Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta‐analysis of the LSI‐R and recidivism for female offenders*

Research Summary Over the past two decades, researchers have been increasingly interested in measuring the risk of offender recidivism as a means of advancing public safety and of directing treatment interventions. In this context, one instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). Recently, however, the LSI-R has been criticized for being a male-specific assessment instrument that is a weak predictor of criminal behavior in females. Through the use of meta-analytic techniques, we assessed this assertion. A total of 27 effect sizes yielded an average r value of .35 ([confidence interval] CI = .34 to .36) for the relationship of the LSI-R with recidivism for female offenders (N= 14,737). When available, we also made within-sample comparisons based on gender. These comparisons produced effect sizes for males and females that were statistically similar. Policy Implications These results are consistent with those generated in previous research on the LSI-R. They call into question prevailing critiques that the LSI-R has predictive validity for male but not for female offenders. At this stage, it seems that corrections officials should be advised that the LSI-R remains an important instrument for assessing all offenders as a prelude to the delivery of treatment services, especially those based on the principles of effective intervention. Critics should be encouraged, however, to construct and validate through research additional gender-specific instruments that revise, if not rival, the LSI-R.

[1]  Ian Ayres,et al.  Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart , 2007 .

[2]  M. Tonry.  Thinking about Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture , 2004 .

[3]  C. Hollin,et al.  The Level of Service Inventory— Revised With English Women Prisoners , 2007 .

[4]  Brenda Vose.  Assessing the Predictive Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Recidivism Among Iowa Parolees and Probationers , 2008 .

[5]  M. J. Lynch.  Big Prisons, Big Dreams , 2007 .

[6]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders , 2001 .

[7]  Kristy Holtfreter,et al.  Assessing Recidivism Risk Across Female Pathways to Crime , 2006 .

[8]  J. Bonta,et al.  The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: a meta-analysis. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  M. Borenstein,et al.  Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments , 2006 .

[10]  James Bonta,et al.  Risk-needs assessment and treatment. , 1996 .

[11]  Michael D. Reisig,et al.  Social Capital Among Women Offenders , 2002 .

[12]  Kathleen Daly,et al.  Gender, crime, and punishment , 1994 .

[13]  P. Gendreau,et al.  Is the PCL-R Really the “Unparalleled” Measure of Offender Risk? , 2002 .

[14]  James R. P. Ogloff,et al.  Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach , 2004 .

[15]  Emily J. Salisbury,et al.  Achieving Accurate Pictures of Risk and Identifying Gender Responsive Needs: Two New Assessments for Women Offenders 1 , 2008 .

[16]  M. Hunt.  How Science Takes Stock: The Story of Meta-Analysis , 1997 .

[17]  J. Wright,et al.  Gender Differences in the Predictors of Juvenile Delinquency , 2007 .

[18]  G. Cumming,et al.  Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. , 2005, The American psychologist.

[19]  Christopher T. Lowenkamp,et al.  Validating the Level of Service Inventory—Revised and the Level of Service Inventory: Screening Version With a Sample of Probationers , 2009 .

[20]  R. Orwin.  A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. , 1983 .

[21]  Jonathan Simon,et al.  The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications , 1992 .

[22]  D. Mackenzie.  What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Deliquents , 2006 .

[23]  Meda Chesney‐Lind,et al.  Girls' Crime and Woman's Place: Toward a Feminist Model of Female Delinquency , 1989 .

[24]  P. Gendreau,et al.  Influencing the “People Who Count” , 2007 .

[25]  R. Rosenthal.  The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[26]  D. A. Andrews,et al.  The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment , 2006 .

[27]  J. Simon.  Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear , 2007 .

[28]  G. Hughes,et al.  The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose , 1983 .

[29]  P. Gendreau,et al.  A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICTORS OF ADULT OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: WHAT WORKS!* , 1996 .

[30]  Jean Folsom,et al.  The Generalizability of the LSI-R and the Cat To the Prediction of Recidivism in Female Offenders , 2007 .

[31]  Edward J. Latessa,et al.  CRACKS IN THE PENAL HARM MOVEMENT: EVIDENCE FROM THE FIELD* , 2008 .

[32]  Don A. Andrews,et al.  What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review , 1999 .

[33]  Paul Gendreau,et al.  The principles of effective intervention with offenders. , 1996 .

[34]  R. Paternoster,et al.  The Gender Gap in Theories of Deviance: Issues and Evidence , 1987 .

[35]  M. Gottschalk.  The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America , 2006 .

[36]  D. Hubbard.  COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT: AN ANALYSIS OF GENDER AND OTHER RESPONSIVITY CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON SUCCESS IN OFFENDER REHABILITATION , 2002 .

[37]  W. Grove,et al.  Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. , 2000, Psychological assessment.

[38]  J. Diiulio.  No Escape: The Future Of American Corrections , 1991 .

[39]  Phil A. Silva,et al.  Sex differences in antisocial behaviour , 2006 .

[40]  Christopher T. Lowenkamp,et al.  Risk/Need Assessment, Offender Classification, and the Role of Childhood Abuse , 2001 .

[41]  R. Simons,et al.  Contemporary Theories of Deviance and Female Delinquency: an Empirical Test , 1980 .

[42]  Kristy Holtfreter,et al.  Gender and Risk Assessment , 2007 .

[43]  R. Merton,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1975, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

[44]  Paul Gendreau,et al.  Predicting Prison Misconducts , 1997 .

[45]  Peter Raynor,et al.  Risk and need assessment in British probation: the contribution of LSI-R , 2007 .

[46]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Methods of Meta-Analysis , 1989 .

[47]  Kathleen Daly,et al.  Women's pathways to felony court: feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation , 1992 .

[48]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[49]  T. Pratt,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of Delinquency Among Girls , 2002 .

[50]  Emily J. Salisbury,et al.  Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs Assessment , 2010 .

[51]  Grant E. Coulson,et al.  Predictive Utility of the LSI for Incarcerated Female Offenders , 1996 .

[52]  Helen Miles,et al.  Evidence-based Probation in a Microstate , 2007 .

[53]  J. Diiulio,et al.  Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management. , 1987 .