The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits: Reliability, Convergent Validity, and Predictive Validity for Reoffending in Adolescents on Probation

This prospective study assessed the reliability and validity of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) in a sample of 70 adolescent offenders. With the exception of the Unemotional subscale, ICU scores showed acceptable reliability. ICU total and Callousness scores demonstrated moderate associations with the Antisocial Process Screening Device and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. The ICU also demonstrated moderate predictive accuracy for violent reoffending over an 18-month follow-up period. While these findings provide some support for the ICU’s validity, more research is needed to determine if it is appropriate for use in applied settings with adolescent offenders

Does Reassessment of Risk Improve Predictions? A Framework and Examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents\u27 risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, we tested three hypotheses as to why reassessment might improve predictions, namely the shelf-life, dynamic change, and familiarity hypotheses. Research assistants (RAs) rated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) every three months over a one-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. We then examined charges for violence and any offence over a two-year follow-up period, and youths\u27 self-reports of reoffending. Contrary to the shelf-life hypothesis, predictions did not decline or expire over time. Instead, time-dependent area under the curve scores remained consistent across the follow-up period. Contrary to the dynamic change hypothesis, changes in youth\u27s risk total scores, compared to what is average for that youth, did not predict changes in reoffending. Finally, contrary to the familiarity hypothesis, reassessments were no more predictive than initial assessments, despite RAs\u27 increased familiarity with youth. Before drawing conclusions, researchers should evaluate the extent to which youth receiving the usual probation services show meaningful short-term changes in risk and if so, whether risk assessment tools are sensitive to these changes

Assessing Protective Factors for Adolescent Offending: A Conceptually Informed Examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI

Although the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) are among the most widely used adolescent risk assessment tools, they conceptualize and measure strengths differently.  As such, in this study, we compared the predictive validity of SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total, and tested conceptual models of how these measures operate (i.e., risk vs. protective effects, direct vs. buffering effects, causal models).  Research assistants conducted 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. They rated protective factors at baseline, and again at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up periods.  The SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total inversely predicted any charges in the subsequent two years (area under the curve scores [AUCs] = .61 and .60, respectively, p < .05).  Furthermore, when adolescents’ protective total scores increased, their self-reported violence decreased, thus providing evidence that these factors might play a causally-relevant role in reducing violence.  However, protective factors did not provide incremental validity over risk factors.  In addition, because these measures are brief and use a dichotomous rating system, they primarily captured deficits in protective factors (i.e., low scores).  This suggests a need for more comprehensive measures

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV): The Association Between Protective Factors and Aggression in Adolescents

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV; de Vries Robbé et al., 2015) is a new measure of protective factors that is used with a risk-focused tool, such as the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006), to provide a more balanced assessment of risk. The present study investigated the relationship between the SAPROF-YV and aggression in a sample of 69 adolescents. Using a retrospective study design, files were reviewed at an inpatient treatment facility and a probation office. Results indicated that the SAPROF-YV demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity with the SAVRY. The SAPROF-YV was predictive of the absence of verbal and physical aggression; however, it did not add incrementally to SAVRY Risk factors. Finally, some evidence suggested the SAPROF-YV was more predictive for higher risk adolescents than lower risk adolescents. Implications for research and clinical applications are discussed