Gender Effects in Actuarial Risk Assessment: An Item Response Theory Psychometric Study of the LS/CMI

REFERENCES

• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Multi-Health Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Brook and Cole.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI): An offender assessment system. Multi-Health Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2007). The risk-need-responsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(4), 439–464. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.49.4.439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., Wormith, J. W., Guzzo, L., Brews, A., Rettinger, J., & Rowe, R. (2011). Sources of variability in estimates of predictive validity: A specification with level of service general risk and need. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(5), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811401990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, J., Coleman, D., Peyton, J., & Johnson, K. D. (2003). Reliability and validity study of the LSI-R risk assessment instrument. The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at The George Washington University.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, J. (2006). How much risk can we take? The misuse of risk assessment in corrections. Federal Probation, 70(2), 58–63.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
   Google Scholar
• Barabas, C., Virza, M., Dinakar, K., Ito, J., & Zittrain, J. (2018). Interventions over predictions: Reframing the ethical debate for actuarial risk assessment [Conference session] [Paper presentation]. Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency in Machine Learning Research, New York, NY, USA. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/barabas18a.html
   Google Scholar
• Bertrand, R., & Blais, J.-G. (2004). Modèles de mesure: L’apport de la théorie des réponses aux items [Measurement models: The contribution of item response theory]. Presses de L’Université du Québec.
   Google Scholar
• Blanchette, K. (2000). Effective correctional practice with women offenders. In Compendium 2000 on effective correctional programming. Correctional Services of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment female offenders–An integrative perspective. John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37(1, Pt. 1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291411
   Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Brouillette-Alarie, S., Babchishin, K. M., Hanson, R. K., & Helmus, L.-M. (2016). Latent constructs of the Static-99R and Static-2002R: A three-factor solution. Assessment, 23(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114568114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodsky, S. L., & Smitherman, H. O. (1983). Handbook of scales for research in crime and delinquency. Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, J. M., & Pattavina, A. (2006). Assessing the role of clinical and actuarial risk assessment in an evidence-based community corrections system: Issues to consider. Federal Probation, 70(2), 64–67.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, T. W., & DeClue, G. (2010). Flying blind with naked factors: Problems and pitfalls in adjusted-actuarial sex-offender risk assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 75–101.
   Google Scholar
• Caudy, M. S., Durso, J. M., & Taxman, F. S. (2013). How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(6), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girls’ crime and woman’s place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 35(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128789035001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Wright, J. P. (2007). Gender differences in the predictors of juvenile delinquency: Assessing the generality-specificity debate. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(3), 254–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204007301289
   Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S., & Yang, X. (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in education research (J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore, Eds.). Published for the American Educational Research Association by Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Focquaert, F. (2019). Neurobiology and crime: A neuro-ethical perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 65, 101533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Folsom, J., & Atkinson, J. L. (2007). The generalizability of the LSI-R and the cat to the prediction of recidivism in female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1044–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807300097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304
   Google Scholar
• Giguère, G., Bourassa, C. & Brouillette-Alarie, S. (2023). Effect of the differential item functioning (DIF) of LS/CMI items with convicted men and women. Journal of Experimental Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09559-9
   Google Scholar
• Giguère, G., & Lussier, P. (2016). Debunking the psychometric properties of the LS/CMI: An application of item response theory with a risk assessment instrument. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.05.005
   Google Scholar
• Giguère, G., Savard, D., & Cortoni, F. (2015). Une étude psychométrique des items du Level of Service\Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) avec la contribution de la théorie classique des tests chez les personnes contrevenantes du Québec. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57(3), 293–329. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2013.F06
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, H., Kelty, S. F., & Julian, R. (2015). Psychometric evaluation of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory among Australian offenders completing community-based sentences. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(11), 1089–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815596419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grove, W. M., & Lloyd, M. (2006). Meehl’s contribution to clinical versus statistical prediction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 192–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.192
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Kluwer-Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (2005). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00543.x
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., Robin, F., & Xing, D. (2000). Item response models for the analysis of educational and psychological test data. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 553–581). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50020-3
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, M. (2015). Risk-needs assessment: Constitutional and ethical challenges. The American Criminal Law Review, 52, 231–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah-Moffat, K. (2004). Gendering risk at what cost: Negotiations of gender and risk in Canadian women’s prisons. Feminism & Psychology, 14(2), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353504042178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah-Moffat, K. (2009). Gridlock or mutability: Reconsidering “gender” and risk assessment. Criminology and Public Policy, 8(1), 221–229.
