Prospective Field Validation of the START:AV in a Dutch Secure Youth Care Sample.

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) is a risk assessment instrument for adolescents that estimates the risk of multiple adverse outcomes. Prior research into its predictive validity is limited to a handful of studies conducted with the START:AV pilot version and often by the instrument's developers. The present study examines the START:AV's field validity in a secure youth care sample in the Netherlands. Using a prospective design, we investigated whether the total scores, lifetime history, and the final risk judgments of 106 START:AVs predicted inpatient incidents during a 4-month follow-up. Final risk judgments and lifetime history predicted multiple adverse outcomes, including physical aggression, institutional violations, substance use, self-injury, and victimization. The predictive validity of the total scores was significant only for physical aggression and institutional violations. Hence, the short-term predictive validity of the START:AV for inpatient incidents in a residential youth care setting was partially demonstrated and the START:AV final risk judgments can be used to guide treatment planning and decision-making regarding furlough or discharge in this setting.

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity.

Although the inclusion of protective factors in risk assessment is believed to improve prediction, most risk assessment tools emphasize risk factors. In response, the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) has been developed, which focuses exclusively on protective factors and is used in conjunction with a structured risk assessment tool. It has received increasing attention from both researchers and forensic mental health practitioners, and additional versions have been developed for use with adolescents (SAPROF-YV) and sex offenders (SAPROF-SO). To assess their psychometric performance, we conducted a meta-analysis of validation studies. Our final sample included 39 articles with 5,434 subjects from 16 countries. Overall, the SAPROF(-YV/-SO) showed good interrater reliability and moderate-to-good predictive performance for the absence of recidivism and institutional misconduct. All three instruments exhibited incremental validity when used in conjunction with a risk-focused assessment tool. Our meta-analysis additionally showed that changes on the SAPROF are associated with decreased violent and general recidivism after controlling for baseline risk. We also uncovered several shortcomings in current research with the SAPROF(-YV/-SO). Studies did not report calibration indices and most studies were retrospective and limited to male offenders. The present findings provide support for the relevance of protective factors in risk assessment, but future research should focus on their hypothesized role in treatment and risk management. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Personality Assessment in Legal Contexts: Introduction to the Special Issue.

This special issue addresses a major gap in the literature by providing comprehensive, credible reviews of the psychometric evidence for and legal status of some of the most commonly-used psychological and personality assessment measures used in forensic evaluations. It responds to Neal and colleagues' (2019) call for research to improve the state of and access to knowledge about psychological assessments in legal contexts, and encourages critical thinking about forensic assessment in the spirit of improvement. These articles offer clarity about the strengths and weaknesses of a number of assessment instruments to inform psychologists' preparation for expert testimony, lawyers' preparation for direct and cross-examination, judges' evidence admissibility determinations, and scholars' future research. We assembled teams of authors with different perspectives and areas of expertise to review each tool fairly, including several adversarial collaborations. Articles on the Rorschach and R-PAS, MMPI-3, PCL-R, MCMI-IV and MACI-II, PAI and PAI-A, SIRS-2, HCR-20V3, TSI and TSI-2, and the MacCAT-CA, ECST-R, and CAST*MR are included. To increase visibility, accessibility, and impact, this issue is published as free access, meaning the articles are available to download without charge. We anticipate these articles will be widely read and useful to scholars and practitioners in both psychology and law.

Taking "the boss" into the real world: Field interrater reliability of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version.

There is emerging evidence that the performance of risk assessment instruments is weaker when used for clinical decision-making than for research purposes. For instance, research has found lower agreement between evaluators when the risk assessments are conducted during routine practice. We examined the field interrater reliability of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV). Clinicians in a Dutch secure youth care facility completed START:AV assessments as part of the treatment routine. Consistent with previous literature, interrater reliability of the items and total scores was lower than previously reported in non-field studies. Nevertheless, moderate to good interrater reliability was found for final risk judgments on most adverse outcomes. Field studies provide insights into the actual performance of structured risk assessment in real-world settings, exposing factors that affect reliability. This information is relevant for those who wish to implement structured risk assessment with a level of reliability that is defensible considering the high stakes.

Spousal Assaulters in Outpatient Mental Health Care: The Relevance of Structured Risk Assessment.

