Cited by 41Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingCrime Patterns and InterventionsCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis

Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) with Indigenous and Caucasian female and male adolescents on probation.

Muir, Nicole M., Viljoen, Jodi L., Jonnson, Melissa R., Cochrane, Dana M., Rogers, Billie Joe·2020·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

Indigenous people and the courts have emphasized that it is important to examine whether scores from violence risk assessment tools are valid and appropriate for Indigenous youth. However, studies are scarce. Therefore, we examined the predictive validity of youth probation officers' Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) ratings for 744 Canadian youth, including 299 Indigenous youth (219 male, 80 female), and 445 Caucasian youth (357 male, 88 female) in a prospective field study. The SAVRY summary risk ratings and risk total scores significantly predicted violent and any reoffending for Indigenous female and male youth with medium effect sizes. Relatively few significant differences in the predictive validity emerged for Indigenous and Caucasian youth. However, Historical, Protective, and Risk Total scores predicted any recidivism better for Caucasian males than Indigenous males. Also, Indigenous youth scored significantly higher on all risk domains than Caucasian youth. Opposite to predictions, the rates of false positives were higher for Caucasian youth than for Indigenous youth. Based on the results, the SAVRY appears to be a reasonable tool to use for assessing risk in Indigenous youth. However, assessors should take steps to ensure that they use the SAVRY in a culturally appropriate manner, such as considering cultural factors in case formulations and treatment planning as the SAVRY does not ground assessments in an understanding of factors such as colo…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000816

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Muir, N. M., Viljoen, J. L., Jonnson, M. R., Cochrane, D. M., & Rogers, B. J.
Affiliations
Simon Fraser University (CA)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2020-06
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
594-607
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W3013216826
Cited by
41
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Keywords
SAVRY, violence risk assessment, Indigenous youth, predictive validity, recidivism, false positives, colonialism, culturally sensitive assessment
MeSH terms
Recidivism, Indigenous Peoples, Adolescent, Canada, Child, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Indians, North American, Juvenile Delinquency, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Psychological Tests, Psychometrics, Risk Factors, Violence, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Assessment, White People, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review