Longitudinal Cohort Study: Predictive Validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth Individual/Clinical Risk Factor on Recidivism Among Mississippi Justice-Involved Youth

Abstract

Many juvenile justice agencies have moved toward risk-need-responsivity and risk-need-assessment approaches to manage youth and reduce future risk of recidivism. The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) instrument is a popular tool to assess risk and protective factors among justice-involved youth. The present study explored the consistency of the Individual/Clinical Risk measure, comprised of eight items (e.g., anger, negative attitudes, empathy), as a single latent factor across five years (2017–2021) of juvenile court data in Mississippi. Further, this study examined gender (male vs. female) and race (Black vs. non-Black) invariance in this risk factor and the predictive validity of the risk factor for one-year recidivism. Findings support the existence of a single factor of Individual/Clinical Risk and consistency across time. The risk factor was invariant across gender and race. Further, the risk factor significantly predicted recidivism in years 2019–2021, and near significantly predicted recidivism for 2017. These findings recommend the continued use of the SAVRY as an evidence-based measure of risk.

Keywords

structured assessment of violence risk in youth risk factors delinquency recidivism adolescents

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alavi

Visentin

D. C.

Thapa

D. K.

Hunt

G. E.

Watson

Cleary

(2020). Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory analysis. Journal of Advances in Nursing, 76(9), 2209–2211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14399

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362

Andrews

D. A.

Zinger

Hoge

R. D.

Bonta

Gendreau

Cullen

F. T.

(1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2023). Multiple group alignment for exploratory and structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 30(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2127100

Barboni

von Hagan

Piñeyro

Senabre

(2023). Predictive validity of the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY) on the recidivism of juvenile offenders: A systematic review. Psychology, Crime and Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2214661

Bonta

Wormith

S. J.

(2007). Risk and need assessment. In McIvor

Raynor

(Eds.), Developments in social work with offenders (pp. 131–152). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Borum

Bartel

Forth

A. E.

(2006). SAVRY, Structured assessment of violence risk in youth: Professional manual: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Borum

Lodewijks

Bartel

P. A.

Forth

(2010). Structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY). In Otto

R. K.

Douglas

K. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 63–80). Routledge.

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

10.

Childs

K. K.

Frick

P. J.

Gottlieb

(2016). Sex differences in the measurement invariance and factors that influence structured judgments of risk using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204014547722

11.

Childs

K. K.

Ryals

Frick

P. J.

Lawing

Phillippi

S. W.

Deprato

D. K.

(2013). Examining the validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) for predicting probation outcomes among adjudicated juvenile offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(2), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2060

12.

Chu

C. M.

Goh

M. L.

Chong

(2016). The predictive validity of SAVRY ratings for assessing youth offenders in Singapore. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(6), 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815616842

13.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Development Services Group . (2015). Inc. Risk/needs assessment for youths. Literature review. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/RiskandNeeds.pdf

15.

Dolan

M. C.

Rennie

C. E.

(2008). The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth as a predictor of recidivism in a United Kingdom cohort of adolescent offenders with conduct disorder. Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.1.35

16.

Gammelgård

Koivisto

A. M.

Eronen

Kaltiala-Heino

(2008). The predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) among institutionalized adolescents. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 19(3), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789940802114475

17.

Gammelgård

Koivisto

A. M.

Eronen

Kaltiala-Heino

(2015). Predictive validity of the structured assessment of violence risk in youth: A 4-year follow-up. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 25(3), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1921

18.

Gomis-Pomares

Villanueva

Prado-Gascó

(2022). Beyond prediction: Moderating effects of risk factors, demographic variables and type of offense on youth recidivism in Spain. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 31(6), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.2013377

19.

Goodwin

Brown

S. L.

Skilling

T. A.

(2022). Gender differences in the prevalence and predictive validity of protective factors in a sample of justice-involved youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 20(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/15412040221089235

20.

Hilterman

E. L. B.

Bongers

Nicholls

T. L.

van Nieuwenhuizen

(2016). Identifying gender specific risk/need areas for male and female juvenile offenders: Factor analyses with the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000158

21.

IBM Corp . (2021). SPSS statistics for windows. Version 28.0. [Computer software]. https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics?utm_content=SRCWW&p1=Search&p4=43700068092265913&p5=p&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIq4_LvtW2gAMVjxGzAB1MpQEAEAAYASACEgLi3_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

22.

Juvenile Justice Geography Policy Practice and Statistics . (2020). Evidence-based practices. National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ). https://www.jjgps.org/juvenile-justice-services#risk-assessment?year=2020

23.

