!

Risk!Assessment!Instruments!Validated!and!Implemented!in!Correctional!Settings!in!the!United!
States:!!!
An!Empirical!Guide!!
!
An#executive#summary#drawn#from#Sarah#L.#Desmarais#and#Jay#P.#Singh,#Instruments#for#
Assessing#Recidivism#Risk:#A#Review#of#Validation#Studies#Conducted#in#the#U.S.#(New!York:#
Council!of!State!Governments!Justice!Center,!2013).!
INTRODUCTION!
!
The!rates!of!crime,!incarceration,!and!correctional!supervision!are!disproportionately!
high!in!the!U.S.!and!translate!into!exorbitant!costs!to!individuals,!the!public,!and!the!state.!
Within!three!years!of!release!from!jail!or!prison,!twoSthirds!of!offenders!are!rearrested!and!half!
are!incarcerated!for!a!new!crime!or!parole!violation.1!Though!many!offenders!recidivate,!a!
considerable!proportion!do!not.!Thus,!there!is!a!need!to!identify!those!offenders!at!greater!risk!
of!recidivism!and!to!allocate!resources!and!target!risk!management!and!rehabilitation!efforts!
accordingly.!Risk!assessment,!a!crucial!component!to!implementing!evidenceSbased!recidivism!
reduction!strategies,!is!the!process!of!estimating!the!likelihood!an!offender!will!recidivate!by!
identifying!those!offenders!at!higher!risk!and!in!greater!need!of!interventions.!Assessment!
results,!based!on!ratings!of!empirically!or!theoretically!based!risk!and/or!protective!factors,!can!
be!used!to!determine!intervention!targets,!appropriate!programming!level!and!intensity,!and!
supervision!level.!There!is!overwhelming!evidence!to!suggest!that!assessments!of!risk!
completed!using!structured!approaches!produce!estimates!that!are!both!more!accurate!and!
more!consistent!across!assessors!compared!to!subjective!or!unstructured!approaches.2!More!
and!more,!structured!risk!assessment!approaches!are!being!used!in!correctional!agencies.3!
!
The!nearly!100Syear!history!of!risk!assessment!instrument!development!has!been!
documented!on!several!occasions.4!The!focus!and!structure!of!risk!assessment!tools!have!
shifted!significantly!over!time.!Studies!have!identified!the!important!evolution!of!risk!
assessment!and!predictability!of!criminal!behavior,*!from!Burgess’!(1928)5!seminal!work!on!the!
application!of!a!systemized!prediction!methodology!through!the!progression!of!the!four!distinct!
generations!summarized!below.!!
!
!
The!first!generation!of!risk!assessment!is!best!described!as!unstructured!professional!
judgment,!in!which!the!assessor!relies!on!his!or!her!professional!training!and!information!
gathered!from!the!incarcerated!individual,!official!records,!or!other!sources!to!inform!his!or!her!
evaluation!of!risk!for!recidivism.!It!is!“unstructured”!insofar!as!there!is!no!set!checklist!or!
protocol!for!completing!the!risk!assessment,!though!assessors!may!indeed!complete!structured!
interviews!during!the!risk!assessment!process.!This!method!of!assessment!was!widely!accepted!
for!decades!prior!to!the!development!of!structured!risk!assessment!tools!in!the!1970s.!Today,!it!
is!less!frequently!used!but!nonetheless!remains!a!prominent!risk!assessment!strategy!despite!
evidence!that!unstructured!assessments!are!not!particularly!accurate.!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*

Often defined in terms of reoffending.

1!|!P a g e !
!

!

