The Development of a Recidivism Measure and its Application in Ontario

Gendreau, Paul; Centre, Rideau Correctional; Leipciger, Mary

doi:10.3138/cjcrim.20.1.3

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this outcome has typically not been replicated in studies conducted outside of Wisconsin (see Ashford & LeCroy, 1988). Additional measures used to assess recidivism include the U.S. Parole Commission's Salient Factor Score (Hoffman & Beck, 1974), Nuffield's.Recidivism Prediction Index (Wormith & Goldstone, 1984), and personality inventories such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Gendreau & Leipciger, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Walters¹,

Revella²,

Baltrusaitis³

1990

Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the ability of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF) to predict the community adjustment of 79 federal parolees/probationers. Negative outcome was operationalized as the presence of criminal or technical parole/probation violations. The LCSF was found to be superior to such traditional measures as age and offense category in predicting total violations (criminal and technical). Such an outcome supports the utility of the LCSF in forecasting the community adjustment of federal parolees and probationers.The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF; Walters, White, & Denney, in press) was constructed to assess career or lifestyle criminality. The lifestyle theory of anti-social conduct is based on Walters and White's (1989) study, which conceptualizes criminality as a lifestyle marked by irresponsibility, selfindulgence, interpersonal intrusiveness, and social rule breaking. The lifestyle offender is irresponsible regarding obligations at school, work, and home. Furthermore, this individual displays a propensity for self-indulgent activity, such as drug and alcohol abuse, frequent sexual promiscuity, repeated gambling, and the wearing of tattoos, and regularly encroaches on the rights and personal dignity of others. This individual also begins at an early age to habitually violate the rules, norms, and mores of society.The LCSF provides scores for each of Irresponsibility, Selfindulgence, Interpersonal Intrusiveness, and Social Rule Breaking behavioral domains plus a total score (ranging from 0 to 22) that is higher in persons who approach crime as a lifestyle. In validating the LCSF, Walters et al. (in press) determined that the total LCSF score accounted for 82% of the variance between samples of maximum and minimum security prison inmates, groups thought to contain high and low numbers of habitual or lifestyle offenders, respectively. The presumed advantage of the LCSF over existing measures is that it is theorybased, relatively easy to score, and does not rely heavily on information provided by the offenders themselves.The ability of offenders to refrain from future criminal activity has often been of interest to investigators. A survey of in-The opinions or assertions contained herein are our private views and should not be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Walters¹,

Revella²,

Baltrusaitis³

1990

Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two years after the inmate's release from the institution, RCMP Finger Print Service (FPS) records were obtained. From these national crime records reconviction, reincarceration (if any), and a score on the eight point Canadian Recidivism Outcome Index (Gendreau & Leipciger, 1978) were tabulated. The latter index has eight categories ranging from a score of 1 = reincarceration, carrying a sentence of 2 years or more, to 8 = no record of any illegal activities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the last decade there has been a marked increase in the practice of correctional psychology (Gendreau, in press;Gormally & Brodsky, 1973) and the amount of psychological research carried out in correctional settings (cf. Gendreau & Leipciger, 1978). In carrying out these activities psychologists have frequently focused on personality variables.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, one of the immediate demands facing behavioral scientists in corrections has been to document the relationship between personality assessment and recidivism (Gendreau & Leipciger, 1978). The few recidivism studies on the MMPI (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study inmates were followed up for a two-year period after release. Besides binary recidivism measures, a scale assessing the degree of recidivism was employed (Gendreau & Leipciger, 1978). Multiple regression and discriminant function analyses were used to provide an assessment of the predictive validity of the MMPI and selected scales.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Norms and recidivism rates for the MMPI and selected experimental scales on a Canadian delinquent sample.

Gendreau

Grant²,

Leipciger³

et al. 1979

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study provided norms and recidivism rates on the MMPI and selected experimental scales for a sample of young English-speaking offenders in the province of Ontario. Data gathered in the study confirmed a need for an updating of MMPI and selected experimental scale norms on correctional samples. Specific changes in delinquents' MMPI norms were noted and compared to norms gathered on psychiatric samples in Ontario. The adequacy of psychological tests, in particular the MMPI and the selected experimental scales, in predicting recidivism was discussed. At best, the scales in the present study were mediocre predictors of recidivism and the MMPI fared relatively poorly in comparison to some of the selected experimental scales.

show abstract

Personal space of incarcerated offenders

Wormith

1984

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Administered the proxemic test (Kinzel, 1970) and a psychometric test battery to 49 incarcerated offenders on two occasions. Offenders also were rated by staff on their interpersonal behavior, and a 3‐year follow‐up was undertaken to assess recidivism. Immediate test‐retest reliabilities were extremely high in all four directions (0.93 to 0.97), but lower over a 10‐week period (0.65 to 0.89). The Behind distance was largest on both occasions. There were no changes in the four distance measures over time. An algebraic for mula was devised to calculate Personal Space Area. Age was related inversely to offender's Personal Space (r = −0.32, p < 0.03). Personality measures, observation ratings, and follow‐up outcome data were related in consistently to Personal Space Area, although there was some indication that offenders with a large personal space were less empathic, less socialized, less accepting of others, received poor evaluations, and were more likely to recidivate. The utility of personal space in the assessment of offenders is discussed.

show abstract

The Development of a Recidivism Measure and its Application in Ontario

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Norms and recidivism rates for the MMPI and selected experimental scales on a Canadian delinquent sample.

Personal space of incarcerated offenders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About