Risk–Need Assessment Inventories for Juvenile Offenders in Australia

Thompson, Andrew; Putnins, Aldis L.

doi:10.1375/132187103322742158

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All three measures indeed correlated with self-reported offending during the 6- and 12-month follow-up periods, but the magnitude of association attenuated over time. Although weak in magnitude, such correlations are comparable to results obtained with other forms of juvenile risk assessment instruments (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001; Thompson & Putnins, 2003; Welsh, Schmidt, McKinnon, Chatta, & Meyers, 2008). Only the YPI was significantly correlated with official-records offending at 6-month follow-up; all three scales had a significant but weak association at 12-month follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

A multimethod assessment of juvenile psychopathy: Comparing the predictive utility of the PCL:YV, YPI, and NEO PRI.

Cauffman¹,

Kimonis²,

Dmitrieva³

et al. 2009

Psychological Assessment

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study compares 3 distinct approaches for measuring juvenile psychopathy and their utility for predicting short-and long-term recidivism among a sample of 1,170 serious male juvenile offenders. The assessment approaches compared a clinical interview method (the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version [PCL:YV]; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003), a new self-report measure (the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory; Andershed, Kerr, Stattin, & Levander, 2002), and a personality-based approach (the NEO Psychopathy Resemblance Index; Lynam & Widiger, 2007). Results indicate a modest overlap between the 3 measures (rs = .26-.36); however, youths were often identified as psychopathic by 1 measure but not by others. Measures were weakly correlated with reoffending during subsequent 6-and 12-month periods. Findings suggest that although such scores may be useful indicators of the need for heightened monitoring in the short term, care should be taken when making predictions about long-term recidivism among adolescents. Moreover, the lack of longterm predictive power for the PCL:YV and the inconsistent psychopathy designations obtained with different measures raise serious questions about the use of such measures as the basis for legal or clinical treatment decisions. Keywordspsychopathy; measurement; adolescent psychopathology; juvenile delinquency; psychometrics Criminal justice and mental health professionals have long sought a reliable technique for predicting future criminal behavior among juvenile offenders. Among adults, psychopathy measures are highly predictive of future violence (Glover, Nicholson, Hemmati, Bernfeld, & Quinsey, 2002;Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1991;Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998;Serin, 1996). As such, the utility of psychopathy as a predictor of general and violent recidivism in adults has sparked considerable interest in applying the construct to adolescents. By assessing psychopathic traits, researchers have tried to distinguish between adolescent offenders whose deviant behavior is more transitory and less severe and those with more serious and stable patterns of behavior (Caputo, Frick, & Brodsky, 1999;Kruh, Frick, & Clements, 2005).Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth Cauffman, Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, 3355 Social Ecology II, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-7085. cauffman@uci.edu. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptPsychol Assess. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 11. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptMeasures designed to assess psychopathy in juvenile populations are increasingly used to make decisions in court cases (Viljoen, MacDougall, Gagnon, Douglas, & Crosby, 2009). Such measures may be used to determine whether a youth is tried in juvenile or adult court and whether sentencing focuses on treatment or punishment (Petrila & Skeem, 2003;Seagrave & Grisso, 2002). Little research, however, has examined whether measures of juvenile psychopathy accurately predict lon...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

A multimethod assessment of juvenile psychopathy: Comparing the predictive utility of the PCL:YV, YPI, and NEO PRI.

Cauffman¹,

Kimonis²,

Dmitrieva³

et al. 2009

Psychological Assessment

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research on the YLS/CMI is limited, but studies have shown that its total score and subscale scores significantly discriminate between offender and nonoffender groups (Costigan & Rawana, 1999;Jung & Rawana, 1999). Predictive validity correlations for recidivism have generally ranged from .25 to .36 (Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes, 2005;Thompson & Putnins, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Validity of the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) With Juvenile Offenders

Meyers

Schmidt

2008

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Violence is a serious social problem that is often encountered in the youth justice system. Identifying those adolescents who are at the highest risk for future violence is an important step toward effective rehabilitation. The current study examined the predictive validity of the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), a structured professional judgment risk tool, in a sample of 121 juvenile offenders. The SAVRY was found to have strong predictive validity, a finding that was robust across gender and ethnicity. The SAVRY obtained ROC values of .75 and .66 for general and violent recidivism, respectively, for 1 year, and values of .76 and .77 for general and violent recidivism, respectively, for 3-year follow-up. For nonviolent recidivism, the ROC values were .80 for 1-year and .68 during 3 years. Use of the SAVRY in the youth justice system, and limitations of the study, are discussed.

show abstract

“…Work has been done on an Australian adaptation of the YLS/CMI (Pope, 2002;Thompson, 2001) for use with young offenders in New South Wales. The correlation between the total score and recidivism was .28 (Thompson & Putniņš, 2003). This might be an underestimate as variation in the follow-up periods for different subjects is likely to have reduced the strength of associations.…”

Section: Current Actuarial Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Readmitted youths are normally assessed again if more than 12 months have elapsed since their last assessment, though some youths were reassessed in less than 12 months. A summary of the SECAPS is given in Thompson and Putniņš (2003). Data from the SECAPS about substance use, suicide behaviours, literacy, numeracy and intellectual functioning among young offenders (of which those studied here are a subgroup) have been published elsewhere (see Putniņš, 1999Putniņš, , 2001Putniņš, , 2005.…”

Section: Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Recidivism Risk Among Young Offenders

Putnins¹

2005

Aust & NZ Jnl Crim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk–Need Assessment Inventories for Juvenile Offenders in Australia

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

A multimethod assessment of juvenile psychopathy: Comparing the predictive utility of the PCL:YV, YPI, and NEO PRI.

A multimethod assessment of juvenile psychopathy: Comparing the predictive utility of the PCL:YV, YPI, and NEO PRI.

Predictive Validity of the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) With Juvenile Offenders

Assessing Recidivism Risk Among Young Offenders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About