The development and validation of the Youth Actuarial Care Needs Assessment Tool for Non-Offenders (Y-ACNAT-NO)
Tóm tắt
In The Netherlands, police officers not only come into contact with juvenile offenders, but also with a large number of juveniles who were involved in a criminal offense, but not in the role of a suspect (i.e., juvenile non-offenders). Until now, no valid and reliable instrument was available that can be used by Dutch police officers for estimating the risk for future care needs of juvenile non-offenders. In the present study, the Youth Actuarial Care Needs Assessment Tool for Non-Offenders (Y-ACNAT-NO) was developed for predicting the risk for future care needs that consisted of (1) a future supervision order as imposed by a juvenile court judge and (2) future worrisome incidents involving child abuse, domestic violence/strife, and/or sexual offensive behavior at the juvenile’s living address (i.e., problems in the child-rearing environment). Police records of 3,200 juveniles were retrieved from the Dutch police registration system after which the sample was randomly split in a construction (n = 1,549) and validation sample (n = 1,651). The Y-ACNAT-NO was developed by performing an Exhaustive CHAID analysis using the construction sample. The predictive validity of the instrument was examined in the validation sample by calculating several performance indicators that assess discrimination and calibration. The CHAID output yielded an instrument that consisted of six variables and eleven different risk groups. The risk for future care needs ranged from 0.06 in the lowest risk group to 0.83 in the highest risk group. The AUC value in the validation sample was .764 (95% CI [.743, .784]) and Sander’s calibration score indicated an average assessment error of 3.74% in risk estimates per risk category. The Y-ACNAT-NO is the first instrument that can be used by Dutch police officers for estimating the risk for future care needs of juvenile non-offenders. The predictive validity of the Y-ACNAT-NO in terms of discrimination and calibration was sufficient to justify its use as an initial screening instrument when a decision is needed about referring a juvenile for further assessment of care needs.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Harbert A, Tucker-Tatlow J. Review of child welfare risk assessments [http://theacademy.sdsu.edu/programs/SACHS/literature/SACHS_Risk_Assessment_Report_and_Appendices_11_2012.pdf]
D’Andrade A, Austin MJ, Benton A. Risk and safety assessment in child welfare. J Evid Based Soc Work. 2008;5:31–56.
Doueck HJ, English DJ, DePanfilis D, Moore GT. Decisionmaking in child protective services: a comparison of selected risk-assessment systems. Child Welfare. 1993;72:441–53.
Van der Put CE, Stams GJJM. Youth offender care needs assessment tool (YO-CNAT): an actuarial risk assessment tool for predicting problematic child-rearing situations in juvenile offenders on the basis of police records. Psychol Assess. 2013;25:1167–78.
Bender K. Why do some maltreated youth become juvenile offenders? a call for further investigation and adaptation of youth services. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2010;32:466–73.
Falshaw L, Browne KD, Hollin CR. Victim to offender: a review. Aggress Violent Beh. 1996;1:389–404.
Mersky JP, Topitzes J, Reynolds AJ. Unsafe at any age: linking childhood and adolescent maltreatment to delinquency and crime. J Res Crime Delinq. 2012;49:295–318.
Smith C, Thornberry TP. The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology. 1995;4:451–81.
Widom CS. Does violence beget violence? a critical examination of the literature. Psychol Bull. 1993;106:3–28.
Widom CS, Maxfield MG. An update on the “cycle of violence”. National Institute of Justice: Washington, DC; 2001.
Zingraff MT, Leiter J, Myers KA, Johnsen MC. Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology. 1993;31:173–202.
Lyons P, Doueck HJ, Wodarski JS. Risk assessment for child protective services: a review of the empirical literature on instrument performance. Soc Work Res. 1996;20:143–55.
Cash SJ. Risk assessment in child welfare: the art and science. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2001;23:811–30.
DePanfilis D, Zuravin SJ. Rates, patterns, and frequency of child maltreatment recurrences among families known to CPS. Child Maltreatment. 1998;3:27–42.
English DJ, Aubin SW, Fine D, Pecora PJ. Improving the accuracy and cultural sensitivity of risk assessment in child abuse and neglect cases. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, School of Social Work; 1993.
Johnson W, L’Esperance J. Predicting the recurrence of child abuse. Soc Work Res Abstr. 1984;20:21–6.
