Assessment of Strengths in Criminal Justice System-Impacted Youth: A Retrospective Validation Study of the SAPROF-YV

• Published date: 01 July 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231165286
• Author: Sonia Finseth,Michele Peterson-badali,Shelley L. Brown,Tracey A. Skilling
• Date: 01 July 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 7, July 2023, 953 –975.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231165286

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

953

ASSESSMENT OF STRENGTHS IN CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM-IMPACTED YOUTH

A Retrospective Validation Study of the

SAPROF-YV

SONIA FINSETH

MICHELE PETERSON-BADALI

University of Toronto

SHELLEY L. BROWN

Carleton University

TRACEY A. SKILLING

University of Toronto

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk-Youth Version (SAPROF-YV; de Vries Robbé et al., 2015)

was designed specifically to assess strengths as a complement to risk assessment tools. We retrospectively examined its reli-

ability and validity in 305 Canadian community-sentenced youth, both in the overall sample and in male and female, and Black

and White, subgroups. In all groups, the total score had strong internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and convergent valid-

ity, and significantly predicted general recidivism at 3-year fixed follow-up. The SAPROF-YV showed incremental validity

over the YLS/CMI only in Black youth. In the total sample, a moderation effect was identified whereby strengths were protec-

tive at lower levels of risk but not for moderate or high risk youth. The SAPROF-YV shows promising reliability and validity;

however, more research is needed before clear guidance can be provided regarding the use of this measure in clinical practice.

Keywords: protective factors; recidivism; youth; risk assessment; criminal justice system; validity

UNDERSTANDING AND ASSESSING YOUTH STRENGTHS IN A CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONTEXT

Assessment is a core component of effective practice with youth involved in the criminal

justice system. Sound assessment provides information regarding risk to reoffend and guides

case management, including the intensity and nature of intervention intended to prevent

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This paper is dedicated to Jodi Viljoen, whose research, knowledge mobilization, com-

munity engagement, and mentorship was devoted to supporting young people’s strengths and wellbeing, and to

contributing to a more just society. Funding for this research was supported in part by a SSHRC Doctoral

Scholarship to the first author. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michele

Peterson-Badali, Department of Applied Psychology & Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, 9th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6; e-mail:

m.petersonbadali@utoronto.ca.

1165286CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231165286Criminal Justice and BehaviorFinseth et al. / Validation of the SAPROF-YV

research-article2023

954 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

reoffending. In many jurisdictions in North America and internationally (Cullen & Gilbert,

2012), correctional policies and practices—including assessment—are guided by the Risk–

Need–Responsivity (RNR) framework, a theoretically informed, evidence-based rehabilita-

tion model (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Until recently, assessment in criminal justice contexts

has focused predominantly on risk factors that are strongly and directly associated with recidi-

vism (Gagnier, 2013; Singh, Desmarais, Hurducas, et al., 2014). For youth , these incl ude

antisocial or pro-criminal attitudes, antisocial personality features, associating with antiso-

cial peers, substance abuse, family dysfunction, challenges in education/employment, and

inappropriate use of leisure time (Bonta & Andrews, 2017; Gendreau et al., 1996). However,

there is growing interest in the assessment of strengths in addition to risk. The inclusion of

strengths is posited to improve the accuracy of assessments, enrich intervention planning, and

enhance youth engagement in intervention (de Ruiter & Nicholls, 2011; de Vries Robbé &

Willis, 2017; Singh, Desmarais, Sellers, et al., 2014). Furthermore, the RNR framework has

explicitly highlighted the importance of strengths or protective factors for more than two

decades. For example, both versions of the YLS/CMI manual (risk/needs tool based on RNR

framework, Hoge & Andrews, 2002, 2011) articulate the importance of strengths as respon-

sivity factors, with the more recent version including direct scoring of strengths within each

area of criminogenic need. Furthermore, in more recent discussions of incorporating strengths

within the RNR framework, it is noted that strengths should be assessed not only to enhance

treatment effects but also to enhance prediction (Bonta & Andrews, 2017).

While strengths can be understood as personal and/or environmental characteristics that

are associated with positive outcomes, there is conceptual diversity and debate regarding

what constitutes a strength. Some scholars conceptualize strengths as the opposite pole of a

risk factor (e.g., not having antisocial peers; McAra & McVie, 2016; Stouthamer-Loeber

et al., 2002). Others contend that strengths must provide unique information not captured in

the assessment of risk factors (Borum et al., 2006; de Vogel et al., 2009). Empirically, risk

and strength measures have been found to be moderately to highly negatively correlated (de

Vries Robbé et al., 2011; Kleeven et al., 2022; Viljoen et al., 2020), which calls into ques-

tion their conceptual distinctiveness from risk. In addition, the evidence regarding the

unique contribution of strengths in assessments (e.g., of likelihood of reoffending or future

violence) is mixed (Wanamaker et al., 2018).

Scholars have suggested that the brief nature of the strength measures that are part of

widely used risk assessment tools may account for their lack of incremental prediction

when included alongside risk measures (e.g., Viljoen et al., 2020), which signals that how

strengths are measured is important, both conceptually and empirically. Several widely

used youth risk assessment tools include a small number of strength items (e.g., six items

on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) Borum et al., 2006;

seven items on the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory YLS/CMI; Hoge

& Andrews, 2011) and while a summing of these strengths items is typically associated

with lower rates of reoffense, evidence for whether the score predicts risk for reoffense

over and above risk scores is mixed (e.g., Gagnier, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2016; Viljoen

et al., 2020). Other tools include items that are each considered for both risk and strength

potential (e.g., the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability—Adolescent Version

START-AV; Viljoen et al., 2014; the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument YASI;

Orbis Partners, 2000); again, empirical support for the incremental validity of the strength

scales in predicting risk for reoffense is scant, although potentially promising (e.g., Jones

et al., 2016). However, few tools have been developed specifically to assess strengths.