A proof of concept study of promotive, mixed, and risk effects using the SAVRY assessment tool items with youth with sexual offenses.

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-21 DOI:10.1037/pas0001272
Calvin M Langton, Jennifer A Ranjit, James R Worling
{"title":"A proof of concept study of promotive, mixed, and risk effects using the SAVRY assessment tool items with youth with sexual offenses.","authors":"Calvin M Langton, Jennifer A Ranjit, James R Worling","doi":"10.1037/pas0001272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is currently a lack of consensus about the nature of strengths in forensic assessments. With 273 justice-involved male youth and a fixed 3-year follow-up, this study adopted the approach of Farrington and colleagues to investigating the nature of associations between trichotomized variables, representing risks and strengths, and outcomes using pairs of odds ratios (<i>OR</i>s) and percentage point changes from base rates. Items from the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), a structured professional judgment tool used to assess risk and protective factors in justice-involved youth, were employed for this purpose. In the literature, the accuracy of SAVRY summed totals for its Risk Factor item sets (each item rated using a trichotomy) has been generally in the moderate range in predicting future violence. But the total for its summed Protective Factor items (each rated using a dichotomy) has been less consistently encouraging. In this study, contrary to their labels, the majority of SAVRY Risk and Protective Factors (rated using trichotomies) exerted a risk effect at one end of their trichotomy (risk item ratings of 2, protective item ratings of 0) and a promotive effect at the other end (risk item ratings of 0, protective factor ratings of 2) for a new violent (including sexual) offense and any new offense. Subsets of items conservatively weighted using <i>OR</i>s (capturing risk <i>and</i> strength) were statistically significantly more accurate in predicting outcomes than their originally rated counterpart subsets. Implications for understanding the nature of strengths and for applied assessment practices are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"856-867"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001272","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is currently a lack of consensus about the nature of strengths in forensic assessments. With 273 justice-involved male youth and a fixed 3-year follow-up, this study adopted the approach of Farrington and colleagues to investigating the nature of associations between trichotomized variables, representing risks and strengths, and outcomes using pairs of odds ratios (ORs) and percentage point changes from base rates. Items from the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), a structured professional judgment tool used to assess risk and protective factors in justice-involved youth, were employed for this purpose. In the literature, the accuracy of SAVRY summed totals for its Risk Factor item sets (each item rated using a trichotomy) has been generally in the moderate range in predicting future violence. But the total for its summed Protective Factor items (each rated using a dichotomy) has been less consistently encouraging. In this study, contrary to their labels, the majority of SAVRY Risk and Protective Factors (rated using trichotomies) exerted a risk effect at one end of their trichotomy (risk item ratings of 2, protective item ratings of 0) and a promotive effect at the other end (risk item ratings of 0, protective factor ratings of 2) for a new violent (including sexual) offense and any new offense. Subsets of items conservatively weighted using ORs (capturing risk and strength) were statistically significantly more accurate in predicting outcomes than their originally rated counterpart subsets. Implications for understanding the nature of strengths and for applied assessment practices are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

使用SAVRY评估工具对青少年性犯罪的促进、混合和风险影响进行概念验证研究。
目前对法医评估的优势性质缺乏共识。本研究采用Farrington及其同事的方法,对273名男性青年进行了为期3年的固定随访,研究了代表风险和优势的三分法变量与结果之间的关联性质,使用比值比(OR)和基本比率的百分点变化。青年暴力风险结构化评估(SAVRY)是一种结构化的专业判断工具,用于评估涉及司法的青年的风险和保护因素,该项目被用于此目的。在文献中,SAVRY对其风险因素项目集(使用三分法对每个项目进行评分)的总和的准确性在预测未来暴力方面通常处于中等范围。但其保护因子项目的总和(每个项目都使用二分法进行评级)一直不那么令人鼓舞。在这项研究中,与他们的标签相反,大多数SAVRY风险和保护因素(使用三分法评分)在三分法的一端产生了风险效应(风险项目评分为2,保护项目评分为0),在另一端对新的暴力(包括性)犯罪和任何新的犯罪产生了促进作用(风险项目评级为0,保护因素评分为2)。使用OR(捕捉风险和强度)保守加权的项目子集在预测结果方面比最初评级的对应子集在统计上更准确。讨论了理解优势本质和应用评估实践的意义。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信