scholarly journals The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF): A Meta-Analysis of its Reliability and Predictive Validity

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Burghart ◽  
Corine de Ruiter ◽  
Sophia E. Hynes ◽  
Nishant Krishnan ◽  
Yara Levtova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Predictive Performance ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Random Effects Models

Although the inclusion of protective factors in risk assessment is believed to improve prediction, most risk assessment tools emphasize risk factors. One tool that attempts to balance risk factors with protective factors is the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF). The SAPROF focuses exclusively on protective factors and is used in conjunction with a structured risk assessment tool. It has received increasing attention from both researchers and forensic mental health practitioners in recent years. To assess its psychometric performance, we conducted a meta-analysis of validation studies using random effects models. Our final sample included 22 studies with 3,216 subjects from 12 countries. Overall, the SAPROF showed good interrater reliability and moderate to good predictive performance for desistance from violence in terms of institutional misconduct and community recidivism. The instrument also exhibited incremental validity when used in conjunction with the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20). Despite these promising results, this meta-analysis also uncovered several shortcomings in current research on the SAPROF. Studies did not report data on calibration, thus failing to capture the full picture of the SAPROF’s predictive performance. Moreover, risk of bias across studies was high and findings are mostly restricted to male samples. Directions for future research and recommendations for the use of the SAPROF are offered.

scholarly journals Clinicians’ Perceptions of the Implementation of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) on an Inpatient Forensic Unit

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Domjancic ◽  
Treena Wilkie ◽  
Shaheen Darani ◽  
Brittney Williams ◽  
Bandhana Maheru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Exploratory Research ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Consensus Scoring ◽  
Additional Value

The Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) is an assessment tool that examines protective factors when assessing for violence risk. There is limited research on clinicians’ perceptions of the use and implementation of risk assessment tools, and this study aimed to examine the experiences of clinicians using the SAPROF in a low secure forensic rehabilitation inpatient unit in Canada. An exploratory research design was used, and five clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews. Data was analyzed using a thematic approach and three central themes were identified: understanding of the patient from a strengths-based point of view, providing clinicians with a focus on how to help the patient, and bringing in opportunities to collaborate as a team. The findings highlight the additional value of the SAPROF as tool in helping forensic teams to adopt strengths based approaches to risk assessment, enhancing treatment planning and inter-professional collaboration.   Keywords: strengths, risk assessment, SAPROF, consensus scoring, recovery

Drawing upon the evidence to develop a multiagency risk assessment and risk management framework for domestic violence

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Lamb ◽  
Kirsty Forsdike ◽  
Cathy Humphreys ◽  
Kelsey Hegarty
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Violence Risk

Domestic violence poses a threat to the health, safety and wellbeing of women internationally and is associated with a range of physical injuries, chronic mental and physical health issues and death. In recognition of the serious consequences and to guide the allocation of resources, multiple countries have invested in efforts to measure domestic violence risk. This study aimed to determine whether there was an existing validated risk assessment tool with an actuarial element, or a common set of evidence-based risk factors that could be implemented in Victoria, Australia. A tool was sought which would effectively predict risk of severity, lethality and re-assault and support risk management strategies. The tool needed to be suitable for administration by a variety of professionals. Through an audit and analysis of existing tools, the study found an absence of universal standards or guidance for weighting actuarial tools and clear insight into how risk assessments currently inform risk management practice and multidisciplinary responses. However, the literature provides clarity around the key evidence-based risk factors that most commonly form a validated tool for adult victim survivors. The evidence was less definitive in terms of assessing risk of lethality and re-assault for children and young people.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>There has been considerable investment in approaches to measure domestic violence risk.</li><br /><li>Some consistency exists in terms of evidence-based risk factors across existing risk assessment tools.</li><br /><li>There is an absence of universal standards for weighting actuarial tools as well as guidance to inform a response by a broad range of professionals.</li></ul>

scholarly journals VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT IN PSYCHIATRY - LITERATURE REVIEW AND PRACTICE COMPARISON BETWEEN LATVIA AND GERMANY

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 357-367
Author(s):  
Karina Konstantinova ◽  
Alina Kuznecova
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Community Violence ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Mentally Disordered Offenders ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment

Evidence-based future community violence risk assessment is a crucial issue in psychiatry. It is a cornerstone of safeguarding the rights of persons with mental health issues. Authors aimed to analyse the modern methods of risk assessment in psychiatry and the current practice and legal framework. Authors undertook a scoped review of the literature with search terms related to future community violence risk prediction for mentally disordered offenders in Latvian, English, German, and Russian languages. Main difficulties in future community violence risk assessment are demonstrated via Latvia’s court decisions analysis. Marked differences were identified: there are no standardized methods available/registered in Latvia, therefore risks assessment is performed via clinical assessment only. In Germany, the risk assessment is performed via structured evidence – based risk assessment tools and clinical assessment; nevertheless, the choice of the assessment tool remains challenging.  

