2018
DOI: 10.1037/tam0000092
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The distinction between transient and substantive student threats.

Abstract: Many schools across North America have adopted student threat assessment as a violence prevention strategy. The Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines (VSTAG) is a threat assessment model that emphasizes distinguishing between substantive threats that are serious and transient threats that are not serious. This retrospective study investigated the interrater reliability and criterion-related validity of this distinction in a sample of 844 student threat cases from 339 Virginia public schools. To assess … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
34
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
4
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Threats made by elementary school students were less likely to be considered serious than threats made by middle school students. This finding is consistent with previous studies of the characteristics of students making threats in schools using the VSTAG model, which found that threats by older students are more likely to be classified as substantive (Burnette et al, 2017; Cornell et al, 2004). The findings of the present investigation extend the previous work by using a statewide sample of schools that use a variety of threat assessment practices rather than a specific model of threat assessment.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Threats made by elementary school students were less likely to be considered serious than threats made by middle school students. This finding is consistent with previous studies of the characteristics of students making threats in schools using the VSTAG model, which found that threats by older students are more likely to be classified as substantive (Burnette et al, 2017; Cornell et al, 2004). The findings of the present investigation extend the previous work by using a statewide sample of schools that use a variety of threat assessment practices rather than a specific model of threat assessment.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Because schools used different classification systems with varying numbers of categories, cases classified under various systems as substantive, medium, high, severe, serious, or imminent were combined into a “serious” category and cases classified as transient or low were classified as “not serious.” We elected to use two broad categories because this seemed to be the most feasible way to combine data across schools using different systems and because the distinction between a threat considered serious and one considered not serious seemed to have the most practical value. One study has demonstrated coder reliability for the three-category system used in the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines (Burnette et al, 2017), but we are not aware of reliability for any of the other coding systems. In addition to classification, the survey asked whether the student attempted or did not attempt to carry out the threat.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Students in special education are referred for threat assessments at a higher rate than other students, but they are not subject to harsher consequences after a threat assessment is conducted (Burnette et al., 2018). School staff might be more concerned about threatening statements or behavior by students in special education because of a history of aggressive or disruptive behavior, especially if they have been classified as having a serious emotional disturbance.…”
Section: School Threat Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, studies are needed to elucidate the critical factors in the threat assessment process that produce its effects. In this direction, in one study, the inter‐rater reliability and criterion‐related validity of the distinction between transient and substantive threats among CSTAG threat assessment teams from 339 schools were investigated (Burnette, Datta, & Cornell, ). Researchers found that the transient/substantive distinction was made with adequate reliability but that there were identifiable areas for improvement, and that the two types of threats were associated with expected differences in threat characteristics and school responses.…”
Section: Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A review of threat assessment cases in Virginia reveals that there have been hundreds of threats to shoot others that have come to the attention of threat assessment teams and that have been resolved without violence (Cornell et al., ). These cases include many students with characteristics similar to students who have committed shootings (Burnette et al., ), but this similarity is not adequate to claim an intervention effect. What can be said is that students who received a threat assessment almost never carried out their threat and, in thousands of cases involving threats ranging from simple assault to a mass shooting, have not injured anyone (Cornell & Maeng, ).…”
Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%