These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31221049)

  • 1. Are Juveniles Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses the Same Everywhere? Psychometric Properties of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II in a Portuguese Youth Sample.
    Barroso R; Pechorro P; Ramião E; Figueiredo P; Manita C; Gonçalves RA; Nobre P
    Sex Abuse; 2020 Oct; 32(7):806-825. PubMed ID: 31221049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Validity and Reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Youth Sexual Offense Version.
    Rojas EY; Olver ME
    Sex Abuse; 2020 Oct; 32(7):826-849. PubMed ID: 31248327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Factor structure and validation of the juvenile sex offender assessment protocol (J-SOAP).
    Righthand S; Prentky R; Knight R; Carpenter E; Hecker JE; Nangle D
    Sex Abuse; 2005 Jan; 17(1):13-30. PubMed ID: 15757002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Long-Term Predictive Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II: Research and Practice Implications.
    Schwartz-Mette RA; Righthand S; Hecker J; Dore G; Huff R
    Sex Abuse; 2020 Aug; 32(5):499-520. PubMed ID: 30714853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Another piece of the puzzle: psychometric properties of the J-SOAP-II.
    Fanniff AM; Letourneau EJ
    Sex Abuse; 2012 Aug; 24(4):378-408. PubMed ID: 22344780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Development and Validation of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II.
    Epperson DL; Ralston CA
    Sex Abuse; 2015 Dec; 27(6):529-58. PubMed ID: 24492618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Predicting sexual and nonsexual recidivism in a consecutive sample of juveniles convicted of sexual offences.
    Aebi M; Plattner B; Steinhausen HC; Bessler C
    Sex Abuse; 2011 Dec; 23(4):456-73. PubMed ID: 21406605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Differences in the prevalence and impact of risk factors for general recidivism between different types of juveniles who have committed sexual offenses (JSOs) and juveniles who have committed nonsexual offenses (NSOs).
    van der Put CE; van Vugt ES; Stams GJ; Deković M; van der Laan PH
    Sex Abuse; 2013 Feb; 25(1):41-68. PubMed ID: 22786727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Influence of Age and Sexual Drive on the Predictive Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-Revised.
    Wijetunga C; Martinez R; Rosenfeld B; Cruise K
    Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol; 2018 Jan; 62(1):150-169. PubMed ID: 27255236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II in an Australian Context.
    Molnar T; Allard T; McKillop N; Rynne J
    Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol; 2022 Aug; 66(10-11):1051-1070. PubMed ID: 31957511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Emerging strategies for risk assessment of sexually abusive youth: theory, controversy and practice.
    Prescott DS
    J Child Sex Abus; 2004; 13(3-4):83-105. PubMed ID: 15914391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Knowledge of juvenile sex offender registration laws predicts adolescent sexual behavior.
    Stevenson MC; Najdowski CJ; Wiley TR
    J Child Sex Abus; 2013; 22(1):103-18. PubMed ID: 23350542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Keep testing the waters: Fanniff and Letourneau reply.
    Fanniff AM; Letourneau EJ
    Sex Abuse; 2014 Oct; 26(5):401-5. PubMed ID: 24737829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Juvenile Sex Offenders.
    Ryan EP; Otonichar JM
    Curr Psychiatry Rep; 2016 Jul; 18(7):67. PubMed ID: 27222141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Baby with the bath water: response to Fanniff and Letourneau.
    Hecker JE
    Sex Abuse; 2014 Oct; 26(5):395-400. PubMed ID: 24583804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessing youth who sexually offended: the predictive validity of the ERASOR, J-SOAP-II, and YLS/CMI in a non-Western context.
    Chu CM; Ng K; Fong J; Teoh J
    Sex Abuse; 2012 Apr; 24(2):153-74. PubMed ID: 21825111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Treatment impact of an integrated sex offender program as measured by J-SOAP-II.
    Rehfuss MC; Underwood LA; Enright M; Hill S; Marshall R; Tipton P; West L; Warren K
    J Correct Health Care; 2013 Apr; 19(2):113-23. PubMed ID: 23475853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Changes in J-SOAP-II and SAVRY Scores Over the Course of Residential, Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Adolescent Sexual Offending.
    Viljoen JL; Gray AL; Shaffer C; Latzman NE; Scalora MJ; Ullman D
    Sex Abuse; 2017 Jun; 29(4):342-374. PubMed ID: 26199271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Examining Antisocial Behavioral Antecedents of Juvenile Sexual Offenders and Juvenile Non-Sexual Offenders.
    McCuish EC; Lussier P; Corrado RR
    Sex Abuse; 2015 Aug; 27(4):414-38. PubMed ID: 24487119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Validity of Risk Assessment Instruments Among Juveniles Who Sexually Offended: Victim Age Matters.
    Krause C; Roth A; Landolt MA; Bessler C; Aebi M
    Sex Abuse; 2021 Jun; 33(4):379-405. PubMed ID: 32172652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.