Risk and Strength Variables in Recidivism‐desistance Prediction Research with Applied Assessment Practices

Langton, Calvin M.; Sheinin, Gabriela D. B.; Worling, James R.

doi:10.1002/9781119166504.ch4

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 231 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A little over a decade ago, de Ruiter and Nicholls (2011) heralded the growing attention to purported protective factors or “strengths” as a new frontier in violence and recidivism risk assessment work. But a lack of consensus concerning terminology for these variables and the types of effects, they might exert on outcomes continues to characterize the field (Langton et al, 2022). The focus in the present study was on two strengths-focused tools developed for use in applied settings, investigating first their direct effect (a hypothesized promotive effect, broadly aligned with the concept of a “promotive factor,” to use Farrington et al’s, 2016, term), which here was evaluated by evaluating the accuracy of their scores in predicting the absence of new offending with a sample of justice-involved youth.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The focus in the present study was on two strengths-focused tools developed for use in applied settings, investigating first their direct effect (a hypothesized promotive effect, broadly aligned with the concept of a “promotive factor,” to use Farrington et al’s, 2016, term), which here was evaluated by evaluating the accuracy of their scores in predicting the absence of new offending with a sample of justice-involved youth. Their incremental validity was then investigated in prediction models containing empirically established risk assessment tools’ scores with the same sample (evidence for which would constitute a risk-based protective effect in descriptive terms although only conceptually similar to Farrington et al’s “risk-based protective factor,” per Langton et al, 2022). Also investigated was whether these strength-focused tools exert a buffering or protective effect by testing interactions in the same prediction models containing empirically established risk assessment tools’ scores (evidence of which would be consistent with Farrington et al’s concept of an “interactive protective” factor).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protective factors in the prediction of criminal outcomes for youth with sexual offenses using tools developed for adults and adolescents: Tests of direct effects and moderation of risk.

Langton¹,

Awrey²,

Worling³

2023

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest in protective factors in risk assessment work with adjudicated populations is increasing and evidence suggests that protective factors in structured professional judgment (SPJ) tools predict the absence of one or more types of recidivism with some evidence also of incremental validity in recidivism-desistance prediction models with risk scales. But, there is little evidence of interactions, demonstrated using formal tests of moderation, between scores on risk- and protective factor-focused applied assessment tools, despite the documentation of interactive protective effects with nonadjudicated populations. In this study, with 273 justice-involved male youth and a fixed 3-year follow-up, direct effects of medium size were found for sexual recidivism, violent (including sexual) recidivism, and any new offense with totals for tools developed for adult offending populations (modified versions of the actuarial risk-focused Static-99 and the SPJ protective factor-focused Structured Assessment of PROtective Factor [SAPROF]) and tools developed for adolescent offending populations (the actuarial risk-focused Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II [JSORRAT-II] and the SPJ protective factor-focused DASH-13). As well, incremental validity and interactive protective effects, in the small-to-medium size range, were found for the prediction of violent (including sexual) recidivism using various combinations of these tools. The value-added information provided by strengths-focused tools indicated by these findings suggest their inclusion in comprehensive risk assessments in applied practice has promise for improving prediction and also intervention and management planning with justice-involved youth. The findings also highlight the need for further research on developmental considerations and practical questions about how to integrate strengths with risks to inform such work empirically.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Protective factors in the prediction of criminal outcomes for youth with sexual offenses using tools developed for adults and adolescents: Tests of direct effects and moderation of risk.

Langton¹,

Awrey²,

Worling³

2023

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As with other items with mixed effects, the mixed effects for both outcomes found for this item are consistent with findings for other operationalizations of the underlying construct, whether investigated using Farrington et al (2016) approach (Farrington et al, 2016; Jolliffe et al, 2016) or not (Mowen & Boman, 2018). Operationalizations matter, of course (Harris & Rice, 2015; Langton et al, 2022) and, given these criteria, it should not be surprising that some of the Risk Factor items exerted a mixed effect (i.e., promotive and risk effects at the two ends of their trichotomous rating scale, on the basis of their pairs of OR s) for one or both outcomes. Subject to replication, there are implications for the development (and revisions) of SPJ tools as well as training in their use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their critical analysis of risk and strength variables in recidivism-desistance prediction research with applied assessment practices, Langton et al (2022) made a case for describing effects (rather than labeling the variable or item as one type of factor or another, which invites the inference that its effect is invariant). The reasoning behind this was twofold.…”

