The predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth in secondary educational settings.

McGowan, Mark R.; Horn, Robert A.; Mellott, Ramona N.

doi:10.1037/a0022304

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to findings for other risk-assessment instruments, it is less clear to which factors our different findings should be contributed. For instance, McGowan et al (2011) found that including the scores on protective factors of the SAVRY improved the prediction of violence. Similarly, the Clinical and Risk Management total scales of the HCR-20, both dynamic in nature, have shown incremental predictive validity over that of the Historical subscale, although it has to be noted that most of these studies also used a retrospective file-based assessment (O'Shea, Mitchell, Picchioni, & Dickens, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predictive validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability for violent behavior in outpatient forensic psychiatric patients.

Troquete¹,

Brink²,

Beintema³

et al. 2015

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It remains unclear whether prediction of violence based on historical factors can be improved by adding dynamic risks, protective strengths, selection of person-specific key strengths or critical vulnerabilities, and structured professional judgment (SPJ). We examine this in outpatient forensic psychiatry with the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) at 3 and 6 months follow-up. An incident occurred during 33 (13%) out of 252 3-month and 44 (21%) out of 211 6-month follow-up periods (n = 188 unique clients). Pearson correlations for all predictor variables were in the expected directions. Prediction of recidivism based on historical factor ratings (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10) could not be improved through the addition of dynamic risk, protective strength, or key or critical factor scores (all ORs ns). The addition of the SPJ improved the model to modest accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = .64) but made no independent significant contribution (OR = 1.55, p = .21) for the 3-month follow-up. For the 6-month follow-up, SPJ scores also increased predictive accuracy to modest (AUC = .67) and made a significant independent contribution to the prediction of the outcome (OR = 1.98, p = .04). Multicollinearity limits were unviolated. Limitations apply, however, results are similar to those from clinical, researcher rated samples and are discussed in the light of setting specific characteristics. Although it is too early to advocate implementing risk assessment instruments in clinical practice, we can conclude that clinicians in a heterogeneous outpatient forensic psychiatric setting can achieve similar results with the START as clinicians and research staff in more homogeneous inpatient settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is contrary to psychiatric treatment aims focused at increasing a client's strengths, which in turn, are also thought to prevent recidivism (McGowan, Horn, & Mellott, 2011;Ward & Brown, 2004;Ward et al, 2007;Ward & Stewart, ies suffer from several limitations. First, they are limited to small samples.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Predictive validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability for violent behavior in outpatient forensic psychiatric patients.

Troquete¹,

Brink²,

Beintema³

et al. 2015

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The SAVRY, based on the HCR-20, is designed to assess the likelihood of a young person (aged 12-18 years) engaging in future violence. It follows the Structured Professional Judgement (SPJ) model of risk assessment which involves assigning a client a violence risk rating, adjudicated by an assessor after the consideration of empirically established risk factors (Conroy & Murray, 2007;Douglas, Cox, & Webster, 1999;Douglas & Reeves, 2010) The SAVRY has been shown to have moderate to good predictive accuracy across community and institutional settings in North America (Catchpole & Gretton, 2003;McGowan, Horn, & Mellott, 2011;Schmidt, Campbell, & Houlding, 2011;Welsh, Schmidt, McKinnon, Chattha, & Meyers, 2008) and Europe (Dolan & Rennie, 2008;Lodewijks, Doreleijers, & de Ruiter, 2008a;Lodewijks, Doreleijers, de Ruiter, & Borum, 2008b). The SAVRY also contains six mitigating items called Protective Factors, the presence of which has been found to increase the prospect of criminal desistance (Lodewijks, de Ruiter, & Doreleijers, 2010;Rennie & Dolan, 2010b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Youth Violence Risk Instruments Interchangeable? Evaluating Instrument Convergence in a Sample of Incarcerated Adolescent Offenders

Shepherd

Luebbers

Ogloff

2014

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the contemporary availability of several youth violence risk instruments at a clinicians disposal, this study sought to investigate whether two widely validated adolescent violence risk instruments are interchangeable. The concurrent and incremental validity of two widely used adolescent violence risk assessment instruments, the Structured Assessment of Violence in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), was evaluated in a young Australian custodial population. A significant degree of dimensional construct overlap between instruments was discovered. Both measures were also found to be moderately predictive of general and violent recidivism to a similar extent. Findings indicate that the instruments are interchangeable when used to evaluate future violent recidivism in these settings. Last, a model of static and dynamic dimensions across both instruments demonstrated strong relationships with recidivistic outcome. Clinical implications for risk assessment practice are discussed.

show abstract

“…For instance, the reliability and validity of assessments completed using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2002), Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003), and Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2006) have been shown to predict both violent and general recidivism, even when completed retrospectively through review of clinical-legal records (Catchpole & Gretton, 2003). Risk assessments completed using the SAVRY also have exhibited good validity in predicting violent recidivism among samples drawn from mental health settings (Meyers & Schmidt, 2008) and secondary educational settings (McGowan, Horn, & Mellott, 2011). To our knowledge, only one study has examined the field reliability of SAVRY assessments: Vincent, Guy, Fusco, and Gershenson (2012) found substantial inter-rater agreement (81%) between SAVRY summary risk ratings completed by juvenile probation officers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pilot Implementation and Preliminary Evaluation of START:AV Assessments in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities

Desmarais

Sellers

Viljoen

et al. 2012

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) is a new structured professional judgment guide for assessing short-term risks in adolescents. The scheme may be distinguished from other youth risk assessment and treatment planning instruments by its inclusion of 23 dynamic factors that are each rated for both vulnerability and strength. In addition, START:AV is also unique in that it focuses on multiple adverse outcomes—namely, violence, self-harm, suicide, unauthorized leave, substance abuse, self-neglect, victimization, and general offending—over the short-term (i.e., weeks to months) rather than long-term (i.e., years). This paper describes a pilot implementation and preliminary evaluation of START:AV in three secure juvenile correctional facilities in the southern United States. Specifically, we examined the descriptive characteristics and psychometric properties of START:AV assessments completed by 21 case managers on 291 adolescent offenders (250 boys and 41 girls) at the time of admission. Results provide preliminary support for the feasibility of completing START:AV assessments as part of routine practice. Findings also highlight differences in the characteristics of START:AV assessments for boys and girls and differential associations between the eight START:AV risk domains. Though results are promising, further research is needed to establish the reliability and validity of START:AV assessments completed in the field.

show abstract

The predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth in secondary educational settings.

Cited by 29 publications

References 45 publications

Predictive validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability for violent behavior in outpatient forensic psychiatric patients.

Predictive validity of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability for violent behavior in outpatient forensic psychiatric patients.

Are Youth Violence Risk Instruments Interchangeable? Evaluating Instrument Convergence in a Sample of Incarcerated Adolescent Offenders

Pilot Implementation and Preliminary Evaluation of START:AV Assessments in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About