Theoretical and practical issues for the measurement of protective factors

Cording, Jacinta R.; Christofferson, Sarah M. Beggs

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.007

Cited by 26 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Fazel and Wolf noted in their 10-point guide to help researchers and clinicians select risk assessment tools, an instrument’s external and internal validity are critical parameters (Fazel & Wolf, 2018), as risk- and protective-factor assessment instruments with low validity will be poor quality. Specifically, given the differences in the ways protective factors are operationalized and the lack of evidence-based categories (Klepfisz et al, 2017; Ward, 2017), there is an urgent need to establish the internal validity of protective factor assessment instruments (Cording & Beggs Christofferson, 2017; Serin et al, 2016; Wanamaker et al, 2018). This is especially the case for the SAPROF, as it is the most widely used of these tools.…”

Section: Different Instruments Same Core Construct and Validity Concmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protective Factor Assessments: What Are We Measuring?—An Investigation of the Internal Validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk

Abbiati

Golay

Gasser

et al. 2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of instruments measuring protective factors is on the rise in risk evaluation, management, and treatment planning. Although assessment tools must have good internal validity to be generalizable and reproducible, little is known about the internal validity of protective factor instruments. The present study evaluated the factor structure of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) via confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of forensic risk assessments of 143 individuals convicted of violent and sexual violent offenses in Switzerland. The SAPROF did not show any differences by type of offenses. Although our confirmatory factor analysis did not confirm the classic SAPROF scale’s structure, the results of the exploratory analysis were in line with previous theoretical research as it revealed a four-factor model comprising Resilience, Reintegration, Treatability, and Living Conditions. These results have implications for the use of the SAPROF in forensic risk assessments and treatment management plans.

show abstract

Section: Different Instruments Same Core Construct and Validity Concmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protective Factor Assessments: What Are We Measuring?—An Investigation of the Internal Validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk

Abbiati

Golay

Gasser

et al. 2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The emphasis therefore needs to be on improving assessment skills so that practitioners are better able to identify factors that might be protective and to assess what the protective element of the factor is and the extent of its protective quality. Without this, assessments are likely to remain focused on risk factors, and too great a focus on negatives can cause practitioners to develop an unrealistically negative view of the assessed person (De Vries Robbe and Willis, 2017) and to over-estimate risk levels for particular individuals (Cording and Beggs Christofferson, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Protective factors help to explain why some offenders desist from offending despite the presence of multiple risk factors (Yesberg et al, 2015). Whilst the exact added value of assessing protective factors during risk assessment is still uncertain (Cording and Beggs Christofferson, 2017), it is now widely argued that a focus not only on offenders' risk-related deficits but also on their strengths or resources leads to more accurate risk prediction (Yesberg et al, 2015) and enables practitioners to support desistance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengths, resources or controls? The assessment of protective factors in probation practice

Whyman

2019

Probation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is based on research that explored how well protective factors are understood, assessed and used in risk assessment within probation practice. The research was facilitated by the Sir Graham Smith Award, administered by the Probation Institute. Semi-structured interviews explored the knowledge, ability, confidence and attitudes of a sample of probation officers working in the National Probation Service. The findings suggest that understanding of the term is varied, and there are some limitations around knowledge, but that attitudes towards protective factors are positive and there is some good practice in terms of assessment.

show abstract

“…Ultimately, identifying strength when looking at risks creates a more balanced and accurate assessment of the individuals being studied, may reduce researcher bias, and expands opportunity for positive intervention. 21…”

Section: Intervention Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding Strength in Vulnerability: Ethical Approaches when Conducting Research with Vulnerable Populations

Mollard

Hatton-Bowers

Tippens

2020

J Midwife Womens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers who desire to make positive changes for vulnerable populations often conduct problem‐focused studies. Although problem‐focused research is important, when such studies are not carefully designed, their results can contribute to a deficit discourse. A deficit discourse is a narrative that describes the person through a myopic lens of negativity characterized only by illness, death, depression, failure, or the like. Deficit discourse negatively affects how health care providers and society interact with vulnerable people. This article discusses deficit discourse in health care and strengths‐based research: an ethical approach to working with vulnerable individuals in research settings and a strategy to overcome deficit discourse. Strengths‐based research approaches balance risks with countermeasures that include areas that are positive and amenable to growth or intervention. Strengths‐based research can be conducted using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed‐methods methodology. Strengths‐based research should be culturally relevant and population‐specific, often including the individuals of study throughout the process. By modifying the research approach, critical problems can be identified and addressed while also emphasizing positive ways to empower individuals and improve their lives. Additionally, these changes better the way researchers and health care providers view and care for people while also challenging deficit discourses in society at large.

show abstract

Theoretical and practical issues for the measurement of protective factors

Cited by 26 publications

References 33 publications

Protective Factor Assessments: What Are We Measuring?—An Investigation of the Internal Validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk

Protective Factor Assessments: What Are We Measuring?—An Investigation of the Internal Validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk

Strengths, resources or controls? The assessment of protective factors in probation practice

Finding Strength in Vulnerability: Ethical Approaches when Conducting Research with Vulnerable Populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About