{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02820157189089228, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005547850208044383, 'mean_word_length': 5.826498422712934, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analytic review

Objective: Risk assessment research has primarily focused on enumerating factors underlying risk for future misconduct (e.g., violence, sexual, general misconduct); however, relatively less is known about protective factors and how they can inform risk assessment. This is a notable gap because protective factors are associated with a lower likelihood of negative outcomes when compared to risk factors and can reduce their negative impact. The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF) has become one of the most widely used instruments for assessing protective factors in adult risk evaluations. Method: This study used meta-analytic techniques to synthesize extant findings of the SAPROF’s predictive validity, integrating data from 20 studies (154 total effect sizes, N of subjects = 3,182) wherein the SAPROF’s ability to differentiate individuals who would abstain from future misconduct (any misconduct, violence, or sexual misconduct) from those who would go on to engage in misconduct was evaluated. Results: Results of three meta-analyses offered evidence supporting the adequate predictive validity of the SAPROF in assessing protective factors associated with abstinence from future (1) violence, (2) sexual misconduct, and (3) engaging in any form of misconduct. Comparisons of effect sizes suggested the SAPROF is similarly effective in predicting abstinence from any misconduct as it is in predicting abstinence from violence, whereas effect size comparisons indicated the instrument’s superiority in estimating abstinence from violence over sexual misconduct. The SAPROFS total protective score (TPS) and final protection judgment (FPJ) rating emerged as robust predictors of abstinence from future misconduct; notable differences were observed across the SAPROF’s three domains. Conclusions: Implications of these findings for the practice of risk assessment, including their support for the SAPROF’s admissibility, are discussed, and suggestions for future research on the SAPROF are offered.