#
!
Following!decades!of!research!focused!on!identifying!factors!that!increase!risk!of!
recidivism,!second!generation!tools!represent!a!drastic!advance!in!risk!assessment!technology.!
Second!generation!tools!are!actuarial!in!nature!and!evaluate!primarily!historical!and!static!
factors!(e.g.,!sex,!age,!and!criminal!history).!Rather!than!subjective!judgments!of!recidivism!risk,!
instruments!such!as!the!Salient!Factor!Score!(SFS)!and!Violent!Risk!Appraisal!Guide!(VRAG)!
instead!guide!assessors!to!consider!a!set!list!of!risk!factors!to!arrive!at!a!numerical!risk!of!
recidivism.!!
#
!
The!third!generation!of!risk!assessment!is!characterized!by!the!development!of!tools!
that!include!dynamic!factors!and!criminogenic!needs,!and!may!use!an!actuarial!or!structured!
professional!judgment!approach.!Third!generation!tools,!such!as!the!Level!of!Service!InventoryS
Revised!(LSISR),!the!SelfSAppraisal!Questionnaire!(SAQ),!and!the!HistoricalSClinicalSRisk!
ManagementS20!(HCRS20),!still!guide!assessors!to!consider!static!factors;!however,!by!including!
potentially!dynamic!items,!such!as!attitude!and!substance!use,!they!may!be!sensitive!to!change!
in!risk!levels!over!time!and!can!assist!in!identification!of!treatment!targets.!These!tools!are!
sometimes!referred!to!as!“riskSneed”!instruments!and,!unlike!secondSgeneration!assessments,!
tend!to!be!theoretically!and!empirically!based!as!opposed!to!wholly!dataSdriven.!!!
#
!
Most!recently,!fourth!generation!risk!assessments!explicitly!integrate!case!planning!and!
risk!management!into!the!assessment!process.!As!such,!the!primary!goal!of!the!fourth!
generation!extends!beyond!assessing!risk!and!focuses!on!enhancing!treatment!and!supervision.!
Examples!of!fourth!generation!tools!include!the!Correctional!Offender!Management!Profiling!
for!Alternative!Sanctions!(COMPAS),!Ohio!Risk!Assessment!System!(ORAS),!and!Wisconsin!Risk!
and!Needs!Tool!(WRN).!Like!the!third!generation,!this!generation!of!risk!assessment!
instruments!allows!for!the!role!of!professional!judgment!while!remaining!grounded!in!research!
and!theory.!!
!
This!history!and!scientific!research!supports!a!greater!use!of!risk!assessment!tools!within!
a!variety!of!clinical,!law!enforcement,!judicial,!and!correctional!contexts.!Though!variability!
exists!in!performance!across!instruments!and!assessment!procedures,!the!tools!perform!a!
critical!role!in!helping!to!manage!public!safety.!These!tools!are!designed!to!implicitly!ground!
and!offer!support!to!sound!and!empirically!based!decision!making,!service,!and!supervision!
through!multiple!phases!in!the!criminal!justice!system:!intake,!preSrelease,!release/community!
supervision,!and!case!closure.!!
The!increasing!use!of!risk!assessment!instruments!to!guide!decision!making!not!only!
reflects!the!national,!state,!and!local!leadership!advocacy!on!reentry!and!recidivism!reduction!
but!the!commitment!to!legislative!action!and!statutory!changes.!Growing!community!support!
and!media!attention!has!similarly!demanded!the!adoption!of!these!tools.!For!example,!the!
Bureau!of!Justice!Assistance,!a!component!of!the!Office!of!Justice!Programs,!U.S.!Department!of!
Justice,!which!provides!leadership!and!services!in!grant!administration!and!criminal!justice!
2!|!P a g e !
!

!

policy!development!to!support!local,!state,!and!tribal!justice!strategies!to!achieve!safer!
communities,!has!strongly!encouraged!agencies!responding!to!funding!solicitations!to!adhere!
to!the!principles!of!effective!correctional!intervention,!including!the!use!of!risk!assessment!
instruments.!Through!extensive!research,!the!current!work!identified!no!fewer!than!66!risk!
assessment!tools.!While!not!comprehensive!of!the!field!or!marketplace,!this!research!has!
identified!19*!standardized!criminal!justice—specific!instruments!in!broad!use!to!assess!the!risk!
of!general!offending!and!47!instruments!designed!for!jurisdictionSspecific!implementation.!!!
Similar!to!other!disciplines!and!fields!of!analysis,!the!work!and!practitioners!of!risk!
assessment!in!criminal!justice!settings!are!highly!dispersed!and!often!highly!specialized.!The!
development!of!distinct!risk!instruments!demonstrates!the!diversity!of!users!as!well!as!the!
distinct!practices!of!each!state!and!local!government,!as!they!relate!to!crimeSreduction!laws,!
statutes,!and!strategies.!Risk!assessment!instruments!share!several!key!commonalties!that!
represent!the!foundation!of!evidenceSbased!practices!and!principles!to!improve!public!safety.!
With!that!in!mind,!the!goal!of!this!guide!is!to!provide!a!framework!to!help!criminal!
justice!and!social!service!agencies,!practitioners,!and!policymakers!evaluate!these!tools.!It!
outlines!the!components!and!parameters!of!risk!assessment!tools!validated!and!implemented!
in!correctional!settings!in!the!U.S.!Additionally,!this!guide!provides!a!review!of!and!catalogs!the!
available!knowledge!regarding!the!accuracy!and!predictive!validity!of!the!risk!assessment!
instruments!for!adult!offenders.!Furthermore,!the!guide!presents!recommendations!of!the!
steps!that!might!be!taken!to!improve!public!safety!outcomes!associated!with!the!
implementation!of!criminal!justice!risk!assessment!tools.!!
Throughout!the!U.S.,!policymakers,!practitioners,!researchers,!and!government!officials!
rely!heavily!on!risk!assessment!tools!to!focus!criminal!justice!best!practices,!direct!resources,!
and!support!recidivism!reduction!strategies.!It!is!clear!that!as!“laboratories!of!innovation,”!
states!and!local!jurisdictions!have!helped!to!spearhead!and!facilitate!riskSinstrument!
development!and!implementation.!Moreover,!the!federal!government—notably,!the!
Department!of!Justice—has!spurred!riskSinstrument!adoption!as!a!best!practice!and!priority!for!
state!reentry!plans!and!recidivismSreduction!efforts.!The!synergy!of!government!and!
correctional!leadership!and!commitment!reflects!a!principle!articulated!by!President!Johnson’s!
Crime!Commission:!“the!greatest!need”!in!criminal!justice!“is!the!need!to!know.”!!!
!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*

