Do adolescent risk assessment tools capture self-reported reasons for desistance? An examination of the content validity of protective factors

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Psychology Crime & Law Pub Date : 2022-02-14 DOI:10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038155
Aisha K Christiansen, Jodi L. Viljoen
{"title":"Do adolescent risk assessment tools capture self-reported reasons for desistance? An examination of the content validity of protective factors","authors":"Aisha K Christiansen, Jodi L. Viljoen","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n This study used a novel approach to assess the content validity of three adolescent risk assessment tools: the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006), the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV; de Vries Robbé et al., 2015), and the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV; Viljoen et al., 2014). In-person interviews and online surveys were conducted with people with a history of adolescent offending (n = 103), which included open-ended questions about their desistance from offending, followed by direct questions based on the tools’ protective factors. Responses were coded using directed content analyses based on the tools’ item definitions. In open-ended questions, across participants all items were mentioned, and all items were rated as important by at least some participants. Only a few additional themes emerged that were not captured by the tools. In addition, participants primarily discussed the presence of protective factors rather than the removal of risk factors, suggesting they represent distinct constructs. Overall the findings support the content validity of the SAVRY, SAPROF-YV, and START:AV protective factors, and highlight the value of perspectives from people with lived experience in risk assessment research.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Crime & Law","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2038155","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study used a novel approach to assess the content validity of three adolescent risk assessment tools: the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006), the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV; de Vries Robbé et al., 2015), and the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV; Viljoen et al., 2014). In-person interviews and online surveys were conducted with people with a history of adolescent offending (n = 103), which included open-ended questions about their desistance from offending, followed by direct questions based on the tools’ protective factors. Responses were coded using directed content analyses based on the tools’ item definitions. In open-ended questions, across participants all items were mentioned, and all items were rated as important by at least some participants. Only a few additional themes emerged that were not captured by the tools. In addition, participants primarily discussed the presence of protective factors rather than the removal of risk factors, suggesting they represent distinct constructs. Overall the findings support the content validity of the SAVRY, SAPROF-YV, and START:AV protective factors, and highlight the value of perspectives from people with lived experience in risk assessment research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
青少年风险评估工具是否能捕捉到自我报告的拒绝原因?保护因素内容效度的检验
摘要:本研究采用一种新颖的方法来评估三种青少年风险评估工具的内容效度:青少年暴力风险结构化评估(SAVRY;Borum等人,2006年),暴力风险保护因素的结构化评估-青少年版(saprofi - yv;de Vries rob等人,2015),以及短期风险和可治疗性评估:青少年版本(START:AV;Viljoen et al., 2014)。对有青少年犯罪史的人进行了面对面访谈和在线调查(n = 103),其中包括关于他们停止犯罪的开放式问题,然后是基于工具保护因素的直接问题。使用基于工具项定义的直接内容分析对响应进行编码。在开放式问题中,参与者的所有项目都被提及,并且至少有一些参与者认为所有项目都很重要。只有一些额外的主题没有被工具捕获。此外,参与者主要讨论了保护因素的存在,而不是风险因素的消除,这表明它们代表了不同的结构。总体而言,研究结果支持了SAVRY、saprofo - yv和START:AV保护因素的内容效度,并强调了在风险评估研究中有生活经验的人的观点的价值。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: This journal promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to crime, criminal and civil law, and the influence of law on behavior. The content includes the aetiology of criminal behavior and studies of different offender groups; crime detection, for example, interrogation and witness testimony; courtroom studies in areas such as jury behavior, decision making, divorce and custody, and expert testimony; behavior of litigants, lawyers, judges, and court officers, both in and outside the courtroom; issues of offender management including prisons, probation, and rehabilitation initiatives; and studies of public, including the victim, reactions to crime and the legal process.
期刊最新文献
An optimal trauma-informed pathway for PTSD, complex PTSD and other mental health and psychosocial impacts of trauma in prisons: an expert consensus statement Mock jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness identification evidence based on appearance change and associated instructions A double standard in evaluating implicit threats Defense attorney perspectives about juvenile interrogations: SROs, parents, and the adolescent defendant Cultural context and sentencing: content analysis of sentencing remarks for Indigenous defendants of domestic violence in the Northern Territory, Australia
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1