This study examined the predictive validity of the Washington State Juvenile Pre-Screen Assessment (WSJCA pre-screen) in the Netherlands. Previous research conducted in the United States showed the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen to be modest, as is the case with the predictive validity of most other risk assessment instruments for juveniles. Therefore, it was also examined whether the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen can be improved by modifying the scoring procedure. The sample consisted of 520 youths who had been referred to the juvenile probation service by court. The present study showed the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen in the Netherlands to be modest too, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of .625. Modifying the scoring procedure by means of chi-squared automatic interaction detector analyses significantly improved the predictive validity to an AUC of .702. The modified scoring procedure is time-saving because only variables that uniquely contribute to the prediction of recidivism are included, which at the same time leads to a more accurate prediction of recidivism.
AegisdottirS.WhiteM. J.SpenglerP. M.MaughermanA. S.AndersonL. A.CookR. S.. . . CohenG. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 341-382.
2.
AndrewsD. A (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In McGuireJ. (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending—guidelines from research and practice (pp. 35-62). Chichester, England: Wiley.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-51.
5.
BaglivioM. T. (2009). The assessment of risk to recidivate among a juvenile offending population. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 596-607.
6.
BarnoskiR. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington state juvenile court assessment. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
7.
CovingtonS. S. (2003). A woman’s journey home: Challenges for female offenders. In TravisJ.WaulM. (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities (pp. 67-103). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
8.
DalyK. (1992).Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2, 11-51.
9.
DolanM.DoyleM. (2000). Violence risk prediction: Clinical and actuarial measures and the role of Psychopathy Checklist. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 303-311.
10.
DoreleijersTh. A. H.BijlB.van der VeldtM. C.van LoosbroekE. (1999). BARO: Standaardisatie en protocollering Basisonderzoek strafzaken Raad voor de Kinderbescherming [BARO: Standardization and protocols of the investigation of the Council of Child Care and Protection]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU/NIZW.
11.
EapenV.GhubashR. (2004). Help-seeking for mental health problems of children: Preferences and attitudes in the United Arab Emirates. Psychological Reports, 94, 663-667.
12.
EmekaT. Q.SorensenJ. R. (2009). Female juvenile risk: Is there a need for gendered assessment instruments?Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 313-330.
13.
FarringtonD. P.TarlingR. (1985). Prediction in criminology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
FrederickR. I.BowdenS. C. (2009). The test validation summary. Assessment, 16, 215-236.
15.
FunkS. J. (1999). Risk assessment for juveniles on probation: A focus on gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 44-68.
16.
GendreauP.GogginC.SmithP. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the “unparalleled” measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426.
17.
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
HanleyJ. A.McNeilB. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29-36.
19.
HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2003). The needs of women offenders: Implications for correctional programming. Women and Criminal Justice, 14, 137-160.
20.
HosmerD.LemeshowS. (1989). Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Communications in Statistics Part A—Theory and Methods, 9, 1043-1069.
21.
HubbardD. J.PrattT. C. (2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency among girls. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 1-14.
22.
LipseyM. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In CookT. D. (Ed.). Meta-analysis for explanation (pp. 83-127). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
23.
LodewijksH. P. B.DoreleijersTh.de RuiterC.de Wit-GroulsH. (2001). Gestructureerde taxatie van geweldsrisico bij jongeren (SAVRY) [Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)]. Eefde, Netherlands: Rentray.
24.
LöselF. (1993). The effectiveness of treatment in institutional and community settings. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 3, 416-437.
25.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 501-528.
26.
MoffittT. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
27.
MossmanD. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 62, 783-792.
28.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 329-353.
29.
Orbis Partners Inc. (2007). Long-term validation of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) in New York State juvenile probation. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
30.
ReisigM. D.HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384-405.
31.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620.
32.
SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP.SpiropoulosG. V. (2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 550-585.
33.
SchwalbeC. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: a meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449-462.
34.
SchwalbeC. S. (2008). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments: Predictive validity by gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1367-1381.
35.
SchwalbeC. S.FraserM. W.DayS. H.CooleyV. (2006). Classifying juvenile offenders according to risk of recidivism: Predictive validity, race/ethnicity, and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 305-324.
36.
ShapiroD. E. (1999). The interpretation of diagnostics tests. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 113-134.
37.
SimourdL.AndrewsD. A. (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender differences. Forum on Corrections Research, 6, 26-31.
38.
SmithP.CullenF. T.LatessaE. J. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 183-208.
39.
SteadmanH.SilverE.MonahanJ.AppelbaumP.RobbinsP.MulveyE.. . . BanksS. (2000). A classification tree approach to the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 83-100.
40.
StevensG. W.PelsT.Bengi-ArslanL.VerhulstF. C.VolleberghW. A.CrijnenA. A. (2003). Parent, teacher and self-reported problem behavior in the Netherlands: Comparing Moroccan immigrant with Dutch and with Turkish immigrant children and adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 576-585.
41.
ThomasS. D.LeeseM. (2003). Invited editorial: A green-fingered approach can improve the clinical utility of violence risk assessment tools. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13, 153-158.
42.
TroutJ. D.BishopM. A. (2002). 50 Years of successful predictive modeling should be enough: Lessons for philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 197-208.
43.
Van der PutC. E.DekovićM.HoeveM.StamsG. J. J. M.Van der LaanP. H.LangewoutersF. (2010). Risk assessment of girls: Are there any sex differences in risk factors for re-offending and in risk profiles?Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128710384776
44.
Van der PutC. E.DekovićM.StamsG. J. J. M.Van der LaanP. H.HoeveM.Van AmelsfortL. (2011). Changes in risk factors during adolescence: Implications for risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 248-262.
45.
Van der PutC. E.StamsG. J. J. M.Van der LaanP. H.OortF. J. (2009). WSJCPA-NL-2009. De Nederlandse versie van de Washington State Juvenile Court Pre-Screen Assessment [WSJCPA-NL-2009. The Dutch version of the Washington State Juvenile Pre-Screen Assessment]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
46.
ZahnM. (2009). The delinquent girl. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