!Criteria for instruments to be included in the review were: a) designed to assess the likelihood of general recidivism (i.e., new offenses and
violation of conditions); b) intended for assessing adult offenders (18 years of age and older); c) used in correctional settings in the United States;
and d) validated in the United States. Instruments were excluded from our review if they: a) were designed to assess the likelihood of adverse
outcomes for specific offenses (e.g., sexual offenses, violent offenses, spousal assault); b) were intended for assessing juvenile offenders (less
than 18 years of age); c) were not used in correctional settings in the United States; d) had not been validated in the United States.; or e) were
developed for use in a specific institution or ward.

3!|!P a g e !
!

!

I.

RELIABLE!PREDICTIONS:!DO!THE!INSTRUMENTS!WORK?!
!
THE!IMPACT!ON!RESOURCES!AND!RELATION!TO!OFFENDER!RISK,!NEED,!AND!
RESPONSIVITY!(RNR)!
Policymakers’!need#to#know#and!the!subsequent!strategies!for!public!safety!and!
recidivism!reduction!might!begin!with!a!simple!question:!Do!risk!assessment!instruments!
reliably!predict!recidivism?!
The!short!answer,!according!to!years!and!volumes!of!research,!is!resoundingly:!yes.6!But!
we!must!be!mindful!of!what!saying!yes!may!mean.!Adoption!of!a!risk!assessment!tool!goes!
handSinShand!with!fundamentally!altering!approaches!to!reentry!and!correctional!
management,!supervision,!services,!and!more!broadly!criminal!justice!practice.!Ultimately,!the!
process!of!implementing!risk!assessments!within!an!agency!should!consist!of!more!than!simply!
adding!a!tool!to!the!agency!portfolio;!it!should!result!in!a!shift!of!corrections!culture,!practices,!
and!policies.!!
The!resourceSallocation!practices!of!criminal!justice!agencies!have!not!significantly!
changed,!despite!the!fact!that!nearly!twoSthirds!of!offenders!recidivate!following!release.7!
Prison!and!community!programs!remain!equally!distributed!across!populations!in!jails,!in!
prisons,!or!under!community!supervision,!despite!risk!level.!Officials!historically!prioritize!
services!and!treatment!for!people!who!demonstrate!a!willingness!and!initiative!to!participate!in!
services.!Purposeful!or!not,!correctional!personnel!and!institutions!tend!to!perpetuate!an!
ineffective!oneSsizeSfitsSall!approach!to!offender!management!and!rehabilitation.!!
Research!across!jurisdictions!and!settings!indicates!the!need!for!a!different!model,!
grounded!in!the!effective!use!of!risk!assessment!tools.!In!fact,!multiple!studies!show!that!
prioritizing!resources!for!individuals!with!a!greater!likelihood!of!recidivating!is!key!to!improved!
outcomes.!Specifically,!focusing!resources!on!individuals!with!higher!risks!and!needs!can!lead!to!
a!significant!reduction!in!recidivism,!while!conversely,!intensive!interventions!for!lowSrisk!
individuals!has!been!shown!to!be!an!ineffective!use!of!resources.!Furthermore,!exposure!of!
programs!to!lowSrisk!offenders!may!actually!make!matters!worse!and!result!in!harm!by!
increasing!association!with!higherSrisk!offenders!and!disrupting!relationships!with!proSsocial!
supports!and!structures.8!!
With!studies9!indicating!the!need!to!target!and!provide!intensive!services!to!higherSrisk!
offenders!as!a!smart,!costSeffective!public!safety!strategy,!decision!makers!face!the!challenge!of!
redirecting!limited!public!correctional!resources!to!the!right!offenders.!The!shift!in!fiscal!
reallocation,!though!not!necessarily!viewed!favorably!by!individuals/constituents!without!

4!|!P a g e !
!

!

theoretical!knowledge!or!perspective,!is!critical.!Reducing!the!present!scale!and!scope!of!
correctional!costs!has!become!an!unavoidable!necessity!at!all!of!levels!of!government.!!
Indeed,!it!is!estimated!that!in!2007,!$74!billion!was!spent!on!corrections!in!the!U.S.10!
When!both!direct!and!indirect!costs!are!considered,!estimates!of!annual!costs!have!reached!as!
high!as!$1.7!trillion.11!According!to!state!and!federal!data,!corrections!spending!has!outpaced!
budget!growth!in!education,!transportation,!and!public!assistance,!with!Medicaid!costs!rising!
more!quickly!than!state!corrections!spending.12!To!address!these!increasing!costs!and!
associated!deficits,!criminal!justice!leaders!and!agencies!have!gradually!adopted!the!RiskSNeedS
Responsivity!(RNR)!model!of!offender!assessment!and!rehabilitation.13!!!The!RNR!model!has!
increased!efficacy!in!reducing!recidivism!and!subsequently!reduced!taxpayer!costs!for!prisons,!
jails,!and!unnecessary!programs.14!!!
The!RNR!model!includes!three!principles:!risk,!need,!and!responsivity.!!
•
•

•

Risk#Principle:!Focus!supervision!and!services!on!the!people!most!likely!to!reoffend.!!
Need#Principle:!Address!an!individual’s!greatest!criminogenic!needs,!defined!as!
factors!that!contribute!to!risk!but!can!change!over!time!(e.g.,!social!networks,!
thinking!patterns,!housing,!substance!use,!finances,!etc.).!!!!
Responsivity#Principle:!Adapt!interactions!and!services!so!that!they!enhance!an!
individual’s!ability!to!learn!and!acquire!new!attitudes!and!skills.!

