Does reassessment of risk improve predictions? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.

Abstract

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents' risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, the authors tested 3 hypotheses as to why reassessment might improve predictions, namely the shelf-life, dynamic change, and familiarity hypotheses. Research assistants (RAs) rated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) every 3 months over a 1-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. The authors then examined charges for violence and any offense over a 2-year follow-up period, and youths' self-reports of reoffending. Contrary to the shelf-life hypothesis, predictions did not decline or expire over time. Instead, time-dependent area under the curve scores remained consistent across the follow-up period. Contrary to the dynamic change hypothesis, changes in youth's risk total scores, compared to what is average for that youth, did not predict changes in reoffending. Finally, contrary to the familiarity hypothesis, reassessments were no more predictive than initial assessments, despite RAs' increased familiarity with youth. Before drawing conclusions, researchers should evaluate the extent to which youth receiving the usual probation services show meaningful short-term changes in risk and, if so, whether risk assessment tools are sensitive to these changes. Public Significance StatementIn this study, two adolescent risk assessment tools predicted reoffending among adolescent offenders. However, despite recommendations to reassess risk regularly, short-term reassessments did not improve predictions, suggesting a need for further research.

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

“…This may be because this study used a long follow-up period (i.e., 8 years), during which time youth may have continued to show increases or decreases in risk. Another study found that, despite recommendations to regularly reassess risk, reassessing risk with the SAVRY and YLS/CMI did not improve risk predictions (Viljoen et al, 2016). Specifically, reassessments did not expire or show declines in predictive validity over a two-year follow-up period, nor did assessments improve as evaluators gained familiarity with youth via repeated reassessments.…”

“…This study was conducted as part of a larger study on risk assessment (Viljoen et al, 2016). Although that study also includes a 9-month reassessment, we focused on the baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups, as researchers have recommended reassessments at these time points (Vincent et al, 2012;.…”

Assessing the Interactions between Strengths and Risk Factors of Recidivism through the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

“…The youths with a prior arrest record scored higher in the risk domains than the reoffenders without a prior arrest record. The case of young repeat offenders who already had an arrest record represents a high-risk profile, or a profile of a criminal career [39]. Crimes committed by young people can be isolated incidents in their life, in this case, during adolescence.…”

The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits: Reliability, Convergent Validity, and Predictive Validity for Reoffending in Adolescents on Probation

“…As the ICU does not have a cut-off score to distinguish between adolescents scoring low and high on CU traits (Feilhauer et al, 2012;Ray, Frick, Thornton, Steinberg, & Cauffman, 2016), we used cut-off scores at the 25 th , 50 th , 75 th , 90 th , and 95 th percentiles (i.e., 19.50, 28.00, 32.00, 41.00, and 43.50, respectively). These percentiles have been used in similar analyses with self-report measures that include CU traits (i.e., APSD;Shaffer et al, 2016).…”

“…The present study used a prospective design. The ICU was completed by 70 adolescents as part of a larger longitudinal study examining mental health needs, risk, and strengths in adolescents on probation (e.g., Viljoen et al, 2016). Participants were recruited from 11 adolescent probation offices in the greater Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada.…”