The Predictive Validity of Three Youth Violence Assessment Instruments: The SAVRY, VRS-YV, and SAPROF-YV

• Author: Michael Daffern,Chi Meng Chu,Bianca Klettke,Li Lian Koh,Andrew Day
• Published date: 01 February 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20970887
• Date: 01 February 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20970887

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2022, Vol. 66(2-3) 168 –185

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20970887

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

The Predictive Validity

of Three Youth Violence

Assessment Instruments:

The SAVRY, VRS-YV, and

SAPROF-YV

Li Lian Koh1, Andrew Day2, Bianca Klettke1,

Michael Daffern3, and Chi Meng Chu4

Abstract

This study examined the predictive validity of three assessment instruments

for violent youth, the SAVRY, the VRS-YV, and the SAPROF-YV. Files relating

to a sample of 233 young male offenders aged between 12 and 18 years were

retrospectively reviewed to score each instrument, with reoffending data extracted

from prison, community and juvenile justice records. The analysis showed that all

three assessments predicted general (any) reoffending better than violent and

non-violent reoffending, with higher rates of predictive validity for the SAVRY and

VRS-YV Total Scores. There were, however, only small to moderate effect sizes at

1- and 3-year follow up periods for all three instruments in predicting all types of

reoffending. The SAPROF-YV had a small effect size for the prediction of violent

reoffending and did not add incrementally to the predictive validity (for violent

reoffending) of the SAVRY or VRS-YV.

Keywords

SAVRY, VRS-YV, SAPROF-YV, risk assessment, predictive validity

1Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

2University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

3Swinburne University of Technology, Australia

4Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore

Corresponding Author:

Li Lian Koh, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia.

Email: llk@deakin.edu.au

970887IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20970887International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyKoh et al.

research-article2020

Koh et al. 169

Introduction

Instruments that have been specifically designed to assess the likelihood of future

violence in youth are increasingly being used to guide decision making in relation to

those young people who are known to have acted violently (Shepherd et al., 2014a).

Given the potentially significant consequences of these decisions, for both the youths

being assessed and for the community more broadly, determining how accurately

these instruments can identify youths who reoffend is a critical issue for their contin-

ued use (Pedersen et., 2010). This study reports predictive validity data for three

specialist youth violence assessment instruments for a sample of young offenders in

Singapore.

Structured youth violence assessment instruments are specifically designed to help

assessors better understand the risks that are posed by particular individuals (Skeem &

Monahan, 2011). They are based on evidence that more structured approaches typi-

cally have greater predictive validity than those that rely solely on unaided clinical

judgment (Brown & Singh, 2014; Guy et al., 2012). They are also focused on assess-

ing areas of risk that are both static (factors which are typically grounded in an indi-

vidual’s history and do not change over time) and dynamic (factors which are

potentially modifiable through intervention). Static risk factors have been shown to

have good predictive validity for recidivism (e.g., Kroner et al., 2007; Quinsey et al.,

1998; Tengstrom, 2001), while dynamic factors are particularly good predictors of

short-term (within 6 months) reoffending (e.g., Beech, et al., 2002; Wilson et al.,

2013). Recent studies have also identified the potential benefit of assessing protective

factors, defined as those factors that either promote resilience or enhance desistance

from reoffending (de Vries Robbé & de Vogel, 2013). It has been suggested that this

results in a more balanced view of the individual and a more positive focus for any

intervention (de Vries Robbé & de Vogel, 2013; Fortune & Ward, 2017), with one

recent study also concluding that patterns of risk and protective factors have a direct

relationship with risk (Li et al., 2019). Furthermore, incremental predictive validity of

violence risk assessments which also consider protective factors has been demon-

strated in some studies with adults (de Vries Robbé et al., 2013, 2015a). There is,

however, relatively little published research relating to the assessment of protective

factors in young people.

Although more than 400 different violence risk assessment instruments have been

identified for use with adults, youth violence risk assessment instruments are much

less common. A recent systematic review of the published literature on youth violence

risk assessment instruments (Koh et al., 2020) identified a total of six different instru-

ments that have been used to assess violence risk in youth. Of these, only two have

been designed to assess risk for a period longer than 24 hrs: the Structured Assessment

of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006) and the Violence Risk Scale-

Youth Version (VRS-YV; Wong et al., 2004–2011). Although little empirical evidence

has been reported about the predictive validity of instruments that assess protective

factors for youths, new instruments such as the Structured Assessment of Protective

Factors-Youth Version (SAPROF-YV; de Vries Robbé et al., 2015b) have been

developed.