Psychological Assessment for Adult Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders: An Evaluation of the RSTI and the SAVRY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two measures relevant to the assessment of juvenile offenders for transfer to adult court, the Risk-Sophistication-Treatment Inventory (RSTI) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), were evaluated in the present study. Seventy-four adolescents considered for transfer were scored on these tools using file information, and clinicians’ transfer reports were coded for judgments of risk, maturity, and treatment amenability. Scores on RSTI Risk, Criminal Sophistication, and Treatment Amenability scales and SAVRY Total and Protective scales were significantly associated with adult sentences. Further, RSTI Criminal Sophistication explained significant additional variance in the adult sentencing decision beyond other legal criteria such as offense severity. However, scores on the RSTI Sophistication-Maturity scale were not associated with adult sentences. Results provide support for the use of the RSTI and the SAVRY, underscore the potential importance of psychological characteristics to adult sentencing decisions, and reflect challenges inherent in psycho-legal assessments of maturity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".