To!most!effectively!implement!the!RNR!model!with!fidelity,!systems/organizations!must!
have!access!to!valid!and!reliable!assessments!of!recidivism!risk.!There!are!several!specific!issues!
and!critical!factors!related!to!risk!assessments!that!will!be!detailed!in!Section!II:!Risk!
Assessment!Instruments.!
!

!

5!|!P a g e !
!

!!

!

Chart A: A COLLECTION OF RISK
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS IN USE
Community Risk/Needs Management Scale
(CRNMS)
Correctional Assessment and Intervention
System (CAIS)
Correctional Offender Management Profile for
Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS)
Dynamic Factors Intake Assessment (DFIA)
Inventory of Offender Risks, Needs, and
Strengths (IORNS)
Level of Service instruments, including Level of
Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI),
Level of Service/Risk Need, Responsively
(LS/RNR),Level of Service Inventory (LSI),
Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), and
Level of Service Inventory-Revised: Screening
Version (LSI-R:SV)
Offender Assessment System (OASys)
Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS)
Ohio Risk Assessment System, including the
Ohio Risk Assessment System-Pretrial
Assessment Tool (ORAS-PAT), Ohio Risk
Assessment System-Community Supervision
Tool (ORAS-CST), Ohio Risk Assessment
System-Community Supervision Screening
Tool (ORAS- CSST), Ohio Risk Assessment
System-Prison Intake Tool (ORAS-PIT), and
Ohio Risk Assessment System-Reentry Tool
(ORAS-RT)
Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment
(PCRA)
Recidivism Risk Assessment Scales (RISc)
Risk Management System (RMS)
Risk of Reconviction (ROC)
Statistical Information of Recidivism Scale (SIR)
Salient Factor Score instruments
Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ)
Service Planning Instrument (SPIn) & Service
Planning Instrument-Women (SPIn-W)
Static Risk and Offender Needs Guide
(STRONG)
Wisconsin Risk/Needs (WRN) & Wisconsin
Risk and Needs-Revised (WRN-R)

!

!

II. !RISK!ASSESSMENT!INSTRUMENTS!
As!noted,!the!types!and!characteristics!of!assessment!
instruments!in!correctional!and!criminal!justice!settings!are!highly!
dispersed,!and!often!highly!specialized!and!customized,!while!
sharing!several!commonalties.!The!19!identified!instruments!
captured!in!Chart!A!measure!criminal!risk.!!!
!
How!the!tools!predict!risk,!with!what!targets!and!in!what!
population,!varies.!Risk!assessment!instruments!include!items!
that!represent!characteristics!of!the!offender!(e.g.,!physical!
health,!mental!health,!and!attitudes),!his!or!her!physical!and/or!
social!environment!(e.g.,!neighborhood,!family,!and!peers),!or!
circumstances!(e.g.,!living!situation!and!employment!status)!that!
are!associated!with!the!likelihood!of!offending.!Most!frequently,!
recidivism!risk!assessment!instruments!focus!on!psychological!
and!social!characteristics.!Despite!the!fact!that!macroSlevel!
dynamics,!such!as!service,!system,!and!societal!variables,!may!
also!affect!risk,!these!variables!are!rarely!included!in!these!risk!
assessment!instruments.!!
Risk#factors!are!those!characteristics!that!increase!risk!of!
offending,!whereas!protective#factors!are!those!individual!
strengths!that!can!serve!to!reduce!risk!and!provide!pathways!out!
of!criminal!behavior.!Inclusion!of!protective!factors!in!riskS
assessment!instruments!is!relatively!rare.!However,!there!is!
mounting!evidence!that!protective!factors!contribute!unique!
information!and!improve!predictive!validity!above!and!beyond!
consideration!of!risk!factors!alone.15!!
Risk!and!protective!factors!can!either!be!static!or!dynamic.!
Static#factors!are!historical!or!otherwise!unchangeable!
characteristics!(e.g.,!history!of!antisocial!behavior)!that!help!
establish!overall!levels!of!risk!and!can!help!identify!the!level!of!
intervention!required.!Dynamic#factors!are!changeable!
characteristics!(e.g.,!substance!abuse)!that!establish!relative!
levels!of!risk!and!help!identify!intervention!targets;!these!factors!
can!be!either!relatively!stable,!changing!relatively!slowly!over!
time!(e.g.,!antisocial!cognition),!or!acute,#changing!relatively!
quickly!over!time!(e.g.,!mood!state).16!Identifying!dynamic!factors!
6!|!P a g e !

