Validity and Predictive Accuracy of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk in Criminal Forensic Evaluations

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milena Abbiati ◽  
Agathe Azzola ◽  
Julie Palix ◽  
Jacques Gasser ◽  
Valerie Moulin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Forensic Evaluations ◽  
Recidivism Prediction ◽  
Structured Professional Judgment

Some actuarial and structured professional judgment (SPJ) risk-assessment instruments have already demonstrated their validity and predictive accuracy in expert criminal forensic evaluations. In contrast, little is known about the effectiveness of instruments identifying protective factors in risk of recidivism prediction. The present study was designed to evaluate the validity and predictive accuracy of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) in 94 violent and sexual violent offenders assessed in a Swiss pretrial criminal forensic context. The SAPROF showed good interrater reliability, and was significantly correlated to predominately dynamic instruments but not to predominately actuarial instruments. However, in terms of predictive accuracy, the SAPROF did not perform as well as expected when compared with other instruments and with previous SAPROF accuracy validation studies. These results have implications for the use of the SAPROF in criminal forensic contexts risk assessment.

Factors Predicting Desistance From Reoffending: A Validation Study of the SAPROF in Sexual Offenders

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 697-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dahlnym Yoon ◽  
Daniel Turner ◽  
Verena Klein ◽  
Martin Rettenberger ◽  
Reinhard Eher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Sexual Offenders ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

The present study aims at validating the German version of the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors (SAPROF) for violence risk in a representative sample of incarcerated adult male sexual offenders. Sexual offenders ( n = 450) were rated retrospectively with the SAPROF using the database of the Federal Evaluation Centre for Violent and Sexual Offenders (FECVSO) in the Austrian Prison System. Interrater reliability and predictive validity of the SAPROF scores concerning desistance from recidivism were calculated. Concurrent and incremental validity were tested using the combination of the SAPROF and the Sexual Violence Risk–20 (SVR-20). Interrater reliability was moderate to excellent, and predictive accuracy for various types of recidivism was rather small to moderate. There was a clear negative relationship between the SAPROF and the SVR-20 risk factors. Whereas the SAPROF revealed itself as a significant predictor for various recidivism categories, it did not add any predictive value beyond the SVR-20. Although the SAPROF itself can predict desistance from recidivism, it seems to contribute to the risk assessment in convicted sexual offenders only to a limited extent, once customary risk assessment tools have been applied. Implications for clinical use and further studies are discussed.

A Prevention-Based Paradigm for Violence Risk Assessment

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 617-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Douglas ◽  
P. Randall Kropp
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intervention Strategies ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Clinical Prediction ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Validation Procedure ◽  
Actuarial Prediction ◽  
Structured Professional Judgment ◽  
Risk Assessment And Management

The rationale for this article was to outline and describe an emerging model of prevention-based violence risk assessment and management and to discuss attendant clinical and research implications. This model draws on structured professional judgment rather than on actuarial prediction or unstructured clinical prediction. Its purpose is to prevent violence through the assessment of relevant violence risk factors and the application of risk management and intervention strategies that flow directly from these factors. The authors discuss the nature of the clinical tasks that stem from the model as well as a four-step validation procedure required to evaluate it.

Risk Assessment of Stalkers

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 590-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Randall Kropp ◽  
Stephen D. Hart ◽  
David R. Lyon
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Limited Time ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Targeted Violence ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
Structured Professional Judgment ◽  
The Relationship

Risk assessment of stalkers is difficult due to the diversity of stalking-related behaviors and the lack of research. The authors discuss three problems. First, stalking is a form of targeted violence, that is, violence directed at specific people known to the perpetrator. Second, stalking may include acts that are implicitly or indirectly threatening. Third, stalking can persist for many years, even decades. In contrast, most research on violence risk assessment ignores the relationship between victim and perpetrator, defines violence solely in terms of physical harm, and tracks perpetrators for limited time periods. The authors conclude that these problems make it impossible to rely on actuarial approaches when assessing risk for stalking at the present time, although it is possible to use structured professional judgment. They discuss some basic principles that can be used to guide stalking risk assessment within the framework of structured professional judgment.

