The Relationship Between Changes in Dynamic Risk Factors and the Predictive Validity of Risk Assessments Among Youth Offenders

Clarke, Maggie; Peterson‐Badali, Michele; Skilling, Tracey A.

doi:10.1177/0093854817719915

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In one study, youth on probation showed mean-level decreases in YLS/CMI scores over time, thus providing evidence for the YLS/CMI's internal sensitivity (Clarke, Peterson-Badali, & Skilling, 2016). Also, decreases in total scores and some subscales predicted decreased risk of reoffending, thus providing support for the YLS/CMI's external sensitivity.…”

Section: Sensitivity To Changementioning

confidence: 98%

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

Viljoen¹,

Shaffer²,

Gray³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Sensitivity To Changementioning

confidence: 98%

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

Viljoen¹,

Shaffer²,

Gray³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, studies using YLS/CMI also found evidence for the utility of change scores. Using a sample of 200 Canadian youth offenders, Clarke, Peterson-Badali, and Skilling (2017) found that the inclusion of changes in dynamic risk scores improved predictive accuracy.…”

Section: Types Of Transition In Risk Profilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Changes in Youth Offenders’ Risk Profiles: A Latent Transition Analysis

Chu

et al. 2019

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined youth probationers’ risk profiles at the start and the end of probation and the types of transition in risk profiles over time. It further identified the association between the transition types, their adverse family background as well as their probation completion status. Using a sample of 935 youth probationers in Singapore, a latent transition analysis was conducted based on seven dynamic domains captured in the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0. Based on the risk profiles, three subgroups of youths were identified: (1) the “De-escalators” had reduced risk in one or multiple domains; (2) the “Persistors” continued to have moderate risk in most domains; and (3) the “Escalators” showed an increase in risk levels in one or multiple domains. Compared to the De-escalators, the Persistors and Escalators were less likely to complete their probation orders. Further analysis revealed that youths from nonintact families or families with conviction history showed higher relative risk in being Persistors. These findings contribute to our understanding on the changes in probationers’ risk profiles over time and provide information for early and more targeted intervention efforts.

show abstract

“…Research on the YLS/CMI is even scarcer. Even though some studies have examined changes in YLS/CMI risk total scores (Clarke, Peterson-Badali, & Skilling, 2017;, we are not aware of any research that has examined changes in YLS/CMI strengths, let alone how such change relates to reoffending. However, unless there is evidence that protective factors causally relate to reoffending, it cannot be assumed that targeting those factors in treatment will reduce reoffending (Monahan & Skeem, 2014).…”

Section: Putatively Causal Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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). Research assistants conducted 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. They rated protective factors at baseline, and again at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up periods. The SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total inversely predicted any charges in the subsequent 2 years (area under the curve scores = 0.61 and 0.60, respectively, p < .05). Furthermore, when adolescents' protective total scores increased, their self-reported violence decreased, thus providing evidence that these factors might play a causally relevant role in reducing violence. However, protective factors did not provide incremental validity over risk factors. In addition, because these measures are brief and use a dichotomous rating system, they primarily captured deficits in protective factors (i.e., low scores). This suggests a need for more comprehensive measures.

show abstract

The Relationship Between Changes in Dynamic Risk Factors and the Predictive Validity of Risk Assessments Among Youth Offenders

Cited by 30 publications

References 52 publications

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

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

Understanding Changes in Youth Offenders’ Risk Profiles: A Latent Transition Analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About