scholarly journals Validation of HIV Risk Screening Tool to Identify Infected Adults and Adolescents >14 years at Community Level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kesetebirhan Delele Yirdaw ◽  
Justin Mandala
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Hiv Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Test ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Risk Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Conventional Risk Factors

Abstract Background There are a number of risk factors being used to identify undiagnosed HIV infected adults. As the number of undiagnosed people gets lesser and lesser, it is important to know if existing risk factors and risk assessment tools are valid for use. In this study, we validate existing HIV risk assessment tools and see if they are worth using for HIV case finding among adults who remain undiagnosed. Methods The Tanzania and Zambia Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) household surveys were conducted during 2016. We used adult interview and HIV datasets to assess validity of different HIV risk assessment tools. We first included 12 risk factors (being divorced, separated or widowed (DSW); having an HIV+ spouse; having one of the following within 12 months of the survey: paid work, slept away from home for at least a month, had multiple sexual partners, paid for sex, had sexually transmitted infection (STI), being a tuberculosis (TB) suspect, being very sick for at least 3 months; had ever sold sex; diagnosed with cervical cancer; and had TB disease into a risk assessment tool and assessed its validity by comparing it against HIV test result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the tool were assessed against the HIV test result. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score in order to have a tool with better sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. ROC comparison statistics was used to statistically test equality between AUC (area under the curve) of the different scores. ROC comparison statistics was also used to determine which risk assessment tool was better compared to the tool that contained all risk factors. Results Of 14,820 study participants, 57.8% were men, and had a median age of 30 (IQR: 21-24). HIV prevalence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.6). For the tool containing all risk factors, HIV prevalence was 1.0% when none of the risk factors were positive (Score 0) compared to 3.2% when at least one factor (Score ≥1) was present and 8.0% when ≥4 risk factors were present. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 82.3% (78.6%-85.9%), 41.9% (41.1%-42.7%), 3.2% (2.8%-3.6%), and 99.0% (98.8%-99.3%), respectively. The use of a tool containing conventional risk factors (all except those related with working and sleeping away) was found to have higher AUC compared to the use of all risk factors (p value <0.001), with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 63.5% (58.9%-68.1%), 66.2% (65.5%-67.0%), 4.2% (3.6%-4.8%), and 98.7% (98.5%-98.9%), respectively. Conclusion Use of a screening tool containing conventional risk factors improved HIV testing yield compared to doing universal testing. Prioritizing people who fulfil multiple risk factors should be explored further to improve HIV testing yield.

scholarly journals Validation of HIV Risk Screening Tool To Identify Infected Adults And Adolescents >14 Years At Community Level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kesetebirhan Delele Yirdaw ◽  
Justin Mandala
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Hiv Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Test ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Hiv Risk Assessment ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Conventional Risk Factors

Abstract BackgroundThere are a number of risk factors being used to identify undiagnosed HIV infected adults. As the number of undiagnosed people gets lesser and lesser, it is important to know if existing risk factors and risk assessment tools are valid for use. In this study, we validate existing HIV risk assessment tools and see if they are worth using for HIV case finding among adults who remain undiagnosed. Methods The Tanzania and Zambia Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (PHIA) household surveys were conducted during 2016. We used adult interview and HIV datasets to assess validity of different HIV risk assessment tools. We first included 12 risk factors (being divorced, separated or widowed (DSW); having an HIV+ spouse; having one of the following within 12 months of the survey: paid work, slept away from home for at least a month, had multiple sexual partners, paid for sex, had sexually transmitted infection (STI), being a tuberculosis (TB) suspect, being very sick for at least 3 months; had ever sold sex; diagnosed with cervical cancer; and had TB disease into a risk assessment tool and assessed its validity by comparing it against HIV test result. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the tool were assessed against the HIV test result. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to determine a suitable cut-off score in order to have a tool with better sensitivity, specificity, and PPV. ROC comparison statistics was used to statistically test equality between AUC (area under the curve) of the different scores. ROC comparison statistics was also used to determine which risk assessment tool was better compared to the tool that contained all risk factors. Results Of 14,820 study participants, 57.8% were men, and had a median age of 30 (IQR: 21-24). HIV prevalence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.6). For the tool containing all risk factors, HIV prevalence was 1.0% when none of the risk factors were positive (Score 0) compared to 3.2% when at least one factor (Score ≥1) was present and 8.0% when ≥4 risk factors were present. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 82.3% (78.6%-85.9%), 41.9% (41.1%-42.7%), 3.2% (2.8%-3.6%), and 99.0% (98.8%-99.3%), respectively. The use of a tool containing conventional risk factors (all except those related with working and sleeping away) was found to have higher AUC compared to the use of all risk factors (p value <0.001), with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 63.5% (58.9%-68.1%), 66.2% (65.5%-67.0%), 4.2% (3.6%-4.8%), and 98.7% (98.5%-98.9%), respectively. Conclusion Use of a screening tool containing conventional risk factors improved HIV testing yield compared to doing universal testing. Prioritizing people who fulfil multiple risk factors should be explored further to improve HIV testing yield.

