LSI-RLevel of Service Inventory - Revised
References in periodicals archive ?
--The relationship between risk level (LSI-R score) and social support will be negative or inversely related.
--The relationship between risk level (LSI-R score) and coercion will be positive.
31, 2014, had 2,464 offenders on probation with the county being supervised at the maximum, medium and minimum classification levels based on scores from the LSI-R. (5) St.
Comparisons of the COMPAS and LSI-R scales were made by (1) correlating the continuous scale scores, and (2) examining the concordance in determining whether a problem exists.
The first set of analyses compared the test-retest reliability coefficients for the four comparable service domains in the COMPAS, LSI-R, and single-item questions.
We calculated the extent to which the single-item measures would identify the same high-need (i.e., sensitivity) and low (or no)-need (i.e., specificity) offenders identified by the COMPAS and LSI-R. Unlike other disciplines (e.g., medicine), where more objective measures can be used to establish the sensitivity and specificity levels of a test, needs assessment in a correctional population is less precise and more difficult to confirm.
The LSI-R is a widely recognized psychometric instrument rooted in the core principles of effective intervention--risk, need and responsivity (Andrews and Bonta, 1998; Kennedy, 1999).
Under this system, case management is considered to be prescriptive because it is based on the results of a standardized, objective risk and needs assessment--the LSI-R. The goal of prescriptive case management is to ensure appropriate linkages between the needs of individual offenders and the services and/or resources available.
The heart of this assessment battery is the LSI-R, with more specialized instruments used as an adjunct in a more detailed assessment of client criminogenic risk/need domains.
With the availability of data on a standardized risk/need instrument (i.e., LSI-R), it is possible to compare the scores of VOADV clients with normative data to shed light on the relative criminal "riskiness" of clients being served.
Yet, to date, there is still only limited research on such questions regarding the day-to-day use of the LSI-R in the field by staff (e.g., what staff think about the instrument, how they use it in assessing residents, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of the instrument).
Maung and Hammond (2000) conducted one of the only published studies to directly address how the LSI-R and several other instruments were perceived and used by the probation officers.