The Validity of Violence Risk Assessment in Young Adults: A Comparative Study of Juvenile and Adult Risk Assessment Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have addressed the application of violence risk assessment for individuals transitioning from youth to adulthood. For 202 young adults released from Dutch juvenile justice institutions this study investigated the predictive validity and potential disparities in impact of juvenile risk assessment tools (i.e., SAVRY [Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth], and SAPROF-YV [Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk-Youth Version]), and comparable adult risk assessment tools (i.e., HCR-20 V3 [Historical Clinical Risk management-20 Version 3], and SAPROF [Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk]). Assessments with juvenile and adult risk assessment tools yielded similar predictive validity for violent and non-violent recidivism. Risk and protective factors related to treatability, parents, community participation, resilience, and personality showed individual predictive validity. These findings offer flexibility when applying risk assessment in clinical practice. The choice between youth and adult assessment tools should be made considering the individual’s developmental stage.
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 | 0.021 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".