A Comparison of Empirically Based and Structured Professional Judgment Estimation of Risk Using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth

• Author: Matthew J. Villio,Paul J. Frick,John S. Ryals,Kristina Childs,Annika Lingonblad
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204013480368
• Published date: 01 January 2014
• Date: 01 January 2014
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

A Comparison of Empirically

Based and Structured

Professional Judgment

Estimation of Risk Using the

Structured Assessment of

Violence Risk in Youth

Kristina Childs

1

, Paul J. Frick

2

, John S. Ryals Jr.

3

,

Annika Lingonblad

1

, and Matthew J. Villio

3

Abstract

This study builds on a long-standing debate focusing on whether structured professional judgment

(SPJ) or empirically based methods of risk estimation are more valid and reliable measures of future

behavior by comparing three different measures of risk. Data were collected from the Structured

Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth administered to a sample of 177 adjudicated juvenile offenders

prior to being placed on probation. Three measures of risk were examined: an empirically derived

measure of risk using latent class analysis, a violence risk based on SPJ, and a nonviolent delinquency

risk based on SPJ. The ability of each measure to predict probation-related outcomes and recidivism

was also addressed.Results provide moderatesupport for the continued use of the SPJframework and

highlight theneed for future research regardingrisk assessment proceduresin juvenile justice settings.

Keywords

juvenile justice system, risk assessment, SAVRY, juvenile probation

Juvenile justice-focused risk assessment instruments have undergone significant evolution and,

today, a number of standardized screening and assessment instruments have been developed (Catch-

pole & Gretton, 2003; Otto & Douglas, 2010; Welsh, Schmidt, McKinnon, Chattha, & Meyers,

2008). Based on Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge’s (1990) principle of risk-needs-responsivity, risk

assessment instruments are currently used in the juvenile justice system to identify who needs

1

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

2

University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA

3

Jefferson Parish Department of Juvenile Services, Gretna, LA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kristina Childs, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.

Email: kristina.childs@ucf.edu.

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2014, Vol 12(1) 40-57

ªThe Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204013480368

yvj.sagepub.com

treatment (risk), what needs should be targeted (needs), and what treatment strategies should be

employed (responsivity). The ultimate goal of these instruments is to assist juvenile justice decision

makers in identifying which youth may be a threat to public safety and which youth are most likely

to benefit from intervention (Vincent, Guy, Fusco, & Gershenson, 2011).

Many dispositional decisions and intervention plans are based either directly or indirectly on

information gathered through the risk assessment process. Therefore, understanding the most effec-

tive method of risk assessment is critical to ensuring that juvenile justice agencies are meeting the

risk-needs-responsivity principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Given the potential iatrogenic effects

of juvenile justice intervention noted in previous studies (Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009; Lowen-

kamp & Latessa, 2005; Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, & Buehler, 2003), overestimation of risk could

lead to negative outcomes for low-risk offenders who are mandated to participate in treatment

programs that are not necessary. On the other hand, underestimation could result in potential threats

to community safety and increased societal costs due to future crime and violence that could have

been prevented. Thus, accurately estimating risk is a key element to accomplishing the overall goals

of the juvenile justice system—rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and protecting public safety.

A long-standing debate exists regarding the most effective method for assessing risk among

offenders involved in the criminal justice system (Ægisdo´ttier et al., 2006; Andrews, Bonta, &

Wormith, 2006). This debate focuses on whether the structured professional judgment (SPJ) frame-

work, which allows practitioners to estimate risk using their judgment based on relevant infor-

mation gathered during administration of the assessment instrument, or empirically based

techniques, which rely on a numerical formula, is a more reliable and valid method for predicting

future behavior. This study builds on this debate by comparing SPJ estimations of risk to empirically

derived estimations using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) (Borum,

Bartel, & Forth, 2003).

Risk Assessment Approaches

In the 1980s and early 1990s, a juvenile’s potential for violence was often based solely on unstruc-

tured professional judgment where dangerousness was perceived as a dichotomous construct that

was either present or absent within a given individual (Borum, 2000). These ‘‘assessments’’ tended

to be highly subjective and unreliable (Pedersen, Rasmussen, & Elsass, 2010) and, as a result, new

procedures were developed to assist professionals in the assessment of risk for reoffending.

In an effort to eliminate the subjective nature of unstructured clinical judgment, actuarial

assessments were developed to predict future risk based on an empirically derived risk score.

Traditionally, empirically based assessments mainly consisted of static risk factors that viewed

‘‘dangerousness’’ as a stable dispositional construct. A great deal of research has focused on deter-

mining whether clinical judgment or an actuarial formula is a more accurate predictor of antisocial

behavior. In general, empirically based measures have been shown to outperform unstructured clin-

ical judgment among samples of adult offenders (Ægisdo´ttier et al., 2006; Grove, Zald, Lebow,

Snitz, & Nelson, 2000). However, a number of criticisms of actuarial assessments have been noted

in the literature. These criticisms include (a) an inability to assist in case of specific intervention

decisions (i.e., needs assessment and responsivity strategies; Shlonsky & Wagner, 2005), (b) insen-

sitivity to a changing environment and protective factors (Borum, 2000; Litwack, 2001), and (c) a

focus on aggregation (i.e., behavior of a group) and not on the unique characteristics of each

individual offender (Ansbro, 2010; Wandall, 2006). Given the array of risk and protective factors

related to criminal offending in adolescence, these criticisms seem particularly relevant to actuarial

assessment strategies used in the juvenile justice system. Thus, empirically based methods may not

be able to effectively capture the constellation of factors that determine ‘‘risk’’ and ‘‘need’’ among

juvenile offenders.

Childs et al. 41