Assesses dynamic violence risk in youth, indicating implications for treatment planning.
The present study examined the development of updated risk levels and recidivism rates for the Violence Risk Scale-Youth Version (VRS-YV), a dynamic violence risk assessment and treatment planning tool, in a diverse Canadian sample of 404 court-adjudicated youth followed up an average of 8.6 years in the community. VRS-YV scores and those from a set of convergent measures of risk and protection were obtained from Court and Treatment file ratings; recidivism outcomes were obtained from criminal records. The distribution, discrimination, and calibration properties of VRS-YV scores were examined among Indigenous ethnoracial and gender groups to inform the development of evidence-based risk levels and violent recidivism rates associated with VRS-YV scores, applying the common language five-level framework. VRS-YV dynamic and total scores demonstrated good discrimination with medium to large effects in the prediction of violent and general recidivism across Gender × Ethnoracial groups. VRS-YV score percentile ranks and hazard ratios were used to identify numeric score cutoffs to inform risk categories, while violent recidivism rates associated with VRS-YV score categories were generated from logistic regression. Discrimination findings suggested common numeric score risk band cutoffs across gender and ethnoracial groups, while calibration findings suggested gender stratified violent recidivism norms and minor variations in labeling the uppermost risk categories for female youth. Convergent validity analyses supported the construct validity of the five risk levels. Implications for using the common language-based framework with the VRS-YV to drive risk management and violent prevention efforts as a function of gender and ethnocultural heritage are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stockdale et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: