Search

This study examined the predictive validity of the Washington State Juvenile Pre-Screen Assessment (WSJCA pre-screen) in the Netherlands. Previous research conducted in the United States showed the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen to be modest, as is the case with the predictive validity of most other risk assessment instruments for juveniles. Therefore, it was also examined whether the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen can be improved by modifying the scoring procedure. The sample consisted of 520 youths who had been referred to the juvenile probation service by court. The present study showed the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen in the Netherlands to be modest too, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of .625. Modifying the scoring procedure by means of chi-squared automatic interaction detector analyses significantly improved the predictive validity to an AUC of .702. The modified scoring procedure is time-saving because only variables that uniquely contribute to the prediction of recidivism are included, which at the same time leads to a more accurate prediction of recidivism.

To date, there is surprisingly little research on differences in the prevalence and impact of risk factors for general recidivism between juveniles who have committed sexual offenses (JSO) and juveniles who have committed nonsexual offenses (NSO). Therefore, we examined differences in the prevalence and impact of dynamic risk factors for general delinquency between youth with nonsexual offenses (NSO, n = 504), youth with misdemeanor sexual offenders (MSO, n = 136), youth with felony sexual offenders (FSO, n = 116) and youth with offenses against much younger children (CSO, n = 373). The sample consisted of boys with a mean age of 15.3 years (SD = 1.5). The prevalence of dynamic risk factors for general delinquency was significantly lower in JSOs than in NSOs. More serious sexual offenses were associated with a lower prevalence of dynamic risk factors. In contrast, the impact of most dynamic risk factors on general recidivism proved to be significantly larger among JSOs compared to NSOs. The relative importance of the dynamic risk factors varied for each type of JSO, resulting in differences in the dynamic risk profiles of the various types of JSOs.