Strengths-Based Assessments for Use with Forensic Populations: A Critical Review

Protective Factor Assessments: What Are We Measuring?—An Investigation of the Internal Validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk

“…As Fazel and Wolf noted in their 10-point guide to help researchers and clinicians select risk assessment tools, an instrument’s external and internal validity are critical parameters (Fazel & Wolf, 2018), as risk- and protective-factor assessment instruments with low validity will be poor quality. Specifically, given the differences in the ways protective factors are operationalized and the lack of evidence-based categories (Klepfisz et al, 2017; Ward, 2017), there is an urgent need to establish the internal validity of protective factor assessment instruments (Cording & Beggs Christofferson, 2017; Serin et al, 2016; Wanamaker et al, 2018). This is especially the case for the SAPROF, as it is the most widely used of these tools.…”

Comparing Gender Differences and Similarities in How Risks and Strengths Cluster to Form Profiles of Justice-Involved Youth: A Latent Profile Analysis

“…Strengths have been found to add incremental variability to the pathways that lead to criminal behaviour, more so than the variability explained by dynamic needs on their own (Carr & Vandiver, 2001;Wanamaker et al, 2018). Brown and colleagues (2020) argued that in order to demonstrate that strengths are not merely the absence of risk, it is important to focus on the incorporation of strengths in the presence of dynamic need factors.…”

Carrying Disaster Lightly: Assessment of Resilience in Two Populations with Psychopathic Features

“…They are also called "directly protective" (i.e., independently beneficial in absence of other factors; Losel & Farrington, 2012) or promotive (Loeber, Pardini, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Raine, 2007). Many articles featuring these concepts do not even outline meaning and utility of resilience definitions; several helpful articles elaborate upon these discrepancies (for a review of resilience-related interpretations, see Wanamaker, Jones, & Brown, 2018). However, what can be agreed upon is that studying these has tremendous value.…”

“…found that the Dynamic Risk Assessment of Offender Re-entry (DRAOR;Serin, 2007) also showed unique variance in offender violations above that demonstrated by risk assessment alone. However, there is mixed evidence for the incremental predictive validity of its "protective" scale(Wanamaker et al, 2018). Examining the Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS;Miller, 2006), the measure's author found unique ability of the resilience-relate items to predict desistance, though more work is needed to expand upon the type of high-risk individuals (Miller examined only sex offenders) to broaden this finding.…”

“…Six Commonly-Used Young Adult and Youth Measures Related to Resilience and/or DesistanceDescribed byWanamaker et al (2018) strengths-only complement to assessment of risk for future violence DRAOR used to assess recidivism potential with a tandem of risk and protective items START used to advise management options for at-risk individuals to avoid adverse outcomes (recidivism, violence, victimisation, suicide) SAVRY used to assess violence risk potential, including assessment of several protective factors, in at-risk youth IORNS used to assess strength factors related to criminal desistance YASI used to assess risks, with some "strengths"-based items in juvenile populations to measure recidivism potential Note. SAPROF = Structured Assessment of Protective Factors (deVogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, & de Vries Robbé, 2009); DRAOR = Dynamic Risk Assessment of Offender Re-entry…”