!

!

allows!for!interventions!to!be!appropriately!targeted!to!
the!right!offenders.!Researchers!Andrews!and!Bonta17!
identified!eight!items!as!the!most!“powerful”!risk!factors!
for!recidivism!across!offenders!and!situations.!These!
“Central!Eight”!(Chart!B)!have!been!widely!accepted!as!
the!most!important!domains!to!be!assessed!and!
targeted!in!risk!assessment!and!management!efforts.!!

Chart!B!
The!Central!Eight—the!most!
powerful!risk!factors!for!
offenders!and!situations!
(Andrews!&!Bonta,!1998)!
•

History of antisocial
behavior

Research!consistently!supports!that!targeting!
• Antisocial personality
dynamic!factors!(criminogenic!needs)!adds!incrementally!
pattern
to!the!predictive!validity!of!static!factors!and!that!the!
• Antisocial cognition
former!may!be!more!relevant!to!shortSterm!outcomes!
• Antisocial associates
and!rehabilitation!efforts,18!whereas!the!latter!relate!
• Family and/or marital
more!to!longerSterm!outcomes!and!risk!classification.19!
problems
Thus,!there!are!important!benefits!to!considering!both!
• School and/or work
static!and!dynamic!factors!in!assessing!recidivism!risk.!
problems
!
• Leisure and/or
recreation problem
Static!factors!are!considered!in!the!19!
instruments!reviewed!and!dynamic!factors!are!
• Substance abuse!
considered!in!15!of!the!19.!Protective!factors,!however,!
are!considered!only!in!two!instruments!(IORNS!and!SPInS
W)!(see!Table!1).!Moreover,!there!are!differences!in!the!
type!of!items!captured!in!risk!tools!and!their!relation!to!the!Central!Eight!risk!factors.!While!
substance!abuse!is!universally!assessed!across!all!19!instruments!reviewed,!housing,!recreation,!
and!specific!information!on!mental!health!domains!are!not!usually!incorporated!into!most!
tools.!Table!2!outlines!the!content!domains!included!in!specific!risk!assessment!instruments.!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
7!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
!
!

Table!1.!Type!of!Factors!Included!in!Risk!Assessment!Instruments!
!
!

TYPES!OF!ITEMS!

INSTRUMENTS!

Risk!

Protective!

Static!

Dynamic!

•

!

•

!

•

!

•

!

COMPAS!

•

!

!

IORNS!

•

!

•

LSISR!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

LSISR:SV!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

ORASSPAT!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

ORASSCST!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

ORASSCSST!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

ORASSPIT!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

ORASSRT!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

PCRA!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

RMS!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

SAQ!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

SFS74!

•

!

!

•

!

!

SFS76!

•

!

!

•

!

!

SFS81!

•

!

!

•

!

!

•

!

•

•

!

•

STRONG !

•

!

!

•

!

!

WRN!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

WRNSR!

•

!

!

•

!

•

!

SPInSW!
a

a!

!

!

!

The!STRONG!includes!three!parts:!Static!Risk!Assessment,!Offender!Needs!Assessment,!and!Offender!
Supervision! Plan;! values! reflect! only! the! first! part,! which! is! the! component! used! to! assess! risk! of!
recidivism.!

!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!

8!|!P a g e !
!

!

TABLE!2:!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!Content!Domains!
INSTRUMENTS!

Attitudes! Associates/!
Peers!

History!of!

Personality!

Antisocial!

Problems!

Relationships!

Work/!School!

Recreation/!

Substance!Use!

Mental!

Housing!

Leisure!Activities!

Problems!

Health!

Status!

Behaviour!
COMPAS!

!

IORNS!

!

LSIFR!

!

LSIFR:SV!

!

ORASFPAT!

!

ORASFCST!

!

ORASFCSST!
ORASFPIT!

!
!

ORASFRT!

!

PCRA!

!

RMS!

!

SAQ!

!

! !
!
!
!

SFS76!
SFS81!
SPInFW!

!
a

STRONG !

!
!

!
!

!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!

WRNFR!

!

!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!
!

!

!
!

!
!

!

!

!

!
!
!

!

!

WRN!

!
!
!

!

!
!
!

SFS74!

!

!
!

Problems!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!

!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!

!
!
!
!

!

!

!

!
!

!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!

!

!
!

!

!

!
!
!

!
!

!
!

!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!

!

!
!

!

!

!
!

!

!

!
!

!

!

!

!
!

!

!
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!
!
!

!

!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!

!

!

!

!
!

!
!
!

!
!

!

!

!

!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!

!

!
!
!
!

!
!

!

!

!

!

!

!
!

!

!
!
!

!

!
!

!
!
!

!
a!

The!STRONG!includes!three!parts,!Static!Risk!Assessment,!Offender!Needs!Assessment,!and!Offender!Supervision!Plan;!values!reflect!only!the!first!part,!
which!is!the!component!used!to!assess!risk!of!recidivism.!

9!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
!