Kleeven

A. T. H.

de Vries Robbé

Mulder

E. A.

Popma

(2022). Risk assessment in juvenile and young adult offenders: Predictive validity of the SAVRY and SAPROF-YV. Assessment, 29(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120959740

24.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

25.

Koh

L. L.

Day

Klettke

Daffern

Chu

C. M.

(2020). The predictive validity of youth violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review. Psychology, Crime and Law, 26(8), 776–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2020.1734200

26.

Kraemer

H. C.

Kazdin

A. E.

Offord

D. R.

Kessler

R. C.

Jensen

P. S.

Kupfer

D. J.

(1997). Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54(4), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830160065009

27.

Lawing

Childs

K. K.

Frick

P. J.

Vincent

(2017). Use of structured professional judgment by probation officers to assess risk for recidivism in adolescent offenders. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 652–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000414

28.

S. M. Y.

Viljoen

Christiansen

A. K.

Muir

N. M.

(2020). Predictive validity of the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY) among a sample of asian Canadian youth on probation. Law and Human Behavior, 44(6), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000431

29.

Lodewijks

H. P. B.

de Ruiter

Doreleijers

T. A. H.

(2008). Gender differences in violent outcome and risk assessment in adolescent offenders after residential treatment. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 7(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2008.9914410

30.

Lodewijks

H. P. B.

Doreleijers

T. A. H.

de Ruiter

(2008). SAVRY risk assessment in violent Dutch adolescents: Relation to sentencing and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(6), 696–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808316146

31.

Meyers

J. R.

Schmidt

(2008). Predictive validity of the structured assessment for violence risk in youth (SAVRY) with juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807311972

32.

Muir

N. M.

Viljoen

J. L.

Johnson

M. R.

Cochrane

D. M.

Rogers

B. J.

(2020). Predictive validity of the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY) with indigenous and caucasian female and male adolescents on probation. Psychological Assessment, 32(6), 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000816

33.

Mulvey

E. P.

(2005). Risk assessment in juvenile justice policy and practice. In Heilbrun

Goldstein

N. E. S.

Redding

R. E.

(Eds.), Juvenile delinquency: Prevention, assessment, and intervention (pp. 209–231). Oxford University Press.

34.

Muthén

B. O.

Muthén

L. K.

(1998-2018). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. Muthén and Muthén.

35.

National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) . (2014). NCCD compares juvenile justice risk assessment instruments: A summary of the OJJDP-funded study. NCCD. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/nccd-compares-juvenile-justice-risk-assessment-instruments-summary

36.

National Research Council . (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. National Academies Press.

37.

Penney

S. R.

Lee

Moretti

M. M.

(2010). Gender differences in risk factors for violence: An examination of the predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. Aggressive Behavior, 36(6), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20352

38.

Perrault

R. T.

Vincent

G. M.

Guy

L. S.

(2017). Are risk assessments racially biased? Field study of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in probation. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000445

39.

Schmidt

Campbell

M. A.

Houlding

(2011). Comparative analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and pcl:YV in adolescent offenders: A 10-year follow-up into adulthood. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010371793

40.

Schwalbe

C. S.

Cutler

(2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31(5), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9071-7

41.

Shepherd

S. M.

Luebbers

Ferguson

Ogloff

J. R. P.

Dolan

(2014a). The utility of the SAVRY across ethnicity in Australian young offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033972

42.

Shepherd

S. M.

Luebbers

Ogloff

J. R.

Fullam

Dolan

(2014b). The predictive validity of risk assessment approaches for young Australian offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(5), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.904262

43.

Sijtsema

J. J.

Kretschmer

van Os

(2015). The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth in a large community sample of young adult males and females: The TRAILS study. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038520

44.

Singh

J. P.

Grann

Fazel

(2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009

45.

Vincent

G. M.

Chapman

Cook

N. E.

(2011). Risk-needs assessment in juvenile justice: Predictive validity of the SAVRY, racial differences, and the contribution of needs factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810386000

46.

Vincent

G. M.

Guy

L. S.

Grisso

(2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. Models for change: Systems reform in juvenile justice. https://modelsforchange.net/publications/346/Risk_Assessment_in_Juvenile_Justice_A_Guidebook_for_Implementation.pdf

47.

Welsh

J. L.

Schmidt

McKinnon

Chattha

H. K.

Meyers

J. R.

(2008). A comparative study of adolescent risk assessment instruments: Predictive and incremental validity. Assessment, 15(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107307966

48.

West

S. G.

Taylor

A. B.

(2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). The Guilford Press.

49.

Woods

S. P.

(2013). Predictive validity of the SAVRY within a diverse population of juvenile offenders [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Roger Williams University.