Predicting risk of recidivism in Spanish young offenders: Comparative analysis of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI

• Elena Ortega-Campos ^[1] ; Juan García-García ^[1] ; Leticia De la Fuente-Sánchez ^[1] ; Flor Zaldívar-Basurto ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad de Almería

     Universidad de Almería

     Almería, España

     
• Localización: Psicothema, ISSN-e 1886-144X, ISSN 0214-9915, Vol. 32, Nº. 2, 2020, págs. 221-228
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2019.275
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Predicción del riesgo de reincidencia en jóvenes infractores españoles: comparación de los instrumentos SAVRY e YLS/CMI
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Dialnet Métricas: 4 Citas
• Resumen
  • English

    Background: This study offers a comparative analysis of evidence for the predictive validity of SAVRY and YLS/CMI scores in predicting risk of recidivism in a group of young people who received a Juvenile Justice order. Methods: The sample was made up of 594 youths aged between 14 and 18 (M=15.63, SD=1.08) at the time they committed an offense. Results: Both instruments showed high accuracy in predicting recidivism, with the greatest accuracy observed in the SAVRY and YLS/CMI total scores, as well as in the Individual domain of the SAVRY. Comparative analysis of the AUCs of both instruments indicated no statistically significant differences between total scores from the two instruments. Results showed statistically significant differences in comparisons of means and AUCs between the groups of young reoffenders and non-reoffenders in all cases. Our results did not support the hypothesis that dynamic risk factors are a better predictors of recidivism in young offenders. Conclusions: This study offers empirical evidence of the predictive capacity and differential functioning of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI instruments in the Spanish context.

  • English

    Introducción: se presenta un análisis comparativo de la evidencia de validez predictiva de las puntuaciones del SAVRY e YLS/CMI para predecir el riesgo de reincidencia en un grupo de jóvenes a los que se les había abierto un expediente en Justicia Juvenil. Método: la muestra estaba compuesta por 594 jóvenes que tenían entre 14 y 18 años (M=15.63, DT=1.08) en el momento de la comisión del hecho delictivo. Resultados: los resultados de ambos instrumentos mostraron una alta capacidad predictiva de la reincidencia, con mayor precisión observada en las puntuaciones totales de SAVRY e YLS/CMI, así como en el dominio individual de SAVRY. El análisis comparativo de las AUC de ambos instrumentos no indicó diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las puntuaciones totales de los dos instrumentos. Se han encontrado diferencias estadísticamente significativas en las comparaciones de medias y AUC entre los grupos de jóvenes reincidentes y no reincidentes. Los resultados de este trabajo no apoyan la hipótesis de que los factores de riesgo dinámicos son mejores predictores de la reincidencia en los jóvenes infractores. Conclusiones: el presente estudio ofrece evidencia empírica de la capacidad predictiva y el funcionamiento diferencial de los instrumentos SAVRY e YLS/CMI en el contexto español.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th ed). Cincinnati: Anderson.
  • Andrews, D., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency,...
  • Boccaccini, M. (2017). Four lessons from risk assessment (and other forensic assessment) meta-analyses. International Journal of Forensic...
  • Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and treatment (User Report No. 2007-06). Ottawa:...
  • Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2006). Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Odessa: Psychological...
  • Chu, C., Goh, M., & Chong, D. (2016). The predictive validity of Savry ratings for assessing youth offenders in Singapore. A comparison...
  • Clarke, M., Peterson-Badali, M., & Skilling, T. (2017). The relationship between changes in dynamic Risk factors and the predictive validity...
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • Garrido, V., López, E., & Silva, T. (2006). Inventario de Gestión e Intervención para Jóvenes IGI-J [Inventory of Management and Intervention...
  • Heilbrun, K., Yasuhara, K., & Shah, S. (2010). Violence Risk assessment tools: Overview and critical analysis. In R.K. Otto, K.S. &...
  • Hilterman, E., Nicholls, T., & van Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2014). Predictive validity of Risk assessments in juvenile offenders: Comparing...
  • Hoge, R., & Andrews, D. (2006). The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory: User’s Manual. North Tonawanda: MultiHealth Systems.
  • Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of Probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. (2014). Self-reported offending: Reliability and validity. In G.J.N. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.),...
  • Lodewijks, H., Doreleijers, T., & de Ruiter, C. (2008). Savry Risk assessment in violent Dutch adolescents: Relation to sentencing and...
  • Martín, M., Hernández, B., Hernández-Fernaud, E., & Arregui, J. (2010). The enhancement effect of social and employment integration on...
  • Ortega, E., García, J., & Frías, M. (2014). Meta-análisis de la reincidencia criminal en menores: estudio de la investigación española...
  • Ortega-Campos, E., García-García, J., Gil-Fenoy, M., & Zaldívar-Basurto, F. (2016). Identifying Risk and protective factors in recidivist...
  • Ortega-Campos, E., García-García, J., & Zaldívar-Basurto, F. (2017). The predictive validity of the structured assessment of violence...
  • Perrault, R., Vincent, G., & Guy, L. (2017). Are Risk assessments racially biased?: Field study of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in probation....
  • Rice, M., & Harris, G. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law & Human Behavior, 29(5),...
  • Schwalbe, C. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile offenders: A metaanalysis. Law & Human Behavior, 31(5), 449-462. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10979-006-9071-7
  • Shepherd, S., Luebbers, S., & Ogloff, J. (2016). The role of protective factors and the relationship with recidivism for high-Risk young...
  • Singh, J., Grann, M., & Fazel, S. (2011). A comparative study of violence Risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression...
  • Singh, J., Yang, S., Mulvey, E., & the RAGEE Group (2015). Reporting guidance for violence Risk assessment predictive validity studies:...
  • Vallés, L., & Hilterman, E. (2006). SAVRY. Manual para la Valoración Estructurada de Riesgo de Violencia en Jóvenes [Manual for Structured...
  • Viljoen, J., Bhanwer, A., Shaffer, C., & Douglas, K. (2018). Assessing protective factors for adolescent offending: A conceptually informed...
  • Viljoen, J., Gray, A., Shaffer, C., Bhanwer, A., Tafreshi, D., & Douglas, K. (2017a). Does reassessment of Risk improve predictions? A...
  • Viljoen, J., Gray, A., Shaffer, C., Latzman, N., Scalora, M., & Ullman, D. (2017b). Changes in J-SOAP-II and SAVRY scores over the course...
  • Viljoen, J., Shaffer, C., Gray, A., & Douglas, K. (2017c). Are adolescent Risk assessment tools sensitive to change? A framework and examination...
  • Villanueva, L., Basto-Pereira, M., & Cuervo, K. (2019). How to improve the YLS/CMI? Exploring a particularly predictive combination of...
  • Villanueva, L., Valero-Moreno, S., Cuervo, K., & Prado-Gascó, V. (2019). Sociodemographic variables, Risk factors, and protective factors...
  • Vincent, G. (2015). Application and Implementation of Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice for the Courts. National Courts and Science Institute.
  • Ward, T., & Fortune, C. (2016). From dynamic Risk factors to causal processes: A methodological Fframework. Psychology, Crime & Law,...
  • Ward, T., Yates, P., & Willis, G. (2012). The good lives model and the risk need responsivity model: A critical response to Andrews, Bonta,...