The Validity and Reliability of the Violence Risk Scale–Youth Version in a Diverse Sample of Violent Young Offenders

Stockdale, Keira C.; Olver, Mark E.; Wong, Stephen C. P.

doi:10.1177/0093854813496999

Cited by 27 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that a poor family environment is a common risk factor for future violence and maladaptive behavior (Capaldi & Patterson, 1996;Farrington & Loeber, 2000;Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986), its representation and subsequent convergence across both instruments is typical. Both instruments have previously demonstrated convergent validity with other dynamic specific violence risk inventories that largely comprise environmental and contextual items (Viljoen et al, 2012;Stockdale, Olver, & Wong, 2014). The SAVRY Historical domain additionally demonstrated a strong correlation with the YLS/CMI Education/Employment subscale, both of which comprise factors concerning school achievement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

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

show abstract

“…Compared to the other meta-analyses on the YLS/CMI (Olver et al, 2009;Schwalbe, 2008), ten studies that were used in Olver et al (2009) were included in these meta-analyses (Gossner & Wormith, 2007;Marczyk, 2002;McKinnon 2004;Morton, 2003;2008;Rowe, 2002;Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes, 2005;Stockdale, 2008;van de Ven, 2004;Viljoen et al;2008). Three studies that were used in the study completed by Schwalbe (2008) met all of the criteria for inclusion, and were therefore included in this study (Flores, 2004;Rowe, 2002;Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes, 2005).…”

Section: Methods For Locating Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A correct prediction would be that someone who is low risk does not reoffend, and an incorrect prediction is that someone who is low risk does reoffend. Several studies have found that there is no significant difference with how well the instrument predicts recidivism for girls and for boys (Barnes, 2013;Campbell et al, 2014;Flores, 2013;Gossner, 2003;Jung & Rawana, 1999;Schmidt, Hodge, Gomes, 2005;Stockdale, 2008;). …”

Section: Yls/cmi -Previous Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have found that gender-neutral tools do not accurately predict risks for juvenile females, and suggest that they may benefit from a gender-specific risk assessment tool (Baird et al, 2013;Schmidt, Campbell & Houlding, 2011). Other have found that the gender-neutral tool works equally well for both genders (Barnes, 2013;Campbell et al, 2014;Flores, 2013;Gossner, 2003;Jung & Rawana, 1999;Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes, 2005;Stockdale, 2008;, and it has even been found that the gender-neutral tool works better on females than males (Onifade, Davidson, & Campbell, 2009). To help address these conflicting results, a meta-analysis will be conducted using studies that have examined the predictive validity of the YLS risk assessment instrument.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender and Risk Assessment in Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analysis

Pusch

Holtfreter

2017

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although young males are still the primary perpetrators of juvenile crime, girls are increasingly coming into contact with the criminal justice system. While girls may have different pathways to crime and risks for recidivism than boys, their risk to reoffend is typically assessed using a gender-neutral tool that is based on social learning theory: a theory originally developed and tested on males. With the appropriateness of using gender-neutral tools to assess female criminality coming into question, a number of researchers have searched for a resolution. To date, mixed findings on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools have not provided any definitive answers. To help assess the predictive validity of the Youth Level of Service Inventory, separate meta-analyses were conducted for male and female juvenile offenders using previous studies. The mean effect sizes were compared in order to determine whether the predictive validity is similar for both males and females. With the exception of violent recidivism, results indicate that the YLS/CMI works equally well for male and female offenders. The implications of these findings for theory, research, and correctional policy are discussed.ii

show abstract

“…As such, change scores may not predict long-term offending that spans over an 8-year follow-up period. Similarly, a dissertation on the Violence Risk Scale: Youth Version (VRS:YV; Lewis, Wong, & Gordon, 2004) did not find significant associations between change scores and reoffending in a subsample of 22 youth (Stockdale, 2008).…”

Section: Dynamic Change Hypothesis: Changes In Risk Will Predict Reofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does reassessment of risk improve predictions? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.

Viljoen

Gray

Shaffer

et al. 2017

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents' risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, the authors tested 3 hypotheses as to why reassessment might improve predictions, namely the shelf-life, dynamic change, and familiarity hypotheses. Research assistants (RAs) rated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) every 3 months over a 1-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. The authors then examined charges for violence and any offense over a 2-year follow-up period, and youths' self-reports of reoffending. Contrary to the shelf-life hypothesis, predictions did not decline or expire over time. Instead, time-dependent area under the curve scores remained consistent across the follow-up period. Contrary to the dynamic change hypothesis, changes in youth's risk total scores, compared to what is average for that youth, did not predict changes in reoffending. Finally, contrary to the familiarity hypothesis, reassessments were no more predictive than initial assessments, despite RAs' increased familiarity with youth. Before drawing conclusions, researchers should evaluate the extent to which youth receiving the usual probation services show meaningful short-term changes in risk and, if so, whether risk assessment tools are sensitive to these changes. Public Significance StatementIn this study, two adolescent risk assessment tools predicted reoffending among adolescent offenders. However, despite recommendations to reassess risk regularly, short-term reassessments did not improve predictions, suggesting a need for further research.

show abstract

The Validity and Reliability of the Violence Risk Scale–Youth Version in a Diverse Sample of Violent Young Offenders

Cited by 27 publications

References 48 publications

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

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

Gender and Risk Assessment in Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analysis

Does reassessment of risk improve predictions? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About