Predictive validity of the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV is poor for intimate partner violence perpetration among adolescent offenders.

Abstract

Objective: Despite advances in developing structured risk assessment instruments, there is currently no instrument to assess and manage the risk of intimate partner violence perpetration among adolescents. Given the empirical link between many forms of antisocial behavior, we tested whether structured tools commonly used by professionals to evaluate adolescents’ risk of engaging in general violence and offending could be used to identify adolescents at risk for perpetrating intimate partner violence. Hypotheses: Because researchers have not yet examined whether risk assessment tools for general violence and offending predict intimate partner violence perpetration, we did not have a priori hypotheses regarding the predictive validity of these tools for this purpose. Method: Research assistants rated 156 adjudicated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), and Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) and recorded charges for intimate partner violence perpetration, any violent reoffending, and any reoffending over a 2-year follow-up period. Results: Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that total scores and summary risk ratings on the SAVRY and YLS/CMI and total scores on the PCL:YV were significantly predictive of any violent reoffending and any reoffending, with moderate to large effect sizes, but were nonsignificantly associated with intimate partner violence perpetration. Further, penalized logistic regression analysis indicated that the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV did not significantly add incremental validity to age, gender, race/ethnicity, and prior intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization for predicting future intimate partner violence perpetration. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV could have limitations for assessing and managing intimate partner violence perpetration among adolescents.

Assessing Risk of Family Violence by Young People: Identifying Recidivism Base Rates and the Validity of the VP-SAFvR for Youth

“…It remains unclear whether such generalist youth risk assessment instruments over- or under-estimate the likelihood of family violence recidivism, as the authors did not explicitly report classification statistics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], negative predictive value [NPV]). Although the findings by Shaffer et al (2022) were limited by small sample size ( n = 156) and low base rate of intimate partner abuse (11.5%), they raise questions regarding the applicability of these general tools for use with young people who use other relational forms of family violence, including whether they assess for key risk factors for family violence recidivism.…”

“…Given the lack of robust evidence and appropriately validated risk assessment tools specific to youth family violence, young people are typically assessed using more general risk assessment protocols (Shaffer et al, 2022). While tools like the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al, 2006) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2006, 2011) are often employed to assess young people who engage in violent behavior, they have been shown to be poor predictors of intimate partner abuse perpetration among youth aged 12 to 18 years (Shaffer et al, 2022).…”

“…Given the lack of robust evidence and appropriately validated risk assessment tools specific to youth family violence, young people are typically assessed using more general risk assessment protocols (Shaffer et al, 2022). While tools like the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al, 2006) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2006, 2011) are often employed to assess young people who engage in violent behavior, they have been shown to be poor predictors of intimate partner abuse perpetration among youth aged 12 to 18 years (Shaffer et al, 2022). It remains unclear whether such generalist youth risk assessment instruments over- or under-estimate the likelihood of family violence recidivism, as the authors did not explicitly report classification statistics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], negative predictive value [NPV]).…”

“…Likewise, there have been suggestions that adult family violence tools like the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA-V 3 ; Kropp & Hart, 2015) and the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER; Kropp et al, 2010) may be useful for young people who engage in intimate partner abuse (Bowen & Walker, 2015). Although validation of these tools for young people is limited, Shaffer et al (2022) found that several items of the SARA-V3 were applicable for use with adolescents and proposed revisions to other items to make them more relevant for this cohort; this adaption of the SARA-V 3 (i.e., Youth Intimate Partner Assessment Guide) is yet to be validated.…”

“…Third, gender-specific validation of risk assessment tools for young people is required (Shaffer et al, 2022), particularly given the presence of research suggesting risk factors for youth family violence may differ among males and females (Ibabe et al, 2013; Leen et al, 2013). Finally, youth family violence research has been primarily descriptive (Boxall & Sabol, 2021; Simmons et al, 2018), with little consideration of applying knowledge to the processes of risk assessment, management and therapeutic intervention.…”