   Google Scholar
• Hannah-Moffat, K. (2013). Actuarial sentencing: An “unsettled” proposition. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 270–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.682603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against prediction. Profiling, policing and punishing in an actuarial age. The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harcourt, B. E. (2011). Surveiller et punir à l’âge actuariel: Généalogie et critique. Déviance et Société, 35(2), 163–194. https://doi.org/10.3917/ds.352.0163
   Google Scholar
• Hardyman, P., & Van Voorhis, P. (2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., & Cormier, C. A. (2015). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (3rd ed.). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, G. E. (2007). Examining the original Grasmick Scale – A Rasch model approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806290071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holtfreter, K., & Cupp, R. (2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207309436
   Google Scholar
• Howard, P. D. (2017). The effect of sample heterogeneity and risk categorization on area under the curve predictive validity metrics. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816678899
   Google Scholar
• Jose, A., Olino, T. M., & O'Leary, K. D. (2012). Item response theory analysis of intimate-partner violence in a community sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(2), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laveault, D., & Grégoire, J. (2002). Introduction aux théories des tests en psychologie et en sciences de l’éducation (2nd ed.). De Boeck.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385480102800501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchak, S. M., Skeem, J. L., Douglas, K. S., & Siranosian, M. (2009). Does gender moderate the predictive utility of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(5), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809333058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makarios, M., & Latessa, E. J. (2013). Developing a risk and needs assessment instrument for prison inmates: The issue of outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(12), 1449–1471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813496240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markus, K. A., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Frontiers of test validity: Measurement, causation, and meaning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–104). American Council on Education and Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1995). Standards of Validity and the Validity of Standards in Performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00881.x
   Google Scholar
• Michie, C., & Cooke, D. J. (2006). The structure of violent behavior – A hierarchical model. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(6), 706–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806288941
   Google Scholar
• Morash, M. (2009). A great debate over using The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) with women offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00552.x
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, R. D., Kroner, D. G., Mills, J. F., Serna, C., & McDonald, B. (2013). Dynamic risk assessment: A validation study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, J. S. (2014). Thirty years of research on the level of service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osgood, D. W., McMorris, B. J., & Potenza, M. T. (2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance I: Item response theory scaling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016008004010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostermann, M., & Herrschaft, B. A. (2013). Validating the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: A gendered perspective. The Prison Journal, 93(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885513490278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostermann, M., & Salerno, L. M. (2016). The Validity of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised at the intersection of race and gender. The Prison Journal, 96(4), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516650878
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2007). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised with English women prisoners: A needs and reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 971–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807300819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piquero, A. R., MacIntosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.'s self-control scale. Criminology, 38(3), 897–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00910.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piquero, A. R., & Buka, S. L. (2002). Linking juvenile and adult patterns of criminal activity in the Providence cohort of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00128-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P., & Henson, J. M. (2003). A discussion of modern versus traditional psychometrics as applied to personality assessment scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8102_01
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600869152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rettinger, L. J., & Andrews, D. A. (2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809349438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salisbury, E. J., Van Voorhis, P., & Spiropoulos, G. V. (2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime & Delinquency, 55(4), 550–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharkness, J., & DeAngelo, L. (2011). Measuring student involvement: A comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in the construction of scales from student surveys. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), 480–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9202-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, J. P., Grann, M., & Fazel, S. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, P., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00551.x
   Google Scholar
• 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 & Offenders, 4(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612581
   Google Scholar
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweeten, G. (2012). Scaling criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(3), 533–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9160-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, K. N., & Blanchette, K. (2009). The women are not wrong: It is the approach that is debatable. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00548.x
   Google Scholar
• Urbaniok, F., Endrass, J., Rossegger, A., Noll, T., Gallo, W. T., & Angst, J. (2007). The prediction of criminal recidivism: The implication of sampling in prognostic models. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 257(3), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-006-0678-y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van der Knaap, L. M., Alberda, D. L., Oosterveld, P., & Born, M. P. (2012). The predictive validity of criminogenic needs for male and female offenders: Comparing the relative impact of needs in predicting recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E., Salisbury, S., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of gender responsive assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986209344797
   Google Scholar
• Walters, G., Hagman, B., & Cohn, A. (2011). Toward a hierarchical model of criminal thinking: Evidence from item response theory and confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 925–936. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanamaker, K. A., & Brown, S. L. (2022). Assessing dynamic risk and dynamic strength change patterns and the relationship to reoffending among women on community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211026706
   Google Scholar
• Ward, T. (2016). Dynamic risk factors: Scientific kinds or predictive constructs. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(1–2), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1109094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wingersky, M. S., & Lord, F. M. (1984). An investigation of methods for reducing sampling error in certain IRT procedures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168400800312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wormith, J. S. (2017). Automated offender risk assessment. The next generation or a Black Hole? Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12277
   Google Scholar
• Wormith, J. S., Olver, M. E., Stevenson, H. E., & Girard, L. (2007). The long-term prediction of offender recidivism using diagnostic, personality, and risk/need approaches to offender assessment. Psychological Services, 4(4), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/1541-1559.4.4.287
   Google Scholar
• Yang, M., Wong, S. C., & Coid, J. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 740–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. The American Psychologist, 70(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, J., & Liu, N. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the LSI-R with probationers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(13), 1474–1486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X14538396
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar