Validating the Level of Service Inventory—Revised and the Level of Service Inventory: Screening Version With a Sample of Probationers

The Prison Journal

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 192-204

  Lowenkamp, Christopher T ^a   Lovins, Brian ^a   Latessa, Edward J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

LSI:SV; offender management; risk assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 65749099178     PISSN: 00328855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0032885509334755     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Supervision Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
2. Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1998). Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Screening Version. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
3. Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
4. Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
5. Andrews, D.A., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
6. Bonta, J. (1996). Risk/needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Hartland (ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Coulson, G. (1993). Using the Level of Supervision Inventory in placing female offenders in rehabilitation programs or halfway houses. IARCA Journal, 5 (4), 12-13.
8. Cullen, F., & Gilbert, K. (1986). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
9. Daffern, M., Ogloff, J., Ferguson, M., & Thomson, L. (2005). Assessing risk for aggression in a forensic psychiatric hospital using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Screening Version. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 4, 201-206.
10. Flores, A.W., Lowenkamp, C.T., Holsinger, A.M., & Latessa, E.J. (2006). Predicting outcome with the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: The importance of quality assurance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 523-529.
11. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principle of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Gendreau, P., French, S., and Gionet, A. (2004). What works (what doesn't work): The principles of effective correctional treatment. Journal of Community Corrections, 13, 4-30.
13. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
14. Gordon, A., & Nicholaichuk, T. (1996). Applying the risk principle to sex offender treatment. Forum on Correctional Research, Correctional Service of Canada, 8 (6), 30.
15. Holsinger, A.M., Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised with Native American offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 331-337.
16. Hubbard, J.D., Travis, L.F., & Latessa, E.J. (2001). Case classification in community corrections: A national survey of the state of the art. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
17. Justice Policy Institute. (2000). The punishing decade: Prison and jail estimates at the millennium. Washington, DC: Author.
18. Lowenkamp, C.T. (2004). Correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness: A multi-site, program-level analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH.
19. Lowencamp, C.T., Holsinger, A.M., & Latessa, E.J. (2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28 (5), 543-563.
20. Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 263-290.
21. Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2006). The role of offender risk assessment tools and how to select them. For the Record, 4th Quarter, 18-20.
22. Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Holsinger, A.M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77-93.
23. Packer, H. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Federal offenders: Trends in community supervision (GGD-97-110). Washington, DC: Author.