Latent constructs in the measurement of risk and protective factors for violent reoffending using the HCR-20^v3 and SAPROF: implications for conceptualizing offender assessment and treatment planning

The Base Rate Study: Developing Base Rates for Risk Factors and Indicators for Engagement in Violent Extremism

“…Protective factors/circumstances are considered in the Extremism Risk Guidelines for each of the 22 factors identified (but not as distinct additional factors as per the VERA). Our findings provide further empirical evidence for the consideration of protective factors in violent extremist risk assessment, thereby supporting SPJ approaches which have generally shown utility in the assessment for general violence .…”

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

“…Their plots show that survival curves become progressively flatter (i.e., survival rate diminishes less over time) with higher levels of protection in both high-and low-risk offenders. These results are not surprising considering that structural equation models suggest that protective factors and risk factors are not simply opposite ends of the same continuum, but measure independent latent constructs (Klepfisz et al, 2020). Importantly, adding a focus on protective factors in offender rehabilitation has been shown to enhance the working alliance between patients and staff, by fostering a more holistic approach to risk management (de Vries Robbé & Stam, 2012;Wanamaker et al, 2018).…”

Protective factors as uni- or bipolar factors and their incremental validity and accuracy in predicting general recidivism

“…This deficits-focused approach is said to increase the chance of over-estimating the risk level and inherent bias towards the individual being assessed (Rogers, 2000). However, there is much debate on how protective factors must be defined and measured (Cording & Beggs Christofferson, 2017;Klepfisz, Daffern, Day, Lloyd, & Woldgabreal, 2020). Some researchers argue that protective factors are thought to be important in promoting therapeutic relationships (O'Shea & Dickens, 2016) and treatment motivation (Shiina, 2015).…”

“…Unipolar protective factors indirectly influence the impact of risk factors on the probability of reoffending (i.e., they "buffer" the effects of risk factors) (Guay, Parent, & Benbouriche, 2020), and their absence does not lead to increased risk (De Vries Robbé, de Vogel, Douglas, & Nijman, 2015;De Vries Robbé & Willis, 2017;Farrington, Ttofi, & Piquero, 2015). Bipolar protective factors are "mirror images" of risk factors, implying that they lie at the opposite end of the same continuum as risk factors (Klepfisz et al, 2020). To gain more insight into protective factors being distinct from risk factors, the present study aims to simultaneously investigate risk and protective factors using a large group of forensic outpatients.…”

“…Evidence from research among adult forensic patients supporting the uni-or bipolarity of the protective factors is diverse. While some researchers found support for the unipolarity of protective factors (usually investigated in terms of incremental predictive validity) (Abidin et al, 2013;Davoren et al, 2013;De Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, & de Vries Robbé, 2009; De Vries Robbé, de Vogel, & Douglas, 2013), in more recent studies, no evidence supports such an approach (Abbiati, Azzola, Palix, Gasser, & Moulin, 2017;Klepfisz et al, 2020;Neil, O'Rourke, Ferreira, & Flynn, 2020;Yoon et al, 2018). In fact, multicollinearity of risk and protective factors seems to be a common issue when investigating both risk and protective factors.…”