Youth violence assessment instruments: are they sensitive to change and are changes related to recidivism?

Koh, Li Lian; Day, Andrew; Klettke, Bianca; Daffern, Michael; Chu, Chi Meng

doi:10.1080/1068316x.2021.1909019

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for the SAPROF’s sister tools, only one article investigated the predictive performance of change on the SAPROF-YV (Koh et al, 2021). In this study, however, the SAPROF-YV change score failed to significantly predict the absence of reoffending (violent and any type).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is an important finding because it underscores the utility of the SAPROF in guiding clinicians during risk management and rehabilitation by monitoring changes in protection that are directly associated with decreased recidivism. That being said, the one study that investigated change scores on the SAPROF-YV (Koh et al, 2021), did not find these to be a significant predictor of decreased recidivism. Further research on the risk-mitigating effects of changes in protective factors, with multiple time points in a prospective design, is needed to draw firm conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The SAPROF is intended as a dynamic measure of protection against violent behavior and should be sensitive to an individual’s responsiveness to intervention. To date, however, only three studies have investigated SAPROF change scores (Coupland & Olver, 2020; de Vries Robbé, de Vogel, Douglas, et al, 2015; Olver & Riemer, 2021), and only one article has assessed SAPROF-YV change scores (Koh et al, 2021). Further research is urgently needed as it will ultimately provide deeper insight and useful guidance for successful violence risk management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity.

Burghart¹,

Ruiter²,

Hynes³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the inclusion of protective factors in risk assessment is believed to improve prediction, most risk assessment tools emphasize risk factors. In response, the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) has been developed, which focuses exclusively on protective factors and is used in conjunction with a structured risk assessment tool. It has received increasing attention from both researchers and forensic mental health practitioners, and additional versions have been developed for use with adolescents (SAPROF-YV) and sex offenders (SAPROF-SO). To assess their psychometric performance, we conducted a meta-analysis of validation studies. Our final sample included 39 articles with 5,434 subjects from 16 countries. Overall, the SAPROF(-YV/-SO) showed good interrater reliability and moderate-to-good predictive performance for the absence of recidivism and institutional misconduct. All three instruments exhibited incremental validity when used in conjunction with a risk-focused assessment tool. Our meta-analysis additionally showed that changes on the SAPROF are associated with decreased violent and general recidivism after controlling for baseline risk. We also uncovered several shortcomings in current research with the SAPROF(-YV/-SO). Studies did not report calibration indices and most studies were retrospective and limited to male offenders. The present findings provide support for the relevance of protective factors in risk assessment, but future research should focus on their hypothesized role in treatment and risk management. Public Significance StatementThis meta-analysis shows that the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), a risk assessment tool that focuses exclusively on protective factors, can significantly predict the absence of violent behavior in an institution and after discharge into the community. It highlights the importance of adding dynamic protective factors to structured risk assessment to lower the risk of future violence.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity.

Burghart¹,

Ruiter²,

Hynes³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is demonstrated higher predictive validity for SAVRY in self-reported delinquency compared to the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV) ( 42 ). Moreover, there is evidence that the SAVRY is more sensitive to change than the VRS-YV (Violence Risk Scale-Youth Version) or SAPROF-YV ( 44 ). Notably, the overall protective SAVRY domain was related to reoffence, buffering the effects of some of the risk domains ( 24 , 45 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Violence risk and personality assessment in adolescents by Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and high school personality questionnaire (HSPQ): Focus on protective factors strengthening

Skřivánková

Páv²,

Faberová³

et al. 2023

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAdolescents are most at risk of engaging in violent interaction. Targeting violence risk and protective factors is essential for correctly understanding and assessing their role in potential violence. We aimed to use the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) tool within the sample of adolescents to capture violence risk and protective factors and personality variables related to risk and protective factors. We further aimed to identify which violence risk and protective factors were positively or negatively related to violence within personal history and if any personality traits are typical for violent and non-violent adolescents. Identifying broader or underlying constructs within the SAVRY tool factor analysis can enable appropriate therapeutic targeting.MethodsWe used the Czech standardized version of the SAVRY tool. The study sample comprised 175 men and 226 women aged 12–18 years divided into two categories according to the presence or absence of violence in their personal history. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare numerical variables between the two groups. SAVRY factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to determine the item factors. We administered the High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) to capture adolescents’ personality characteristics.ResultsIn our sample, there were 151 participants with violence in their personal histories and 250 non-violent participants. Non-violent adolescents had higher values for all six SAVRY protective factors. The strongest protective factor was P3, Strong attachment and bonds across gender or a history of violence. Using factor analysis, we identified three SAVRY internal factors: social conduct, assimilation, and maladaptation. The SAVRY protective factors were significantly positively related to several factors in the HSPQ questionnaire.ConclusionThe results highlight the significance of protective factors and their relationship with violence prevalence. HSPQ diagnostics could be helpful in clinically targeting personality-based violence risks and protective factors. The therapeutic focus should be on tension, peer rejection, and anxiety. It is also essential to foster positive attitudes toward authority, prosocial behavior, and attitudes toward school. These strategies can help strengthen protective factors of the SAVRY.

show abstract

“…Given recent discussions about how ACEs can be misused in screening (Anda, Porter & Brown 2020), disease prediction and clinical decision-making (Baldwin et al 2021), more work is needed to establish how ACE assessment tools can best be used. Rather than seek to support efforts to better predict offending behaviour (ie risk assessment; see Koh et al 2021), the initial goal should be to gain deeper insight into whether ACEs, along with other clinically important information (ie trauma symptoms and potentially related needs), can assist youth justice services to match intervention efforts with the needs of young people in their care.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse childhood experiences and trauma among young people in the youth justice system

Malvaso¹,

Day²

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in a representative sample of young people under youth justice supervision in South Australia. The analysis showed that not only was the prevalence of ACEs particularly high in this population (89% experienced a combination of maltreatment and household dysfunction), but so too were trauma symptomatology, substance use, and internalising and externalising behaviours (with more than two-thirds of young people scoring in the clinical ranges on each of these measures). When viewed collectively, the data provide a foundation for understanding and responding to the vulnerabilities of young people in the youth justice system. They suggest that developmentally focused and trauma‑informed approaches may offer the greatest promise in assisting young people and keeping the community safe from crime.

show abstract

Youth violence assessment instruments: are they sensitive to change and are changes related to recidivism?

Cited by 6 publications

References 38 publications

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity.

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity.

Violence risk and personality assessment in adolescents by Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and high school personality questionnaire (HSPQ): Focus on protective factors strengthening

Adverse childhood experiences and trauma among young people in the youth justice system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About