The Importance of Reassessment: How Changes in the LSI-R Risk Score Can Improve the Prediction of Recidivism

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 116-128

  Labrecque, Ryan M ^a   Smith, Paula ^a   Lovins, Brian K ^a   Latessa, Edward J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

correctional classification; Level of Service Inventory Revised; LSI R; risk prediction; risk needs assessments

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897669929     PISSN: 10509674     EISSN: 15408558     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10509674.2013.868389     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Andrews, D. A. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending-guidelines from research and practice, (pp. 35 - 62). New York, NY: John Wiley.
2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
3. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. (ed.), 5th: Cincinnati, OH.
4. 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 (1), 88 - 100.
5. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17 (1), 19 - 52.
6. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
7. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28 (3), 369 - 404.
8. Baird, C. (2009). A question of the evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in the justice system. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
9. Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29 (4), 355 - 379.
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 implementation integrity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 523 - 529.
11. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply, (pp. 117 - 130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Law, M. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24 (4), 414 - 431.
13. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the "unparalleled" measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 397-426.
14. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34 (4), 575 - 607.
15. Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2003). Level of Service Inventory-Revised profiles of violent and nonviolent prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18 (9), 1075 - 1086.
16. Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2006). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised profile of English prisoners: Risk and reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33 (3), 347 - 366.
17. Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, B. K. (2010). The role of offender risk assessment: A policy maker guide. Victims and Offender, 5 (3), 203 - 219.
18. Lowenkamp, C. T., & Bechtel, K. (2007). The predictive validity of the LSI-R on a sample of offenders drawn from the records of the Iowa department of corrections data management system. Federal Probation, 71 (3), 25 - 29.
19. Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1), 77 - 93.
20. McGuire, J. (2013). "What works" to reduce re-offending: 18 years on. In L. A. Craig, L. Dixon, & T. A. Gannon (Eds.), What works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence-based approach to assessment and treatment, (pp. 20 - 49). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
21. Raynor, P. (2007). Risk and need assessment in British probation: The contribution of the LSI-R. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 13, 125 - 138.
22. Schlager, M., & Simourd, D. (2007). Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) among African American and Hispanic male offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34 (4), 545 - 554.
23. Smith, P., Cullen, F., & Latessa, E. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 8 (1), 183 - 208.
24. Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4 (2), 148 - 169.
25. Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2011). Women's risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37 (3), 261 - 288.
26. Vose, B., Cullen, F. T., & Smith, P. (2008). The empirical status of the Level of Service Inventory. Federal Probation, 72 (3), 22 - 29.
27. Vose, B., Lowenkamp, C. T., Smith, P., & Cullen, F. T. (2009). Gender and the predictive validity of the LSI-R: A study of parolees and probationers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25 (4), 459 - 471.