The clients who stand to benefit the most from treatment (i.e., high-risk, high-needs) are the least likely to complete it. Offender treatment attrition can be managed and clients can be retained through an awareness of, and attention to, key predictors of attrition and adherence to responsivity considerations.
We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of the Level of Service (LS) scales, their predictive accuracy and group-based differences in risk/need, across 128 studies comprising 151 independent samples and a total of 137,931 offenders. Important potential moderators were examined including ethnicity, gender, LS scale variant, geographic region, and type of recidivism used to measure outcome. Results supported the predictive accuracy of the LS scales and their criminogenic need domains for general and violent recidivism overall, and among broad subgroups of interest, including females and ethnic minorities. Although results indicated that gender and ethnicity were not substantive sources of effect size variability, significant differences in effect size magnitude were found when analyses were conducted by geographic region. Canadian samples consistently demonstrated the largest effect sizes, followed by studies conducted outside North America, and then studies conducted in the United States. This pattern was observed irrespective of gender, ethnicity, LS domain, LS variant, or type of recidivism outcome, suggesting geographic region may be an important source of effect size variation. We discuss possible factors underlying this pattern of results and identify areas for future research.
The current investigation is a meta-analysis of the predictive accuracy of three well-known forensic instruments used to appraise risk with young offenders: youth adaptations of the Level of Service Inventory and Psychopathy Checklist and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth. Through several avenues, 49 potentially suitable published and unpublished studies (across 44 samples representing 8,746 youth) were identified and evaluated for inclusion. Predictive accuracy for general, nonviolent, violent, and sexual recidivism was examined for the three sets of measures. Mean weighted correlations for each of the three measures were significant in the prediction of general, nonviolent, and violent recidivism, with no single instrument demonstrating superior prediction. Separate analyses of specific young offender groups further supported the predictive accuracy of youth adaptations of the Level of Service Inventory among male, female, Aboriginal, and non-Aboriginal youth. Implications regarding the utility of young offender risk measures for enhancing clinical service provision with youth clientele are discussed.
The present investigation examined the predictive accuracy of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) for youth and adult recidivism in a Canadian sample of 167 youths (93 males, 74 females) charged with serious offenses who received psychological services from a community mental health outpatient clinic. Youths were followed for an average of 7 years in the community, and predictive accuracy was examined for several recidivism outcomes as a function of gender, ethnicity, and developmental age group. YLS/CMI total scores significantly predicted all recidivism categories in the overall sample (area under the curve values ranged from 0.66 to 0.77) although the instrument as a whole, and its criminogenic needs, demonstrated somewhat stronger and more consistent predictive accuracy for youth outcomes. The YLS/CMI also demonstrated significant predictive accuracy within demographic subgroups. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of the use of risk-need assessment tools in providing clinical assessment, treatment, and case management services to diverse young offender groups.
The present study investigated the predictive accuracy of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV; A. E. Forth, D. S. Kosson, & R. D. Hare, 2003) for youth and adult recidivism, with respect to gender, ethnicity, and age, in a sample of 161 Canadian young offenders who received psychological services from an outpatient mental health facility. The PCL: YV significantly predicted any general, nonviolent, and violent recidivism in the aggregate sample over a 7-year follow-up; however, when results were disaggregated by youth and adult outcomes, the PCL: YV consistently appeared to be a stronger predictor of youth recidivism. The PCL: YV predicted youth recidivism for subsamples of female and Aboriginal youths, and very few differences in the predictive accuracy of the tool were observed for younger vs. older adolescent groups. Both the 13-item (i.e., D. J. Cooke & C. Michie, 2001, 3-factor) and the 20-item (i.e., R. D. Hare, 2003, 4-factor) models appeared to predict various recidivism criteria comparably across the aggregate sample and within specific demographic subgroups (e.g., female and Aboriginal youth). The Antisocial facet contributed the most variance in the prediction of adult outcomes, whereas the 3-factor model contributed significant incremental variance in the prediction of youth recidivism outcomes. Potential implications concerning the use of the PCL: YV in clinical and forensic assessment contexts are discussed.
A group of 12 authors (GA) shared a statement of concern (SoC) warning against the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) to assess risk for serious institutional violence in US capital sentencing cases (DeMatteo et al., 2020). Notably, the SoC was not confined to capital sentencing issues, but included institutional violence in general. Central to the arguments presented in the SoC was that the PCL-R has poor predictive validity for institutional violence and also inadequate field reliability. The GA also identified important issues about the fallibility and inappropriate use of any clinical/forensic assessments, questionable evaluator qualifications, and their effects on capital sentencing decisions. However, as a group of forensic academics, researchers, and clinicians, we are concerned that the PCL-R represents a psycholegal red herring, while the SoC did not address critical legislative, systemic, and evaluator/rating issues that affect all risk assessment tools. We contend that the SoC's literature review was selective and that the resultant opinions about potential uses and misuses of the PCL-R were ultimately misleading. We focus our response on the evidence and conclusions proffered by the GA concerning the use of the PCL-R in capital and other cases. We provide new empirical findings regarding the PCL-R's predictive validity and field reliability to further demonstrate its relevance for institutional violence risk assessment and management. We further demonstrate why the argument that group data cannot be relevant for single-case assessments is erroneous. Recommendations to support the ethical and appropriate use of the PCL-R for risk assessment are provided.
The Violence Risk Scale–Youth Version (VRS-YV; S. Wong, Lewis, Stockdale, & Gordon, 2004-2011) is a risk assessment and treatment planning tool for youths designed to assess violence risk, identify dynamic risk factors or treatment targets, and evaluate changes in risk from treatment or other change agents. We examined the psychometric properties of the VRS-YV on a diverse sample of 147 young offenders. The tool demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .90) and interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .90). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified three factors: Interpersonal Aggression, Antisocial Tendencies, and Family Problems. VRS-YV static, dynamic, and total scores significantly predicted violent and general recidivism, including youth and adult outcomes, with moderate to high accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = .65-.77); however, results varied among ethnic/cultural, gender, and developmental subgroups. The VRS-YV also demonstrated strong convergent validity with two well-established youth forensic assessment tools. Clinical implications of these findings and future research directions are discussed in this article.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.