!
!

!
!

!

!
!
!
!
!

!

!

!
!

!

!

!

In!addition!to!measuring!the!likelihood!of!rearrest,!reincarceration,!or!revocation,!risk!
assessments!can!inform!supervision!and!programming!strategies!for!specific!populations!of!
offenders!from!pre;sentence!to!community!supervision.!Risk!assessments!predict!the!risk!of!a!
certain!behavior!within!an!established!time!period!(often!one!or!three!years).!!There!may!be!a!
need!for!a!jurisdiction!to!use!adjunct!assessments,!that!address!specific!outcomes!(e.g.,!
violence,!sexual!offending)!in!conjunction!with!an!assessment!of!general!recidivism.!Pretrial!risk!
assessments!often!measure!the!risk!for!reoffending!in!addition!to!the!risk!for!an!offender!to!fail!
to!appear!in!court!at!a!scheduled!date.!Criminogenic!risk!assessment!is!not!intended!to!provide!
detailed!information!around!topics!such!as!behavioral!health!or!sex!offending;!instead,!it!
generally!serves!to!alert!staff!of!areas!where!a!more!detailed!assessment!may!be!needed.!!
Agencies!seeking!to!predict!specific!behaviors!may!need!to!utilize!specialized!risk!assessments!
(for!behavioral!health,!violence,!sex!offending,!etc.).!Sex!offenders!often!have!low!overall!risk,!
so!many!agencies!opt!to!conduct!additional!sex!offender!assessments!(e.g.,!STATIC;99,!ACUTE,!
STABLE)!to!gather!more!information!related!to!the!person’s!sexual!offending!pattern.!It!is!not!
always!feasible!or!advisable,!however,!to!conduct!issue;specific!assessments!around!every!
conceivable!topic,!especially!if!relevant!programming!is!not!available!or!if!the!additional!
information!will!not!change!how!the!case!is!managed.20!Hence,!agencies!should!carefully!
consider!and!define!the!intended!purpose!of!the!selected!risk!tool.!Moreover,!it!is!imperative!
that!agencies!consider!the!evidence!supporting!the!validity!of!assessments.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!

10!|!P a g e !
!

!

III.

THE!RISK!INSTRUMENT!AND!PREDICTION!!

Though!the!types!and!characteristics!of!valid!risk!instruments!are!fairly!well!established,!
deciphering!what’s!clear!about!risk—both!in!terms!of!the!predictability!of!specific!tools!and!
more!broadly,!defining!risk!scores!can!be!more!complex.!!!
!
Some!of!this!complexity!may!stem!from!the!
varying!expectations!of!users/providers!and!transferring!
the!model!into!“real!world”!settings.21!To!further!
There!is!overwhelming!
explain,!users!may!expect!instruments!to!explicitly!and!
evidence!to!suggest!that!
precisely!predict,!with!100%!accuracy,!an!offender’s!
assessments!of!risk!
participation!in!future!criminal!activity;!however,!we!can!
completed!using!
never!with!certainty!predict!the!likelihood!of!a!future!
structured!approaches!
event.!Yet,!for!those!who!recently!adopted!the!
produce!estimates!that!
instrument,!there!may!exist!a!lack!of!understanding,!
are!both!more!accurate!
training,!or!education!on!the!theory!and!principles!
and!consistent!across!
behind!risk!assessment!tools,!especially!given!the!high!
assessors!compared!to!
turnover!in!corrections,!public!safety,!and!the!human!
subjective!or!unstructured!
approaches.!
service!industry.!!
!
!
To!illustrate,!consider!the!impact!of!age!on!risk!of!
recidivism.!It!is!well!established!by!research22!that!the!
propensity!to!participate!in!criminal!activity!significantly!
declines!with!increased!age!regardless!of!offense!type.!Yet,!research!on!the!culture!of!
correctional!institutions,!as!well!as!that!on!stigma,!labeling,!and!operational!norms!in!
correctional!settings,!suggests!that!officials!tend!to!direct!more!punishment!toward!offenders!
in!specific!offense!categories,!despite!their!limited!knowledge!of!the!offenders’!history,!risk!
and/or!protective!factors.23!What!appears!increasingly!clear!is!that!decision!makers!operate!in!
an!arena!of!uncertainty.!As!a!result,!decision!makers!may!seek!immediate!solutions!that!have!
substantial!public!support!with!the!goal!of!reducing!the!possibility!of!negative!consequence.*!!!
!
One!attempt!to!mitigate!uncertainty!and!improve!decision;making!is!the!integration!of!
“structured!approaches”!into!the!process!of!conducting!risk!assessments.!There!is!
overwhelming!evidence!to!suggest!that!assessments!of!risk!completed!using!structured!
approaches!produce!estimates!that!are!both!more!accurate!and!consistent!across!assessors!
compared!to!subjective!or!unstructured!approaches.24!The!use!of!structured!approaches!to!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*
For!further!explanation!of!this!concept!see James!G.!March!and!Herbert!A.!Simon,!Organizations (Oxford:!Wiley,!1958)!as!well!as!Jeffrey!Lin,!
Ryken!Grattet,!and!Joan!Petersilia,!“‘Back;End!Sentencing’!and!Reimprisonment:!Individual,!Organizational,!and!Community!Predictors!of!Parole!
Sanctioning!Decisions,”!Criminology!48,!no.!3!(2010):!759–795.