This study examined whether a typology of perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) could be replicated in a Dutch sample ( N = 154) of self-referred IPV perpetrators using a structured risk assessment tool for relational violence (Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk [B-SAFER]). Our findings support the previous IPV perpetrator subtypes: low-level antisocial (LLA), family only (FO), psychopathology (PP), and generally violent/antisocial (GVA). The subtypes differed on the descriptive dimensions general criminality, substance use, and mental health problems. The prevalence rates for each subtype were roughly comparable with those in previous studies. Contrary to expectation, the prevalence of the GVA subtype was relatively high in our self-referred sample compared with court-referred samples. Our findings suggest that structured risk assessment should be an integral part of the intake procedure for IPV perpetrators entering treatment, to assess their level of risk and to arrive at a tailored risk management strategy, regardless of setting or referral source.

La práctica de la evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España / The practice of violence risk assessment in Spain

Antecedentes. La valoración del riesgo de violencia es un requisito fundamental en la toma de decisiones profesionales que implican prevenir, intervenir o informar sobre la conducta de las personas. El uso de herramientas estructuradas de evaluación del riesgo de violencia ha mostrado mejoría en la precisión de las evaluaciones basadas exclusivamente en el juicio clínico o en la pericia de un experto en contextos psiquiátricos, penitenciarios y jurídicos. Objetivo. Este estudio presenta los resultados de la primera encuesta sobre las prácticas profesionales asociadas al uso de herramientas de evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España. Materiales y métodos. La información fue recogida mediante la administración de una encuesta en internet que fue distribuida por correo electrónico a los miembros de organizaciones profesionales. Resultados. De manera similar a los contextos profesionales del resto del mundo, las escalas de psicopatía de Robert Hare (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised y Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version) y el Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 encabezaron la lista de las herramientas más usadas tanto por elección personal como por requisito institucional. Conclusiones. Se ofrecen datos novedosos sobre la prevalencia de uso y la utilidad percibida de las herramientas estructuradas, así como sobre otras cuestiones relacionadas a las prácticas profesionales de evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España que pueden orientar tanto a los profesionales de contextos sanitarios, correccionales y forenses, como a los responsables de las instituciones en la elección de las herramientas a implementar para asistirlos en la toma de decisiones.

Background. Violence risk assessment is a key requirement in professional decision making involving prevention, intervention or reporting on human behavior. The use of structured tools for violence risk assessment has shown to improve the accuracy of assessments based exclusively on clinical judgment or expertise in psychiatric, correctional and legal settings. Objectives. This study presents results of the first survey about professional practices associated with tools for violence risk assessment in Spain. Materials and methods. The information was collected by administering an online-based survey that was distributed by e-mail to members of professional organizations around the country. Results. As in professional contexts worldwide, the Robert Hare's psychopathy scales (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version) and the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 topped the list of the most used tools both by professional choice and institutional requirement. Conclusions. We provide novel data on the prevalence of use and the perceived utility of specific tools, as well as on other issues related to the professional practice of violence risk assessment in Spain, which can guide professional in the health care, correctional and forensic settings, as well as those responsible for decisions in institutions about choosing which tool to implement.

Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Behavioural Status Index: a nurse-rated forensic assessment tool.

The Behavioural Status Index (BEST-Index) has been introduced into Dutch forensic psychiatry to measure change in risk level of future violence. The BEST-Index is a structured observational measure that assesses aggressive behavior, degree of insight, social skills, self-care, and work and leisure skills during inpatient treatment. Thus far, limited information regarding the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the BEST-Index is available. The present study examines the reliability and validity of the Dutch BEST-Index in a sample of 291 mentally disordered offenders admitted to a forensic psychiatric hospital. Interrater reliability was investigated in a sample of 182 raters. Findings show that the Dutch BEST-Index can be used reliably and is significantly associated with risk of future violence and institutional aggression. Furthermore, this study revealed a different and clearer factor structure compared with the original one. Further research is needed to examine how these derived factors predict future recidivism.

Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) during residential treatment.

This prospective study examines the predictive validity of the Dutch version of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) by examining relationships between SAVRY scores and various types of disruptive behavior during residential treatment. The SAVRY, a risk assessment instrument, was coded for 66 male adolescents on the basis of file information and interviews. The adolescents were referred to Rentray, a juvenile correctional and treatment facility, by the Dutch juvenile courts because of severe behavioral problems or serious offenses. Institutional infractions were retrieved from incident registration files, which included acts of physical violence, verbal threat, verbal abuse, and violation of institutional rules. The interrater reliability of the SAVRY scores was good. The predictive validity of the SAVRY for physical violence against persons was excellent (Risk Total: AUC=.80, r =.33; Summery Risk Rating: AUC =.86, r =.48). The SAVRY also had good predictive validity for violence against objects, verbal threats and violations of rules, but not for verbal abuse. Implications for assessment and management of violent behavior among adolescents in residential treatment are discussed.