Comparing Predictive Validity of JSORRAT-II and MEGA♪ With Sexually Abusive Youth in Long-Term Residential Custody

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 2937-2953 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucinda A. Lee Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Sexual Recidivism ◽  
Residential Treatment Facility ◽  
Sexually Abusive ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Representative Samples

This 6-year prospective study is the first to compare two psychometrically sound risk assessment tools for sexually abusive youth: JSORRAT-II and MEGA♪. Cross-validated on representative samples of over 500 youth, these measures have cutoff scores, allowing for a more exact assessment of risk. Study sample consisted of 129 male adjudicated adolescents housed in a secured residential treatment facility for sexually abusive youth. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that MEGA♪ Risk Scale was mildly predictive of sexual recidivism over a 6-year period (mean follow-up = 15.6 months)—area under the curve (AUC) = .67; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.52, 0.82]; p < .015. JSORRAT-II was not predictive (AUC = .57; 95% CI = [0.42, 0.72]; p < .297). The study contributes to scant literature on the most contemporary, statistically robust risk assessment tools for sexually abusive youth.

scholarly journals Testing the validity of criminal risk assessment tools in sexually abusive youth.

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 1430-1443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steffen Barra ◽  
Cornelia Bessler ◽  
Markus A. Landolt ◽  
Marcel Aebi
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Sexually Abusive ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

scholarly journals Assessing Protective Factors for Adolescent Offending: A Conceptually Informed Examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI

Assessment ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 959-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jodi L. Viljoen ◽  
Aisha K. Bhanwer ◽  
Catherine S. Shaffer ◽  
Kevin S. Douglas
Keyword(s):  
Protective Factors ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Protective Effects ◽  
Adolescent Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Relevant Role ◽  
Research Assistants

Although the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) are among the most widely used adolescent risk assessment tools, they conceptualize and measure strengths differently. As such, in this study, we compared the predictive validity of SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total, and tested conceptual models of how these measures operate (i.e., risk vs. protective effects, direct vs. buffering effects, causal models). Research assistants conducted 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. They rated protective factors at baseline, and again at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up periods. The SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total inversely predicted any charges in the subsequent 2 years (area under the curve scores = 0.61 and 0.60, respectively, p < .05). Furthermore, when adolescents’ protective total scores increased, their self-reported violence decreased, thus providing evidence that these factors might play a causally relevant role in reducing violence. However, protective factors did not provide incremental validity over risk factors. In addition, because these measures are brief and use a dichotomous rating system, they primarily captured deficits in protective factors (i.e., low scores). This suggests a need for more comprehensive measures.

scholarly journals The predictive performance of criminal risk assessment tools used at sentencing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seena Fazel ◽  
Matthias Burghart ◽  
Thomas Fanshawe ◽  
Sharon Danielle Gil ◽  
John Monahan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Validation Studies ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Predictive Performance ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Independent Validation ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Tool Performance ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Although risk assessment tools have been widely used to inform sentencing decisions, there is uncertainty about the extent and quality of evidence of their predictive performance when validated in new samples. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of validation studies of ten commonly used risk assessment tools for sentencing. We identified 33 studies with 596,618 participants, among which were 24 independent validation studies with 176,664 individuals. Overall, the predictive performances of the included risk assessment tools was mixed, and ranged from poor to moderate. Tool performance was typically overestimated in studies with smaller sample sizes or studies in which tool developers were co-authors. Most studies only reported Area Under the Curve(AUC), which ranged from 0.57 to 0.75 in independent studies with more than 500participants. The majority did not report key performance measures, such as calibration and rates of false positives and negatives. In addition, most validation studies had a high risk of bias, partly due to inappropriate analytical approach used. We conclude that the key research priority is for future studies to address the key methodological shortcomings identified in this review, and policy makers should enable this research. More sufficiently powered independent validation studies are necessary.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document