The Importance of Reassessment: How Changes in the LSI-R Risk Score Can Improve the Prediction of Recidivism

Labrecque, Ryan M.; Smith, Paula; Lovins, Brian; Latessa, Edward J.

doi:10.1080/10509674.2013.868389

Cited by 64 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(), as well as the Labreque et al. () study, is 9 months, whereas the length of time between assessments in the Vose et al. () study is roughly 12 months.…”

Section: Next Steps For Researchmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk Assessment and Reassessment

Vose

2016

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(), as well as the Labreque et al. () study, is 9 months, whereas the length of time between assessments in the Vose et al. () study is roughly 12 months.…”

Section: Next Steps For Researchmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…(), and Labrecque et al. () also administered the LSI‐R, but they used samples of state‐level offenders in the United States. Rather than using the LSI‐R, Cohen et al.…”

Section: Affirming and Advancing The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Assessment and Reassessment

Vose

2016

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In contrast, a number of studies with adult samples have found changes in risk total scores to predict reoffending (Beggs & Grace, 2011;Blanchard, 2013;Cohen, Lowenkamp, & VanBenschoten, 2016;de Vries Robbé et al, 2015;Hogan & Olver, 2016;Labrecque, Smith, Lovins, & Latessa, 2014;Lewis, Olver, & Wong, 2013;Michel et al, 2013;Olver, Christofferson, Grace, & Wong, 2014;Olver, Nicholaichuk, Kingston, & Wong, 2014;Olver et al, 2007;Raynor, 2007;Vose, Smith, & Cullen, 2013;Wilson, Desmarais, Nicholls, Hart, & Brink, 2013), particularly after other variables are controlled for in analyses (e.g., baseline scores; see Appendix 3,Supplemental Material). That said, a couple of studies have failed to find significant associations between change scores and reoffending (Hanson, Harris, Scott, & Helmus, 2007;Hanson, 2015;Goodman-Delahunty & O'Brien, 2014).…”

Section: Dynamic Change Hypothesis: Changes In Risk Will Predict Reofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does reassessment of risk improve predictions? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.

Viljoen

Gray

Shaffer

et al. 2017

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents' risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, the authors tested 3 hypotheses as to why reassessment might improve predictions, namely the shelf-life, dynamic change, and familiarity hypotheses. Research assistants (RAs) rated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) every 3 months over a 1-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. The authors then examined charges for violence and any offense over a 2-year follow-up period, and youths' self-reports of reoffending. Contrary to the shelf-life hypothesis, predictions did not decline or expire over time. Instead, time-dependent area under the curve scores remained consistent across the follow-up period. Contrary to the dynamic change hypothesis, changes in youth's risk total scores, compared to what is average for that youth, did not predict changes in reoffending. Finally, contrary to the familiarity hypothesis, reassessments were no more predictive than initial assessments, despite RAs' increased familiarity with youth. Before drawing conclusions, researchers should evaluate the extent to which youth receiving the usual probation services show meaningful short-term changes in risk and, if so, whether risk assessment tools are sensitive to these changes. Public Significance StatementIn this study, two adolescent risk assessment tools predicted reoffending among adolescent offenders. However, despite recommendations to reassess risk regularly, short-term reassessments did not improve predictions, suggesting a need for further research.

show abstract

“…Andrews and Bonta (2010) place attitudes and beliefs as one of the "big four" correlates for crime. The relationship between criminal attitudes and recidivism, and the efficacy of treatment targeting this criminogenic need, has been thus subject to much empirical analysis in the corrections field (Andrews and Bonta 2010;Downden and Andrews 2000;Gendreau, Little, and Goggin 1996;Labrecque et al 2014;Smith, Gendreau, and Swartz 2009;Van Vugt et al 2011). …”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%