Are adolescent risk assessment tools sensitive to change? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and the YLS/CMI.

Abstract

Although many adolescent risk assessment tools include an emphasis on dynamic factors, little research has examined the extent to which these tools are capable of measuring change. In this article, we outline a framework to evaluate a tool’s capacity to measure change. This framework includes the following: (a) measurement error and reliable change, and (b) sensitivity (i.e., internal, external, and relative sensitivity). We then used this framework to evaluate the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Research assistants conducted 509 risk assessments with 146 adolescents on probation (101 male, 45 female), who were assessed every 3 months over a 1-year period. Internal sensitivity (i.e., change over time) was partially supported in that a modest proportion of youth showed reliable changes over the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. External sensitivity (i.e., the association between change scores and reoffending) was also partially supported. In particular, 22% of the associations between change scores and any and violent reoffending were significant at a 6-month follow-up. However, only 1 change score (i.e., peer associations) remained significant after the Bonferroni correction was applied. Finally, relative sensitivity was not supported, as the SAVRY and YLS/CMI was not more dynamic than the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV). Specifically, the 1-year rank-order stability coefficients for the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV Total Scores were .78, .75, and .76, respectively. Although the SAVRY and YLS/CMI hold promise, further efforts may help to enhance sensitivity to short-term changes in risk.

Assessing the Interactions between Strengths and Risk Factors of Recidivism through the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

“…Among the evidence contributed here, we offer a study of the SAVRY's predictive ability through AUC calculations. These values are similar to those found in studies from different countries, using both English-speaking and non-English-speaking samples [27,38,44,45], and are similar to meta-analysis data of risk assessment instruments in young offenders [46]. Our results uphold the utility and good functioning of the SAVRY in contexts and languages outside of North America, making it feasible to compare studies regardless of the youths' nationalities.…”

Supervision trajectories of male juvenile offenders: growth mixture modeling on SAVRY risk assessments

“…However, these programs often are unavailable or poor in quality [7] or do not sufficiently address the criminogenic needs of the juveniles [8]. Illustrating these problems, Viljoen et al found that treatment received by juvenile offenders was not associated with change in their risk/needs [9]. It is important to match treatment to the individual’s risk/needs, after a comprehensive risk/need assessment [10].…”

Risk assessment and juvenile resentencing: A critical analysis

“…By contrast, an actuarial measure that includes both static and dynamic risk factors and has an override option [e.g., the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI); Andrews et al, ] allows the evaluator some flexibility in incorporating relevant influences (such as interventions, desistance, and time) that indicate a risk score and level should be adjusted. Recent evidence suggests that the youth version of the LS/CMI (the YLS/CMI; Andrews et al, ) is somewhat sensitive to change across time, and that the changes in certain subscales may be related to reoffending risk (Viljoen, Shaffer, Gray, & Douglas, ). While the Level of Service measures were not developed to be used in resentencing contexts, they are based on the RNR theory, which we have suggested provides a solid foundation for risk assessment and may be the best alternative for considering historical and current risk factors, accompanied by needs, until more specialized measures are created and validated.…”

“…Actuarial risk assessment measures that do not allow evaluator override and are largely or entirely composed of static risk factors are a particularly poor fit for measuring violence or recidivism risk in juvenile resentencing evaluations. By contrast, an actuarial measure that includes both static and dynamic risk factors and has an override option et al, 2004) is somewhat sensitive to change across time, and that the changes in certain subscales may be related to reoffending risk (Viljoen, Shaffer, Gray, & Douglas, 2017). While the Level of Service measures were not developed to be used in resentencing contexts, they are based on the RNR theory, which we have suggested provides a solid foundation for risk assessment and may be the best alternative for considering historical and current risk factors, accompanied by needs, until more specialized measures are created and validated.…”