Is a 7-Item Combination from the YLS/CMI an Effective Screening Strategy for Risk to Reoffend? Findings from a Cross-National Study

Abstract

Several brief screening measures for youth risk to reoffend have been developed; however, these measures have been tested primarily in high-income English-speaking countries and their predictive validity is limited. A recent study proposed a screening strategy using a combination of seven items from the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Predictive validity for this strategy was better than that reported in studies of previously developed screening tools. In the current study, the predictive validity of this strategy was examined across samples of justice-involved youth from two countries: Canada ( N = 196) and Portugal ( N = 2,348). The full version of the YLS/CMI was completed and recidivism data were collected over a 2-year period. Results support the predictive validity of this strategy, with area under the curve (AUC) values (.69–.74) very similar to those found in the full version in each country, both in the full samples, and for both genders.

Criminogenic Risk Assessment Beyond Juvenile Justice: Exploring the Predictive Ability of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in Norway

“…Importantly, effect sizes were moderate to large in predicting general offending behavior which is the main goal of the inventory. This suggests that the instrument performed equally well to comparable studies from juvenile justice populations in Europe (Basto-Pereira et al, 2021; Ortega-Campos et al, 2020; Rennie & Dolan, 2010) and similar studies conducted in social work settings (Chu et al, 2015; Vaswani & Merone, 2014). The inventory also demonstrated predictive capacity for violent behavior, although with lower effect sizes as observed in prior meta-analyses (Olver et al, 2009, 2014).…”

“…The inventory has endured rigorous empirical scrutiny, yielding evidence of its efficacy in predicting general and violent recidivism (Olver et al, 2009; Pusch & Holtfreter, 2018). Several studies have cemented the YLS/CMI standing as a valid predictor of future offending in various countries, such as Canada (Scott et al, 2019; Valerie et al, 2016), Portugal (Basto-Pereira et al, 2021), Spain (Ortega-Campos et al, 2020), Australia (McGrath et al, 2018; Thompson & McGrath, 2012), England (Rennie & Dolan, 2010), Scotland (Vaswani & Merone, 2014), Japan (Takahashi et al, 2013) and Singapore (Chu et al, 2015). However, classification rates reported in this studies exhibit noteworthy disparities across countries (area under the curves [AUCs] ranging from .57 to .76), and in specific subsets of small samples of females, the YLS/CMI have even encountered challenges in demonstrating statistically significant discriminatory power (Basto-Pereira et al, 2021; Shepherd et al, 2014).…”

“…Several studies have cemented the YLS/CMI standing as a valid predictor of future offending in various countries, such as Canada (Scott et al, 2019; Valerie et al, 2016), Portugal (Basto-Pereira et al, 2021), Spain (Ortega-Campos et al, 2020), Australia (McGrath et al, 2018; Thompson & McGrath, 2012), England (Rennie & Dolan, 2010), Scotland (Vaswani & Merone, 2014), Japan (Takahashi et al, 2013) and Singapore (Chu et al, 2015). However, classification rates reported in this studies exhibit noteworthy disparities across countries (area under the curves [AUCs] ranging from .57 to .76), and in specific subsets of small samples of females, the YLS/CMI have even encountered challenges in demonstrating statistically significant discriminatory power (Basto-Pereira et al, 2021; Shepherd et al, 2014). Further complexity emerges from findings that highlight subgroup variances concerning ethnic minorities (Gomis-Pomares et al, 2022; Perrault et al, 2017; Shepherd et al, 2015; Thompson & McGrath, 2012; Villanueva et al, 2019).…”

The Prediction of Youth Recidivism in a Spanish Roma Population by the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI)

“…That is, these modifications may lower the predictive validity for this specific group, or on the contrary may increase it while decreasing the accuracy for subgroups within this cultural group (e.g., Roma females). Another possible solution may be using a particularly predictive combination of items valid across minority and even gender and even culture (Basto-Pereira et al, 2021; Villanueva et al, 2020).…”