A prospective validation study of the START:AV

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the validity and reliability of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) to determine if it has predictive accuracy in relation to physical aggression, severe verbal aggression, property damage and self-harm, in a medium secure setting. In addition, the authors hoped to provide some of the first descriptive data available for the START:AV among a UK adolescent population in a medium secure adolescent unit. Design/methodology/approach The sample consisted of 90 female and male adolescents, with and without developmental disabilities. It was important to explore the measure’s predictive accuracy across specific population groups, such as between males and females, as well as those with developmental disabilities, and those without. Findings Some significant relationships were found between the START:AV and adverse outcomes. For instance, total strength and vulnerability scores were predictive for verbal and physical aggression. Differences in predictive validity were evident when comparisons were made between males and females, with relationships being evident amongst the male population only. When splitting the male sample into developmental disability and non-developmental disability groups, significant relationships were found between strength and vulnerability scores and verbal and physical aggression. Practical implications A number of practical implications are considered, such as the START:AV is relevant for use with adolescents in hospital settings and the significant inverse relationship between strength scores and negative outcomes supports the importance of considering protective/strength factors when working with at risk youths. Originality/value There is currently limited validation data for the START:AV in the UK or elsewhere.

Examination of convergent validity of START: AV ratings among male juveniles on probation

“…The studies support the reliability and validity of START: AV based risk assessments completed in adolescent samples on probation (Viljoen et al, 2012b), correctional facilities (Desmarais et al, 2012), and clinical setting (Sher, Warner, McLean, Rowe, & Gralton, 2017). However, these studies are few and mostly conducted with abbreviated manual of the START: AV.…”

Do adolescent risk assessment tools capture self-reported reasons for desistance? An examination of the content validity of protective factors

“…A meta-analysis on adolescent risk assessment tools (k = 23) revealed that protective factor total scores did not show better predictive accuracy than risk factor total scores (Dickens & O'Shea, 2018). That said, a number of studies have shown that protective factors do predict reoffending (Rennie & Dolan, 2010;Shepherd et al, 2014;Sher et al, 2017;Vincent, et al, 2012). These inconsistent findings may be due to the lack of agreement on the definition of protective factors (Cording & Christofferson, 2017;Dickens & O'Shea, 2018;Wanamaker et al, 2018).…”

“…The START:AV also includes a section for planning interventions Sher et al, 2017). Their results showed that both Vulnerability and Strength total scores predicted verbal and physical aggression in the institution over a three-month follow up period.…”

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

“…Further, protective effects are thought to be greater for adolescents than adults because they are still in the process of development (Ullrich & Coid, 2011). Several studies found that protective factors reduced the risk of verbal, physical, and object-directed aggression, street drug use, and general, violent, and nonviolent recidivism among adolescents (Lodewijks et al, 2010;Richard, 2013;Sher, Warner, McLean, Rowe, & Gralton, 2017;Viljoen et al, 2012).…”