A Second Proof of Concept Investigation of Strengths Using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth Tool With Justice-Involved Youth: Item Level Risk-Based Effects and Interactions

被引:0
作者
Langton, Calvin M. [1 ,3 ]
Worling, James R. [2 ]
Sheinin, Gabriela D. B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Windsor, Dept Psychol, Windsor, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Private Practice, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Windsor, Dept Psychol, 401 Sunset Ave, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
关键词
risk assessment; protective factors; strengths; recidivism; desistance; GOOD LIVES MODEL; PROTECTIVE FACTORS; DESISTANCE; SAVRY; ADOLESCENTS; RECIDIVISM; ISSUES; ADULTS;
D O I
10.1177/15412040241241508
中图分类号
DF [法律]; D9 [法律];
学科分类号
0301 ;
摘要
Despite efforts to incorporate protective factors or 'strengths' in applied risk assessments for criminal reoffending, there has been limited progress towards a consensus regarding what is meant by such terms, what effects predictors can exert, or how to describe such effects. This proof of concept study was undertaken to address those issues. A structured professional judgment tool was used to create lower and higher historical/static risk groups with a sample of 273 justice-involved male youth with sexual offenses followed over a fixed 3-year period. Using risk and protective poles to create pairs of dichotomous variables from trichotomously rated risk and protective items, risk-based exacerbation and risk-based protective effects were found. These varied in terms of whether the effect on the outcome of a new violent (including sexual) offense was larger, smaller, or absent for youth at higher or lower historical/static risk. Some of these potentially dynamic dichotomous variables were shown to have a protective (or risk) effect after controlling for both historical/static risk and that same item's risk (or protective) effect. Some moderated the association between historical/static risk and recidivism, strengthening or reducing it. Terms for these effects and implications of incorporating strengths in research and applied practice were considered.
引用
收藏
页码:251 / 276
页数:26
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]   THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY (RNR) MODEL Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention? [J].
Andrews, D. A. ;
Bonta, James ;
Wormith, J. Stephen .
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2011, 38 (07) :735-755
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2015, SAPROF-Youth version. Structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk-youth version. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk in juveniles
[3]  
Bonta J., 2017, PSYCHOL CRIMINAL CON, V6th
[4]  
Borum R., 2006, Manual for the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY)
[5]  
Borum R, 2021, INT PERSP FOREN MENT, P438
[6]  
Brennan PA, 1997, AM J PSYCHIAT, V154, P853
[7]   Strengths Matter: Evidence From Five Separate Cohorts of Justice-Involved Youth and Adults Across North America [J].
Brown, Shelley L. ;
Robinson, David ;
Wanamaker, Kayla A. ;
Wagstaff, Megan .
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, 47 (11) :1428-1447
[8]   The Predictive Validity of Savry Ratings for Assessing Youth Offenders in Singapore: A Comparison With YLS/CMI Ratings [J].
Chu, Chi Meng ;
Goh, Mui Leng ;
Chong, Dominic .
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2016, 43 (06) :793-810
[9]  
Cicchetti D. V., 1994, Psychological Assessment, V6, P284, DOI [DOI 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284, https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284]
[10]  
de Vogel V., 2009, SAPROF GUIDELINES AS