Department of Psychology.
Dalla Lana School of Public Health.
Law Hum Behav. 2020 Dec;44(6):485-501. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000431.
Although past studies suggest that the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006) has moderate predictive validity, its predictive validity with Asian youth in Western countries is unknown. We therefore compared the SAVRY's predictive validity in a sample of Asian Canadian versus White Canadian youth.
Given that the SAVRY is normed on samples comprising mostly youth who are White, we expected its predictive validity for recidivism would be lower for Asian Canadians than White Canadians.
We examined youth probation officers' SAVRY assessments for 573 youth (445 White Canadians, 56 East/Southeast Asian Canadians, and 72 South Asian Canadians) on community supervision (i.e. probation) in a Canadian province. Youth were prospectively followed for an average of 1.97 years (SD = 0.56 years) to determine if they were subsequently charged with violent or nonviolent offenses.
Asian Canadians scored significantly lower on risk total scores compared to White Canadians. Predictive validity for violent and nonviolent recidivism fell in the medium to large range for East/Southeast Asian Canadians (AUCs = .69 to .89) and South Asian Canadians (AUCs = .64 to .83). In comparison, predictive validity for White Canadians was generally lower (AUCs = .63 to .77; small to large range). Risk total scores and nonviolent risk ratings significantly predicted nonviolent recidivism better for East/Southeast Asian Canadians (AUCs = .89 and .87, respectively) than White Canadians (AUCs = .77 and .71, respectively). Despite few significant differences between Asian subgroups, predictive validity for nonviolent risk ratings was significantly higher in East/Southeast Asian Canadians (AUC = .87) than South Asian Canadians (AUC = .64).
The SAVRY may be a useful tool for predicting recidivism with Asian Canadians. However, future research should examine the SAVRY's predictive validity for youth of Asian descent in different countries and contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
尽管过去的研究表明，青少年结构化暴力风险评估量表（SAVRY；Borum 等人，2006）具有中等的预测有效性，但它在西方国家的亚洲青少年中的预测有效性尚不清楚。因此，我们比较了亚洲加拿大青少年与白人加拿大青少年样本中 SAVRY 的预测有效性。
鉴于 SAVRY 是基于主要由白人青少年组成的样本制定的，我们预计其对再犯的预测有效性对亚洲加拿大青少年而言会低于白人加拿大青少年。
我们检查了加拿大一个省的青少年缓刑官对 573 名青少年（445 名白人加拿大青少年、56 名东亚/东南亚加拿大青少年和 72 名南亚加拿大青少年）的 SAVRY 评估结果，这些青少年在社区监督（即缓刑）中接受了跟踪调查，平均随访时间为 1.97 年（SD=0.56 年），以确定他们是否随后被指控犯有暴力或非暴力罪行。
与白人加拿大青少年相比，亚洲加拿大青少年的风险总分显著较低。东亚/东南亚加拿大青少年（AUC=.69 至.89）和南亚加拿大青少年（AUC=.64 至.83）的暴力和非暴力再犯的预测有效性处于中到大范围。相比之下，白人加拿大青少年的预测有效性普遍较低（AUC=.63 至.77；小到中范围）。风险总分和非暴力风险评级对东亚/东南亚加拿大青少年（AUC=.89 和.87）而非白人加拿大青少年（AUC=.77 和.71）的非暴力再犯的预测准确性显著更高。尽管亚洲亚群之间存在一些差异，但非暴力风险评级在东亚/东南亚加拿大青少年（AUC=.87）中的预测有效性明显高于南亚加拿大青少年（AUC=.64）。
SAVRY 可能是预测亚洲加拿大青少年再犯的有用工具。然而，未来的研究应该在不同的国家和背景下检验 SAVRY 对亚裔青少年的预测有效性。
