Towards clinically meaningful subtyping of youth with violent behavior: application of latent profile analysis to a risk-strengths based risk assessment model*

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Characteristic	n/M	%/SD
Most severe index offense^a
Acquittal of index offense	5	1.7%
Misdemeanor	2	0.7%
Drug offense	1	0.3%
Vandalism (property)	1	0.3%
Property offense	32	10.8%
Moderate violent offense	36	12.1%
Violent property offense	151	50.8%
Serious violent offense	26	8.8%
Sexual offense	11	3.7%
Manslaughter	15	5.1%
Murder	3	1.0%
Unknown	14	4.7%
Number of previous convictions
0	119	40.1%
1–2	75	25.3%
3 or more	103	34.7%
Ethnic origin^b
Dutch	68	22.9%
Non-Dutch western	15	5.1%
Non-Dutch non-western	189	63.6%
Unknown	25	8.4%
SAVRY subscale scores
Antisocial behavior	0.42	0.17
Family functioning	0.19	0.24
Personality	0.43	0.22
Social support	0.41	0.26
Treatability	0.66	0.23
SAPROF-YV subscale scores
Resilience	0.35	0.20
Motivational	0.35	0.20
Relational	0.39	0.19
External	0.44	0.29

^aThe severity of the index offense was determined based on the Dutch’ Law maximum sentence, and the amount of harm or violence during the offense (van Kordelaar, 2002).

^bWhen the participant or at least one parent was not born in the Netherlands the participant was considered of non-Dutch descent.

Table 2. Comparison of model fit indices for number of class solutions.

Profiles	LL	LMR-LRT	BIC	Npar	Entropy	Class size proportions (n)
1	219.84	na	−337.19	18	na	1 (297)
2	607.22	p < .001	−1055.02	28	.87	.56 (167); .44 (130)
3	725.39	p = .08	−1234.41	38	.86	.40 (119); .39 (117); .21 (61)
4	771.21	p = .002	−1269.13	48	.86	.35 (105); .33 (99); .24 (71); .08 (22)
5	794.87	p = .50	−1259.51	58	.88	.35 (104); .34 (101); .21 (63); 07 (21); .03 (8)
6	818.05	p = .19	−1248.93	68	.86	.35 (103); .28 (84); .21 (62);.07 (21); .06 (17); .03 (9)

Note. LL = Log likelihood; LMR-LRT = Lo-Mendel-Rubin adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; Npar = Number of parameters. Values in bold represent the best fitted solutions.

Figure 1. Mean standardized SAVRY and SAPROF-YV estimates four class solution.

Table 3. Differences in SAVRY and SAPROF-YV subscale scores between latent profiles.

SAVRY/SAPROF-YV subscale	Profile 1: low risk, high protection	Profile 2: moderate risk, moderate protection	Profile 3: moderate risk, low protection	Profile 4: high risk, low protection
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	ANOVA^a
SAVRY
Antisocial behavior	.22 (.12)	.33 (.13)	.45 (.15)	.59 (.13)	1 < 2 < 3 < 4
Family functioning	.08 (.16)	.17 (.23)	.14 (.20)	.32 (.30)	1, 2, 3 < 4
Personality	.22 (.17)	.32 (.16)	.39 (.16)	.63 (.15)	1 < 2 < 3 < 4
Social support	.17 (.18)	.31 (.26)	.41 (.22)	.60 (.25)	1, 2 < 3 < 4
Treatability	.26 (.15)	.51 (.15)	.75 (.13)	.84 (.22)	1 < 2 < 3 < 4
SAPROF-YV
Resilience	.64 (.14)	.48 (.11)	.34 (.11)	.15 (.10)	1 > 2 > 3 > 4
Motivational	.73 (.11)	.51 (.10)	.30 (.09)	.13 (.09)	1 > 2 > 3 > 4
Relational	.72 (.13)	.47 (.18)	.38 (.16)	.24 (.13)	1 > 2 > 3 > 4
External	.50 (.25)	.51 (.29)	.36 (.28)	.20 (.24)	1, 2 > 3 > 4

Note. SAVRY = Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth; SAPROF-YV = Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk – Youth Version.

^a Significant differences in subscale scores between profiles were analyzed using ANOVA with Bonferronni corrections. The symbols ‘<’ and ‘>’ indicate there was a significant difference (p < .05) in subscale scores between profiles.

Table 4. Two-way contingency table between latent class membership and SRR for violence and nonviolence with EXACON analysis.

Latent class membership	SRR violence					SRR nonviolence
	Low (n = 30)	Low-moderate (n = 82)	Moderate (n = 93)	Moderate-high (n = 68)	High (n = 24)	Low (n = 34)	Low-moderate (n = 60)	Moderate (n = 87)	Moderate-high (n = 84)	High (n = 32)
Profile 1 (n = 23)
Observed/expected	12/2.42	8/6.63	3/7.51	1/5.49	0/1.94	9/2.75	9/4.85	5/7.03	1/6.79	0/2.59
Chi-square	37.82***	0.28	2.71	3.68*	1.94	14.23**	3.56	0.59	4.94**	2.59
	Typical^a			Atypical^b		Typical			Atypical
Profile 2 (n = 71)
Observed/expected	11/6.57	35/17.95	13/20.35	5/14.88	1/5.25	15/7.44	18/13.13	23/19.04	9/18.38	0/7.00
Chi-square	2.99	16.21***	2.66*	6.56**	3.44*	7.68**	1.81	0.82	4.79*	7.00***
		Typical	Atypical	Atypical	Atypical	Typical			Atypical	Atypical
Profile 3 (n = 103)
Observed/expected	4/10.10	31/27.61	48/31.31	16/22.90	1/8.08	7/11.45	26/20.20	37/29.29	27/28.28	3/10.77
Chi-square	3.66*	0.42	8.89**	2.08	6.20**	1.73	1.66	2.03	0.06	5.61**
	Atypical		Typical		Atypical					Atypical
Profile 4 (n = 100)
Observed/expected	3/10.91	8/29.82	29/33.82	46/24.73	22/8.73	3/12.36	7/21.82	22/31.64	47/30.55	29/11.64
Chi-square	5.73**	15.96***	0.69	18.30***	20.19***	7.09**	10.06***	2.94*	8.86**	25.91***
	Atypical	Atypical	Atypical	Typical	Typical	Atypical	Atypical	Atypical	Typical	Typical

Note. SRR = Summary risk ratings. *p < .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

^a Occurred more frequently than could be expected based on chance.

^b Occurred less frequently than could be expected based on chance.

Figure 2. Survival curves for general, violent and nonviolent recidivism as a function of latent profile membership.

van Kordelaar, W. (2002). Beslissingsondersteuning onderzoek geestesvermogens in het strafrecht voorvolwassenen [Decision support research mental capacity in criminal justice for adults]. Kluwer.

 Google Scholar