Dynamic Risk Factors

Viljoen, J. L., Gray, A. L., Shaffer, C. S., Latzman, N. E., Scalora, M. J., & Ullman, D. (2015). Changes in J-SOAP II and SAVRY scores over the course of treatment for adolescent sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: Research and Treatment, 29, 342-374.

Although the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) include an emphasis on dynamic, or modifiable factors, there has been little research on dynamic changes on these tools.  To help address this gap, we compared admission and discharge scores of 163 adolescents who attended a residential, cognitive-behavioral treatment program for sexual offending.  Based on reliable change indices, one-half of youth showed a reliable decrease on the J-SOAP-II Dynamic Risk Total Score and one-third of youth showed a reliable decrease on the SAVRY Dynamic Risk Total Score.  Contrary to expectations, decreases in risk factors and increases in protective factors did not predict reduced sexual, violent nonsexual, or any reoffending.  In addition, no associations were found between scores on the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version and levels of change.  Overall, the J-SOAP-II and the SAVRY hold promise in measuring change, but further research is needed.

Viljoen, J. L., Gray A. L., Shaffer, C. S., Bhanwer, A., Tafreshi, D., & Douglas, K. S. (2016). Does reassessment of risk improve predictions? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.  Psychological Assessment, 29, 1096-1110.

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents’ risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, the authors tested 3 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 3 months over a 1-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. The authors then examined charges for violence and any offense over a 2-year follow-up period, and youths’ 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’s 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’ 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.