Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

absent. The coding form also includes a section for list-

ing “additional risk factors” and “additional protective

factors” because the SAVRY is not exhaustive in iden-

tifying all potential risk and protective factors for any

given individual. If these additional factors are present,

they should be documented and weighed in final deci-

sions of risk.

Though the SAVRY is sufficiently flexible to

accommodate varying styles of risk communication,

the coding form prompts evaluators to make a final

summary risk ratingof low, moderate, or high. The

ultimate risk rating is not based on cutting scores

(SAVRY items are not assigned numeric values) or a

specific formula. Evaluators exercise their profes-

sional judgment to determine the nature and degree of

the juvenile’s risk for violence after carefully weigh-

ing the relevant risk and protective factors.

Psychometric Properties

One of the primary indices used in SAVRY research

(not in practice) is the “SAVRY Risk Total.” This is

calculated by transposing item ratings of low, moder-

ate,and highto numerical values of 0, 1, and 2, respec-

tively, and summing the values. The summary risk

rating is similarly transposed for statistical analysis.

Reliability and Internal Consistency. The internal

consistency (alpha coefficient) of the SAVRY Risk

Total has been shown to fall in the range of .82 to .84.

Interrater reliability for the SAVRY Risk Total has

ranged between .74 and .97, with an unweighted aver-

age of .84. Interrater reliability coefficients for the

Summary Risk Rating have ranged between .72 and

.85, with an unweighted average of .78.

Validity.The concurrent validity of the SAVRY has

been examined in relation to the Youth Level of

Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) and

the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version

(PCL:YV).In the initial validation study, the SAVRY

Risk Total correlated significantly with both instru-

ments among offenders and in community samples

(e.g., .89 with YLS/CMI and .78 with PCL:YV among

offenders). The SAVRY protective domain was nega-

tively correlated with both the other measures. Across

five studies, correlations between the SAVRY Risk

Total and the PCL:YV Total Score have ranged from

.48 to .74, with an unweighted average of .67. Although

the correlations are significant, indicating that the

SAVRY shares variance with other measures, it also

possesses independent predictive power.

With regard to criterion validity, studies have found

significant correlations between SAVRY scores and var-

ious measures of violence in juvenile justice and high-

risk community-dwelling populations. In the initial

validation sample, SAVRY Total Risk scores were all

significantly related to behavioral measures of institu-

tional aggressive behavior (.40) and aggressive conduct

disorder symptoms (.52). The SAVRY has also demon-

strated incremental (criterion) validity (or predictive

power) beyond the YLSI and the PCL:YV. Results of

hierarchical regression analyses showed that adding the

SAVRY improved the power of the YLSI and the

PCL:YV in predicting both institutional aggressive

behavior and serious aggressive conduct disorder symp-

toms. The SAVRY also accounted for a large proportion

of the explained variance in each type of violence.

Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC)

analysis, which measures predictive accuracy in terms

of relative improvement over chance, we found that

areas under the curve (AUCs) for the total score aver-

age about .74 to .80 across studies. Interestingly, the

examiner judgments (summary risk rating), not made

on the basis of any cutting score, consistently perform

as well as, and often better than, the linear combina-

tion of the scores themselves. For example, using

ROC analysis, an unpublished master’s thesis at

Simon Fraser University reported an AUC of .70 for

the SAVRY total score, but the AUC for the SAVRY

Summary Risk Rating was .89. This finding has been

evident in research on other SPJ tools as well and pro-

vides some of the first empirical evidence that clinical

judgments—properly structured and based on sound

assessments—can achieve levels of accuracy that rival

that of any other known predictors, while maintaining

latitude for case-specific analysis.

Additional research is needed and is under way to

clarify the SAVRY’s applicability in different coun-

tries, across genders, and with various ethnic groups.

Randy Borum, Patrick Bartel,

and Adelle Forth

See alsoHare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version

(PCL:YV); Juvenile Offenders, Risk Factors; Risk

Assessment Approaches

Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)——— 771

S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 771