Supplemental Material for Dynamic Violence Risk, Protective Factors, and Therapeutic Change in a Gender and Ethnoculturally Diverse Sample of Court-Adjudicated Youth

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Protective Factors ◽  
Therapeutic Change ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Adjudicated Youth

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

Assessment ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 959-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jodi L. Viljoen ◽  
Aisha K. Bhanwer ◽  
Catherine S. Shaffer ◽  
Kevin S. Douglas
Keyword(s):  
Protective Factors ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Protective Effects ◽  
Adolescent Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Relevant Role ◽  
Research Assistants

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 2 years (area under the curve scores = 0.61 and 0.60, 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.

scholarly journals Assessing Protective Factors for Violence Risk in U.K. General Mental Health Services Using the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 3965-3983
Author(s):  
Alina Haines ◽  
Andrew Brown ◽  
Syed Fahad Javaid ◽  
Fayyaz Khan ◽  
Steve Noblett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
General Mental Health ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Mental Health Settings ◽  
Community Mental Health Settings

Violence risk assessment and management are key tasks in mental health services and should be guided by validated instruments covering both risk and protective factors. This article is part of an international effort to validate the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors (SAPROF) for violence. The SAPROF, Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20) and the Psychopathy Checklist–Screening Version (PCL-SV) were administered in a sample of 261 patients in U.K. forensic, general inpatient, and community mental health settings. There was significant variation between these groups on SAPROF scores with fewer protective factors in the forensic group. The prospective validity of the SAPROF for nonviolence in the general inpatient and community samples was moderate (area under the curve [AUC] = .60). Adoption of the SAPROF or similar instruments as a supplement to risk-focused assessments has the potential to improve awareness of protective factors and enhance therapeutic engagement in a range of mental health services.

scholarly journals The relationship between violence risk factors and protective factors among mentally ill offenders

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
V.G. Bulygina ◽  
A.A. Dubinsky ◽  
G.M. Tokareva ◽  
N.E. Lysenko
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Communication Skills ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Classification Tree ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Motivation For Treatment

The results of research of the relationship between violence risk factors for and protective factors among psychiatric patients with a criminal history are presented. There were interviewed 563 men and 200 women undergoing compulsory treatment. The methodology of the assessment of protective factors (Bulygina V.G. et al.), "The historical clinical risk" (HCR-20, Webster), which was supplemented with a clinical-psychopathological criteria used in the Russian practice, were applied. It has been used the method of classification tree and ROC analysis. Target variables for the mathematical analysis were: gender, frequency of reoffending, interval of criminal recidivism. It was discovered that the universal protective factors in a general sample of persons with severe mental disorders are development of social and communication skills as well as higher motivation for treatment. There were highlighted gender specific protective factors. It is revealed that with a longer period of social adaptation associated the motivation for treatment and developed social and communication skills in female sample, in male – absence of problems connected with substance abuse and tolerant attitude to judicial and administrative regulations. Model of risk of the criminal recidivism among mentally ill women have higher predictive value than models for men.

scholarly journals Clinicians’ Perceptions of the Implementation of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) on an Inpatient Forensic Unit

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Domjancic ◽  
Treena Wilkie ◽  
Shaheen Darani ◽  
Brittney Williams ◽  
Bandhana Maheru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Exploratory Research ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Consensus Scoring ◽  
Additional Value

The Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) is an assessment tool that examines protective factors when assessing for violence risk. There is limited research on clinicians’ perceptions of the use and implementation of risk assessment tools, and this study aimed to examine the experiences of clinicians using the SAPROF in a low secure forensic rehabilitation inpatient unit in Canada. An exploratory research design was used, and five clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews. Data was analyzed using a thematic approach and three central themes were identified: understanding of the patient from a strengths-based point of view, providing clinicians with a focus on how to help the patient, and bringing in opportunities to collaborate as a team. The findings highlight the additional value of the SAPROF as tool in helping forensic teams to adopt strengths based approaches to risk assessment, enhancing treatment planning and inter-professional collaboration.   Keywords: strengths, risk assessment, SAPROF, consensus scoring, recovery

Assessing protective factors for violence risk

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michiel de Vries Robbe ◽  
Vivienne de Vogel ◽  
Van der Hoeven Kliniek
Keyword(s):  
Protective Factors ◽  
Violence Risk

School employee experiences of student violence: Risk and protective factors

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Bass ◽  
Thivia Mogan ◽  
Peter Y. Chen ◽  
Kimberly Henry ◽  
Rocco G. Tomazic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protective Factors ◽  
Risk And Protective Factors ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Student Violence ◽  
School Employee
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document