Assessment of Strengths in Criminal Justice System-Impacted Youth: A Retrospective Validation Study of the SAPROF-YV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk-Youth Version (SAPROF-YV; de Vries Robbé et al., 2015) was designed specifically to assess strengths as a complement to risk assessment tools. We retrospectively examined its reliability and validity in 305 Canadian community-sentenced youth, both in the overall sample and in male and female, and Black and White, subgroups. In all groups, the total score had strong internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and convergent validity, and significantly predicted general recidivism at 3-year fixed follow-up. The SAPROF-YV showed incremental validity over the YLS/CMI only in Black youth. In the total sample, a moderation effect was identified whereby strengths were protective at lower levels of risk but not for moderate or high risk youth. The SAPROF-YV shows promising reliability and validity; however, more research is needed before clear guidance can be provided regarding the use of this measure in clinical practice.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".