Section: Farrington Et Al’s (2016) Risk Promotive and Mixed Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the 13 SAPROF-YV items, for only the item tapping Leisure Activities were the findings concerning a direct effect described as indicative of a promotive factor (the same as Farrington's label), with the item Peers and the item Other Supportive Relationships both described as having a "weak protective effect" (p. 202). The remaining items were described by Li et al as In their critical analysis of risk and strength variables in recidivism-desistance prediction research with applied assessment practices, Langton et al (2022) made a case for describing effects (rather than labeling the variable or item as one type of factor or another, which invites the inference that its effect is invariant). The reasoning behind this was twofold.…”

Section: Farrington Et Al's (2016) Approach With Spj Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A proof of concept study of promotive, mixed, and risk effects using the SAVRY assessment tool items with youth with sexual offenses.

Langton,

Ranjit,

Worling

2023

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is currently a lack of consensus about the nature of strengths in forensic assessments. With 273 justice-involved male youth and a fixed 3-year follow-up, this study adopted the approach of Farrington and colleagues to investigating the nature of associations between trichotomized variables, representing risks and strengths, and outcomes using pairs of odds ratios (ORs) and percentage point changes from base rates. Items from the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), a structured professional judgment tool used to assess risk and protective factors in justice-involved youth, were employed for this purpose. In the literature, the accuracy of SAVRY summed totals for its Risk Factor item sets (each item rated using a trichotomy) has been generally in the moderate range in predicting future violence. But the total for its summed Protective Factor items (each rated using a dichotomy) has been less consistently encouraging. In this study, contrary to their labels, the majority of SAVRY Risk and Protective Factors (rated using trichotomies) exerted a risk effect at one end of their trichotomy (risk item ratings of 2, protective item ratings of 0) and a promotive effect at the other end (risk item ratings of 0, protective factor ratings of 2) for a new violent (including sexual) offense and any new offense. Subsets of items conservatively weighted using ORs (capturing risk and strength) were statistically significantly more accurate in predicting outcomes than their originally rated counterpart subsets. Implications for understanding the nature of strengths and for applied assessment practices are discussed.

show abstract

Promotive, Mixed, and Risk Effects of Individual Items Comprising the SAPROF Assessment Tool With Justice-Involved Youth

Langton

Betteridge

Worling³

2023

Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) is a widely used structured professional judgment (SPJ) tool. Its indices have predictive validity regarding desistance from future violence in adult correctional/forensic psychiatric populations. Although not intended for applied use with youth, SAPROF items lend themselves to an investigation of whether their operationalizations capture only strengths or also risks. With 229 justice-involved male adolescents followed for a fixed 3-year period, promotive, risk, and mixed effects were found. Most SAPROF items exerted a mixed effect, being associated with higher and lower likelihoods of violent and any reoffending at opposite ends of their trichotomous ratings. Summing items weighted using their promotive and risk odds ratios produced statistically significant improvements in predictive accuracy, improvements found also with a cross-validation sample of 171 justice-involved youth. The nature of strengths and implications for the development of SPJ tools and training in their use were discussed.

show abstract

Risk and Strength Variables in Recidivism‐desistance Prediction Research with Applied Assessment Practices

Cited by 4 publications

References 231 publications

Protective factors in the prediction of criminal outcomes for youth with sexual offenses using tools developed for adults and adolescents: Tests of direct effects and moderation of risk.

Protective factors in the prediction of criminal outcomes for youth with sexual offenses using tools developed for adults and adolescents: Tests of direct effects and moderation of risk.

A proof of concept study of promotive, mixed, and risk effects using the SAVRY assessment tool items with youth with sexual offenses.

Promotive, Mixed, and Risk Effects of Individual Items Comprising the SAPROF Assessment Tool With Justice-Involved Youth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About