Hilterman Ed L B, Nicholls Tonia L, van Nieuwenhuizen Chijs
Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands Justa Mesura, Consultancy & Applied Research, Barcelona, Spain
BC Mental Health & Addiction Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Assessment. 2014 Jun;21(3):324-39. doi: 10.1177/1073191113498113. Epub 2013 Aug 6.
This study examined the validity and reliability of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) in a sample of Spanish adolescents with a community sanction (N = 105). Self-reported delinquency with a follow-up period of 1 year was used as the outcome measure. The predictive validity of the three measures was compared with the unstructured judgment of the juvenile's probation officer and the self-appraisal of the juvenile. The three measures showed moderate effect sizes, ranging from area under the curve (AUC) = .75 (SAVRY) to AUC = .72 (PCL:YV), in predicting juvenile reoffending. The two unstructured judgments had no significant predictive validity whereas the SAVRY had significantly higher predictive validity compared with both unstructured judgments. Finally, SAVRY protective factor total scores and SAVRY summary risk ratings did not add incremental validity over SAVRY risk total scores. The high base rates of both violent (65.4%) and general reoffending (81.9%) underline the need for further risk assessment and management research with this population.
本研究在105名受到社区制裁的西班牙青少年样本中,检验了青少年暴力风险结构化评估(SAVRY)、青少年服务水平/个案管理量表(YLS/CMI)以及青少年版心理变态检查表(PCL:YV)的有效性和可靠性。将随访期为1年的自我报告犯罪行为作为结果指标。将这三种测量方法的预测效度与青少年缓刑监督官的非结构化判断以及青少年的自我评估进行比较。在预测青少年再次犯罪方面,这三种测量方法显示出中等效应量,曲线下面积(AUC)范围从0.75(SAVRY)到0.72(PCL:YV)。两种非结构化判断没有显著的预测效度,而与两种非结构化判断相比,SAVRY具有显著更高的预测效度。最后,SAVRY保护因素总分和SAVRY综合风险评分相较于SAVRY风险总分并未增加额外的效度。暴力再次犯罪(65.4%)和一般再次犯罪(81.9%)的高基线率凸显了对该人群进一步开展风险评估和管理研究的必要性。