2018
DOI: 10.1177/1073191118768435
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing Protective Factors for Adolescent Offending: A Conceptually Informed Examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI

Abstract: Although the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) are among the most widely used adolescent risk assessment tools, they conceptualize and measure strengths differently. As such, in this study, we compared the predictive validity of SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total, and tested conceptual models of how these measures operate (i.e., risk vs. protective effects, direct vs. buffering effects, causal models). Resea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
40
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
2
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result reinforces the importance of protective factors in reducing and preventing juvenile criminal behavior, so it was to be expected that protective factors would add incremental validity to the risk factors in the assessment instruments. Nevertheless, there are studies that do not find statistically significant results of increased incremental validity from protective factors [14,20,50], even though the same studies underscore their importance as principal factors in implementation of youth interventions [14]. Based on our study results, however, one must clearly differentiate the types of protective factors and the reoffender's type of profile.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…This result reinforces the importance of protective factors in reducing and preventing juvenile criminal behavior, so it was to be expected that protective factors would add incremental validity to the risk factors in the assessment instruments. Nevertheless, there are studies that do not find statistically significant results of increased incremental validity from protective factors [14,20,50], even though the same studies underscore their importance as principal factors in implementation of youth interventions [14]. Based on our study results, however, one must clearly differentiate the types of protective factors and the reoffender's type of profile.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…In order to gain a better understanding of the protective factor, with more connection to its use in professional practice, the study sample was divided into three groups according to the young offenders' protective factor scores. The 25th and 75th percentiles were calculated, thereby dividing the sample into three groups: youths who showed a deficit in the protective factor (<P 25 ), youths with average scores in the protective factor (P 25 -P 75 ) and youths with high scores in the protective factor (>P 75 ) [20]. The group with average scores in the protective factor was compared to the group with deficient scores and the group with higher scores (Table 6).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Several recent evaluations of such tools suggest that higher scores on protective factors are associated with decreased levels of violence and offending (e.g. Borum, Lodewijks, Bartel, & Forth, 2010;Desmarais, Wilson, Nicholls, & Brink, 2010), and that protective factors add significant incremental value above risk factors in explaining violent and criminal behavior (Lodewijks, de Ruiter, Doreleijers, 2010; but see Viljoen, Bhanwer, Shaffer, & Douglas, 2018).…”
Section: Risk and Protective Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%