11!|!P a g e !
!

!

classify!higher;risk!individuals!within!the!general!offender!population!also!produces!better!
outcomes!compared!to!unstructured!approaches.25!Correctional!agencies!are!increasingly!
recommending—and!many!now!require—the!use!of!structured!risk!assessment!approaches.26!!
!
Approaches!to!Conducting!Structured!Risk!Assessments!
!
There!are!two!broad!approaches!to!structured!risk!assessment:!actuarial!and!structured!
professional!judgment.!The!approaches!differ!in!how!each!addresses/responds!to!the!following!
decision!points:!1)!which!risk!factors!to!consider!and!how!to!measure!them;!2)!how!to!combine!
risk!factors;!and!3)!how!to!generate!the!final!risk!estimate.27!The!strengths!and!limitations!of!
actuarial!and!structured!professional!judgment!are!reviewed!below.!
!
Actuarial!Risk!Assessment!!
!
The!actuarial!approach!represents!a!mechanical!model!of!risk!assessment!that!is!largely!
focused!on!historical!or!static!risk!factors.!When!an!actuarial!instrument!is!used!to!assess!risk,!
an!offender!is!scored!on!a!series!of!items!that!were!most!strongly!associated!with!recidivism!in!
the!development!sample.!The!offender’s!total!score!is!cross;referenced!with!an!actuarial!table!
that!translates!the!score!into!an!estimate!of!risk!over!a!specified!timeframe!(e.g.,!10!years).!This!
estimate!represents!the!percentage!of!participants!in!the!instrument’s!development!study!who!
received!that!risk!score!and!recidivated.!For!example,!if!an!offender!receives!a!score!of!+5!on!an!
instrument!that!is!translated!into!a!risk!estimate!of!60!percent!over!10!years,!this!means!that!60!
percent!of!those!individuals!who!received!a!total!score!of!+5!in!the!instrument’s!original!study!
went!on!to!recidivate!within!the!specified!time!period.!This!does!not!mean!that!this!individual!
offender!has!a!60!percent!chance!of!recidivating!over!a!period!of!10!years.!Understanding!these!
distinctions!is!important;!yet,!they!are!frequently!overlooked!in!practice.!!!
!
Strengths!of!the!actuarial!approach!include:!
!
• Objectivity.!No!human!judgment!is!involved!in!estimating!risk!once!items!have!been!
rated.!Items!are!typically!straightforward!and!easy!to!rate!(e.g.,!age,!gender,!number!of!
prior!offenses).!!
•

Accuracy.!Actuarial!assessments!are!more!accurate!than!unstructured!assessments.!

•

Transparency.!Information!used!to!inform!risk!estimates!is!explicitly!included!in!the!
instrument.!Items!are!weighted!in!a!predetermined!manner!to!compute!total!scores!and!
estimate!risk.!!

12!|!P a g e !
!

!

Speed.!Items!included!in!actuarial!instruments!can!usually!be!scored!using!information!
available!in!official!records.!
!
The!chief!drawback!of!the!actuarial!approach!is!the!application!of!group;based!statistics!
and!norms!to!individual!offenders.!Beyond!the!quandary;related!potential!statistical!issues,*!
this!is!a!concern!because!it!cannot!be!determined!whether!the!specific!percentage!derived!by!
averaging!across!the!group!applies!to!the!individual!or!whether!the!probability!found!in!the!
development!study!applies!to!this!individual.!Using!the!same!example!provided!earlier,!if!60!
percent!of!the!individuals!who!received!a!score!of!+5!recidivated!over!a!10;year!period,!then!40!
percent!did!not.!Actuarial!assessments!cannot!help!distinguish!whether!an!offender!receiving!a!
score!of!+5!is!among!the!60!percent!or!40!percent.!Additionally,!these!tools!may!discount!
specific!factors!that!do!not!systematically!increase!(or!decrease)!recidivism!risk!across!the!
population!but!are!relevant!to!a!particular!offender’s!level!of!risk.!Lastly,!many!actuarial!
assessments!have!limited!utility!for!individualized!risk!reduction!and!rehabilitation!efforts!due!
to!their!focus!on!historical!or!static!factors!(e.g.,!age,!gender,!number!of!prior!offenses).!With!
the!focus!on!past!behavior!and!not!accounting!for!offenders!changing!for!the!better!these!tools!
are!not!useful!for!intervention!planning!or!reassessment!to!measure!individual!progress.28!!
!
Structured!Professional!Judgment!
!
!
In!contrast!to!the!actuarial!approach,!the!structured!professional!judgment!(SPJ)!
approach!focuses!on!creating!individualized!and!clear!risk!formulations.!As!a!result!these!
assessments!may!support!more!comprehensive!and!integrated!risk!management!plans.!SPJ!
instruments!guide!assessors!to!estimate!risk!level!(e.g.,!low,!moderate,!or!high)!through!
consideration!of!a!set!number!of!factors!that!are!empirically!and!theoretically!associated!with!
the!outcome!of!interest.!Although!offenders!are!scored!on!individual!items,!total!scores!are!not!
used!to!make!the!final!judgments!of!risk.!Instead,!assessors!consider!the!relevance!of!each!item!
to!the!individual!offender,!as!well!as!whether!there!are!any!case;specific!factors!not!explicitly!
included!in!the!list.!Strengths!of!the!structured!professional!judgment!approach!include:!!
!
• Professional!discretion.!Assessors!consider!the!relevance!of!factors!to!the!individual!
offender!to!inform!final!estimates!of!each!factor.!Case;specific!factors!can!also!be!taken!
into!consideration.!
•