Hindley PG, Ramchandani DP, Jones H. Risk factors for recurrence of maltreatment: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2006;91:744–52.
Kerig PK, Wenar C. Developmental psychopathology: from infancy through adolescence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
Meehl PE. Clinical vs. Statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1954.
Ægisdόttir S, White MJ, Spengler PM, Maugherman AS, Anderson LA, Cook RS, et al. The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Couns Psychol. 2006;34:341–82.
Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science. 1989;243:1668–74.
Grove WM, Meehl PE. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical-statistical controversy. Psychol Public Pol L. 1996;2:293–323.
Grove WM, Zald DH, Lebow BS, Snitz BE, Nelson C. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychol Assess. 2000;12:19–30.
Hanson KR, Morton-Bourgon KE. The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychol Assess. 2009;21:1–21.
Leschied AW, Chiodo D, Whitehead PC, Hurley D, Marshall L. The empirical basis of risk assessment in child welfare: assessing the concurrent and predictive accuracy of risk assessment and clinical judgment. Child Welfare. 2003;82:527–40.
Quinsey VL, Harris GT, Rice ME, Cormier CA. Violent offenders: appraising and managing risk. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1998.
Hart SD. The role of psychopathology in assessing risk for violence: conceptual and methodological issues. Legal Criminol Psych. 1998;3:121–37.
Sreenivasan S, Kirkish P, Garrick T, Weinberger LE, Phenix A. Actuarial risk assessment models: a review of critical issues related to violence and sex-offender recidivism assessments. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2000;28:438–48.
Scott CL, Resnick PJ. Violence risk assessment in persons with mental illness. Aggress Violent Beh. 2006;11:598–611.
Douglas K, Cox D, Webster C. Violence risk assessment: science and practice. Legal Criminol Psych. 1999;4:149–84.
Saunders BJ, Goddard CR. A critique of structured risk assessment procedures: instruments of abuse? Melbourne: Child Abuse and Family Violence Research Unit, Monash University; 1998.
Tomison AM. Ensuring the protection of children: the role of child protection services in the identification, assessment and treatment of maltreated children. Sydney: Keynote address to the NSW Department of Community Services, Entry Parameters for Child Protection Conference, March 20–21; 1999.
Singh JP, Grann M, Fazel S. A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31:499–513.
Yang M, Wong SCP, Coid J. The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychol Bull. 2010;136:740–67.
Steadman HJ, Silver E, Monahan J, Appelbaum P, Robbins PC, Mulvey EP, et al. A classification tree approach to the development of actuarial violent risk assessment tools. Law Human Behav. 2000;24:83–100.
Thomas SD, Leese M. Invited editorial. A green-fingered approach can improve the clinical utility of violence risk assessment tools. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2003;13:153–8.
Biggs P, De Ville B, Suen K. A method of choosing multiway partitions for classification and decision trees. J Appl Stat. 1991;18:49–62.
Kass G. An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data. Appl Stat. 1980;29:119–27.
Boslaugh SE, Kreuter MW, Nicholson RA, Naleid K. Comparing demographic, health status and psychosocial strategies of audience segmentation to promote physical activity. Health Educ Res. 2005;20:430–8.
Dudley WN, Dilorio C, Soet J. Detecting and explicating interactions in categorical data. Nurs Res. 2000;49:53–6.
Ratner B. Statistical modelling and analysis for database marketing: effective techniques for mining big data. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL; 2003.
Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser. Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point. Biometrical J. 2005;47:458–72.
Singh JP. Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: a methodological primer. Behav Sci Law. 2013;31:8–22.
Brier GW. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Mon Weather Rev. 1950;78:1–3.
Yates JF. External correspondence: decompositions of the mean probability score. Organ Behav Hum Perf. 1982;30:132–56.
Sanders F. On subjective probability forecasting. J Appl Meteorol. 1963;2:191–201.
Spiegelhalter DJ. Probabilistic prediction in patient management and clinical trials. Stat Med. 1986;2:421–33.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.
Dolan M, Doyle M. Violence risk prediction: clinical and actuarial measures and the role of the psychopathy checklist. Brit J Psychiat. 2000;177:303–11.
Schwalbe CS. Risk assessment for juvenile justice: a meta-analysis. Law Human Behav. 2007;31:449–62.
Fazel S, Singh JP, Doll H, Grann M. Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24827 people: systematic review and meta-analysis. Brit Med J. 2012;345:e4692.