Strengths-Based Assessments for Use with Forensic Populations: A Critical Review

ABSTRACT

With the emergence of positive psychology, correctional researchers have begun to infuse assessment practices with the consideration of strengths in an effort to understand why some high-risk individuals have the ability to avoid engaging in delinquent or criminal actions. Accordingly, the current article reviews eight offender assessment tools that either (1) incorporate strengths in addition to the traditionally measured set of risks/needs, or (2) were specifically designed as strength assessment protocols to be used alongside risk/needs tools. Although evidence is mixed, there is some preliminary support for the quantitative inclusion of strengths in risk assessment with the objective of improving predictive accuracy and providing valuable case planning information. Given definitional discrepancies in the literature with respect to how strengths are measured and conceptualized, further research is required to elucidate the specific manner in which strengths interact with established risk factors across various offender populations.

KEYWORDS:

• Strengths
• offender risk assessment
• correctional psychology
• protective factors
• promotive factors

Notes

¹ Protective factors can also interact with individual-level risk factors, as noted by Lösel and Farrington (2012). However, the studies exploring buffering effects in the current review have focused predominately on the interaction between composite strength scores and global offender risk levels.

² An AUC of .50 represents a level of prediction that is equal to chance, while an AUC of 1.0 represents perfect accuracy. Within the field of correctional psychology, AUC values ranging from .56 to .63 correspond to small effect sizes, AUCs between .64 and .70 correspond to medium effect sizes, and AUCs exceeding .71 correspond to large effect sizes (Rice & Harris, 2005).

³ The YASI was based on the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA), an instrument also designed to measure a youth's risks, needs, and strengths (Barnoski, 2004). The predictive validity of the WSJCA was found to be moderate (AUCs = .63–.64) based on a sample of 20,339 Pre-Screens and 12,187 Full Assessments. Furthermore, Van der Put, Van der Laan, Stams, Dekovié, and Hoeve (2011) found evidence of incremental predictive validity with a sample of 13,613 American youth, demonstrating that the strength score significantly improved the prediction of recidivism for both males and females above the sole consideration of the risk score.