The Role of Protective Factors in the Predictive Accuracy of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie F. P. Soderstrom ◽  
Kristina K. Childs ◽  
Paul J. Frick
Keyword(s):  
Protective Factors ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Total Risk ◽  
Individual Risk Factors ◽  
The Impact

The use of risk assessment instruments has become standard procedure in the juvenile justice system. Most empirical assessments of the predictive validity of these instruments concentrate on the ability of a total risk score, individual risk factors, or risk domains to predict negative juvenile outcomes but fail to consider the utility of the protective factors in influencing or moderating those risks. This study utilizes the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth to analyze the impact of protective factors on reoffending using a sample ( n = 460) of postadjudication juveniles in a southern state. The overall protective domain and two specific protective factors were related to reoffending in bivariate analyses. However, protective factors did not predict reoffending when controlling for risk domains. Rather, further analyses suggest that certain protective factors buffer the effects of some of the risk domains.

scholarly journals Dashing Hopes? the Predictive Accuracy of Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment by Police

2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 1013-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Turner ◽  
Juanjo Medina ◽  
Gavin Brown
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Domestic Abuse ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Modest Improvement ◽  
Structured Professional Judgment ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Abuse Risk ◽  
Dash Questionnaire

Abstract The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence (DASH) form is a standardized risk assessment implemented across most UK police forces. It is intended to facilitate an officer’s structured professional judgment about the risk a victim faces of serious harm at the hand of their abuser. Until now, it has been an open question whether this tool works in practice. Here, we present the largest scale European study, making the case that the risk assessment tool is underperforming. Each element of the DASH questionnaire is, at best, weakly predictive of revictimization. Officer risk predictions based on DASH are little better than random and a logistic regression model that predicts the same outcome using DASH only provides modest improvement in performance.

Are Protective Factors Valid Constructs? Interrater Reliability And Construct Validity Of Proposed Protective Factors Against Sexual Reoffending

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (11) ◽  
pp. 1448-1467
Author(s):  
Gwenda M. Willis ◽  
Sharon M. Kelley ◽  
David Thornton
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Sexual Offence ◽  
Sexual Recidivism ◽  
Dynamic Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Most sexual recidivism risk assessment tools focus primarily on risk factors and deficits without consideration for strengths or protective factors which might mitigate reoffense risk. The current study is the first in a research program designed to develop and validate the Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk—Sexual Offence version (SAPROF-SO), a measure of protective factors against sexual reoffending. The study aimed to test interrater reliability and construct validity of the SAPROF-SO with a high-risk ( n = 40) and routine ( n = 40) sample. Interrater reliability between three independent raters was generally good to excellent for the SAPROF-SO domain and Total scores across both samples and compared favorably with validated measures of dynamic risk. Moreover, the SAPROF-SO demonstrated construct validity and was moderately independent of existing measures of risk. Findings open the door for a more balanced, strengths-based, and accurate approach to recidivism risk assessment.

Assessing and managing the risk of violence to others

2020 ◽  
pp. 1461-1468
Author(s):  
Alec Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Patient Violence

Assessing and managing the risk of patient violence is integral to the clinical practice of psychiatry. This chapter reviews the principles governing the assessment of violence risk in psychiatry, discusses clinical practice in this area, and examines the limits of psychiatric violence risk assessment. Assessment involves both the identification of risk and protective factors and a cause-based analysis based on an understanding of the case. Good practice involves the use of multiple sources of information and the integration of information gleaned from the identification of correlates of violence and a cause-based analysis. Empirical data on the limits to the predictive accuracy that can be achieved suggest that information concerning risk will usually be one of many pieces of information governing the management of a case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document