Predictive validity of the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV is poor for intimate partner violence perpetration among adolescent offenders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite advances in developing structured risk assessment instruments, there is currently no instrument to assess and manage the risk of intimate partner violence perpetration among adolescents. Given the empirical link between many forms of antisocial behavior, we tested whether structured tools commonly used by professionals to evaluate adolescents' risk of engaging in general violence and offending could be used to identify adolescents at risk for perpetrating intimate partner violence. HYPOTHESES: Because researchers have not yet examined whether risk assessment tools for general violence and offending predict intimate partner violence perpetration, we did not have a priori hypotheses regarding the predictive validity of these tools for this purpose. METHOD: Research assistants rated 156 adjudicated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), and Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) and recorded charges for intimate partner violence perpetration, any violent reoffending, and any reoffending over a 2-year follow-up period. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that total scores and summary risk ratings on the SAVRY and YLS/CMI and total scores on the PCL:YV were significantly predictive of any violent reoffending and any reoffending, with moderate to large effect sizes, but were nonsignificantly associated with intimate partner violence perpetration. Further, penalized logistic regression analysis indicated that the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV did not significantly add incremental validity to age, gender, race/ethnicity, and prior intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization for predicting future intimate partner violence perpetration. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV could have limitations for assessing and managing intimate partner violence perpetration among adolescents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".