among sex offenders, however, the index offense sometimes involves
judgment. For example, for a man sent to Oak Ridge for sexual assaulting his daughter many times over a
decade, we defined the index offense date as the date on which the first assault occurred. As another example,
for a man sent to Oak Ridge for rape who later was convicted for making obscene phone calls while
incarcerated, the rape was the index offense. As yet another example, for a man sent to Oak Ridge for a sexual
murder who revealed in therapy that he also committed rapes before being apprehended, the sexual murder was
the index offense.
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 12 of 14
28
7
6
6
5
3
2
15
12
10
6
6
2
8
5
4
GROUP 2
Robbery (bank, store)
Robbery (purse snatching)
Arson and fire setting (church, house, barn)
Arson and fire setting (garbage can)
Threatening with a weapon
Threatening (uttering threats)
Theft over* (includes car theft and possession of stolen property over)
Mischief to public or private property over*
Break and enter and commit an indictable offense (burglary)
Theft under* (includes possession of stolen goods under)
Mischief to public or private property under* (includes public mischief)
Break and enter (includes breaking and entering with intent to commit
an offense)
Fraud (extortion, embezzlement)
Fraud (forged check, impersonation)
Possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon
Procuring a person for, or living on the avails or prostitution
Trafficking in narcotics
Dangerous driving, impaired driving (driving while intoxicated)
Obstructing peace officer (including resisting arrest)
Causing a disturbance
Wearing a disguise with the intent to commit an offense
Indecent exposure
7
3
5
1
3
2
5
5
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.
Page 13 of 14
Page 14 of 14
This system (and the earlier one by Akman & Normandeau, 1967) is based on the Criminal Code of Canada,
which itself is based on British Common Law, as are the criminal statutes throughout the English-speaking
world. Thus, the Canadian Criminal Code is very similar to the statutes in individual states in the United States.
To the extent that a particular state code is different, some amount of judgment is required to approximate as
closely as possible the names of offenses in other jurisdictions. For example, an offense commonly listed in
U.S. states is battery, which usually involves some physical injury. It would therefore be comparable to the
assault causing bodily harm listed in this scoring method. Similarly, larceny does not appear in the Canadian
Code but is usually equivalent to theft.
In addition, the Canadian Criminal Code entails two classes for some offenses (e.g., theft, mischief, possession
of stolen property) against property-offenses resulting in a loss over a particular monetary value versus those
involving a loss less than that value. This is similar to the grand larceny versus larceny distinction in some other
jurisdictions. The scoring system presented here reflects that distinction assigning larger values to offenses
exceeding that criterion (Over*) compared to those that do not (Under*). Because of inflation, the critical value
has changed from time to time (from $50 to $200 to $1,000). Scoring is done according to whether the offense
exceeded the cutoff value at the time. Problems with interjurisdictional comparability are more troublesome for
research application of this system than application to individual cases. In an individual case, once it is clear an
offenders score is zero or exceeds 2 (e.g., more than one violent offense and more than two nonviolent offenses
automatically exceed a score of 2), scoring is straightforward Only in cases where a distinction is possible
among scores of 0, 1, or 2 is any judgment required to determine how a particular arrest corresponds to the
system here. Sometimes the sentence prescribed by the Criminal Code can be a guide to relative seriousness.
*Source: American Psychological Association; Quinsey, Harris, Rice and Cormier, 2nd Edition (2006); Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk; APA, Washington D.C.