scholarly journals Measuring intimate partner violence risk: A national survey of Canadian police officers

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 103-109
Author(s):  
Michael D. Saxton ◽  
Peter G. Jaffe ◽  
Anne-Lee Straatman ◽  
Laura Olszowy ◽  
Myrna Dawson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Violence Risk

This study examined the role of police in addressing intimate partner violence (IPV) and the type of strategies they apply across Canada based on a national survey of officers. The focus was on an examination of the types of structured tools Canadian police officers report using in their risk assessment strategies. The results suggest that Canadian police officers are reporting frequent engagement in risk assessments across jurisdictions. The survey findings indicate variability across provinces in the types of risk assessment tools police officers are using. Implications for future research include exploring specific provincial and territorial police risk assessment processes and the challenges in engaging in risk assessments.

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.

scholarly journals Risk Assessment in Juvenile and Young Adult Offenders: Predictive Validity of the SAVRY and SAPROF-YV

Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319112095974
Author(s):  
Anneke T. H. Kleeven ◽  
Michiel de Vries Robbé ◽  
Eva A. Mulder ◽  
Arne Popma
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Young Adult ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Developmental Differences ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Dutch Sample

Most juvenile risk assessment tools heavily rely on a risk-focused approach. Less attention has been devoted to protective factors. This study examines the predictive validity of protective factors in addition to risk factors, and developmental differences in psychometric properties of juvenile risk assessment. For a national Dutch sample of 354 juvenile and young adult offenders (16-26 years) risk and protective factors were retrospectively assessed at discharge from seven juvenile justice institutions, using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV). Results show moderate validity for both tools predicting general, violent, and nonviolent offending at different follow-up times. The SAPROF-YV provided incremental predictive validity over the SAVRY, and predictive validity was stronger for younger offenders. Evidently both the SAVRY and SAPROF-YV seem valid tools for the assessment of recidivism risk in juvenile and young adult offenders. Results highlight the importance of protective factors, especially in juvenile offenders, emphasizing the need for a balanced risk assessment.

scholarly journals Predicting Women’s Recidivism Using the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry: Preliminary Evidence of Predictive Validity With Community-Sentenced Women Using a “Gender-Neutral” Risk Measure

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-270
Author(s):  
Jessica M. Scanlan ◽  
Julia A. Yesberg ◽  
Clare-Ann Fortune ◽  
Devon L. L. Polaschek
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Measure ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Community Supervision ◽  
Dynamic Risk ◽  
Gender Neutral ◽  
Dynamic Risk Assessment

Although men and women share risk factors for offending, some scholars suggest these factors operate differently across gender and that women-specific risk factors are neglected in existing “gender-neutral” risk assessment tools. This article explored the predictive validity of one gender-neutral risk assessment tool—the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR)—with matched samples of women and men serving community supervision sentences. Total DRAOR scores had comparative predictive validity across gender. For women and men, the DRAOR predicted reconviction over a static risk measure. The findings support the general premise of gender neutrality, but do not necessarily suggest the DRAOR, or gender-neutral tools more broadly, are the best tools for use with women.

scholarly journals Selecting a risk assessment tool to use in practice:a 10-point guide

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seena Fazel ◽  
Achim Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Clinical Algorithms ◽  
Key Questions

With the increase in the number of risk assessment tools and clinical algorithms in many areas of science and medicine, this Perspective article provides an overview of research findings that can assist in informing the choice of an instrument for practical use. We take the example of violence risk assessment tools in criminal justice and forensic psychiatry, where there are more than 200 such instruments and their use is typically mandated. We outline 10 key questions that researchers, clinicians and other professionals should ask when deciding what tool to use, which are also relevant for public policy and commissioners of services. These questions are based on two elements: research underpinning the external validation, and derivation or development of a particular instrument. We also recommend some guidelines for reporting drawn from consensus guidelines for research in prognostic models.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document