•

Accuracy.!Structured!professional!judgment!assessments!are!more!accurate!than!
unstructured!assessments!(and!comparable!in!accuracy!to!actuarial!assessments).!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*
!See Stephen!D.!Hart,!Christine!Michie,!and!David!J.!Cooke,!“Precision!of!Actuarial!Risk!Assessment!Instruments:!Evaluating!the!`Margins!of!
Error’!of!Group!v.!Individual!Predictions!of!Violence,”!British!Journal!of!Psychiatry!190,!no.!49!(2007):!s60–s65.

13!|!P a g e !
!

!

•

Transparency.!Assessors!rate!a!known!list!of!factors!according!to!specific!guidelines.!
Additional!items!considered!can!be!added!to!the!assessment!form.!!

•

Risk!communication!and!reduction.!Risk!formulations!provide!information!regarding!the!
anticipated!series!of!stressors!and!events!that!may!lead!to!adverse!outcomes!and!over!
what!period!of!time,!which!can!inform!risk!management!strategies!and!identify!
treatment!targets.!

!
Criticisms!of!SPJ!include!the!potential!reintroduction!of!decision;making!biases!in!the!
final!risk!judgments!and!diminished!predictive!accuracy!with!the!inclusion!of!dynamic!risk!
factors.!Reassessments!should!be!conducted!periodically!to!account!for!the!change!in!dynamic!
risk!factors!over!time.!Additionally,!these!instruments!are!time;consuming!and!take!
comparatively!longer!to!administer!than!actuarial!assessments,!item!ratings!are!often!more!
nuanced,!and!necessary!information!might!not!be!readily!available!on!file!to!code!all!items.!!
Despite!the!criticisms,!recent!reviews!show!that!actuarial!and!structured!professional!
judgment!instruments!produce!assessments!with!commensurate!rates!of!validity!in!predicting!
recidivism.29!
!

!

14!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
Table!3:!Validity!of!Total!Scores!in!Predicting!Different!Forms!of!Recidivism!!
OUTCOMES!

INSTRUMENTS!
k!

General!Offending!
(including!violations)!

k!

General!Offending!
(excluding!violations)!

k! Violations!Only!

COMPAS!

–!

–!

5!

Good!

1!

Fair!

LSI;R!

3!

Good!

26!

Fair;Good!

7!

Good!

LSI;R:SV!

–!

–!

2!

Fair;Good!

–!

–!

ORAS;PAT!

1!

Fair!

2!

Fair!

2!

Good!

ORAS;CST!

–!

–!

1!

Excellent!

–!

–!

ORAS;CSST!

–!

–!

1!

Excellent!

–!

–!

ORAS;PIT!

–!

–!

1!

Good!

–!

–!

ORAS;RT!

–!

–!

1!

Good!

–!

–!

PCRA!

–!

–!

2!

Excellent!

–!

–!

RMS!

–!

–!

1!

Good!

1!

Good!

SFS74!

–!

–!

–!

–!

–!

–!

SFS76!

1!

Excellent!

–!

–!

–!

–!

SFS81!

6!

Excellent!

–!

–!

–!

–!

SPIn;W!

1!

Poor!

–!

–!

–!

–!

STRONG!

–!

–!

1!

Excellent!

–!

–!

WRN!

–!

–!

8!

Fair;Good!

1!

Excellent!

WRN;R!

–!

–!

1!

Good!

–!

–!

Notes.!k!=!number!of!samples.!General!Offending!=!new!arrest,!charge,!conviction,!or!
incarceration;!Violations!=!technical!violation,!probation!revocation,!or!breach!of!
conditions.!!
!
!
15!|!P a g e !
!

!

Predictive!Validity!
Of!the!19!instruments!reviewed!in!this!guide,!no!instrument!produced!more!accurate!
assessments/outcomes!in!comparison!to!the!others,!with!predictive!validity!varying!based!on!
the!reported!performance!indicator.!Predictive!validity!is!defined!as!the!extent!to!which!
predictions!derived!from!the!instrument!are!accurate!and/or!consistent!with!other!
independently!validated!measures.30!In!other!words,!how!well!does!the!selected!instrument!
predict!reoffending!for!specific!groups?!Predictive!validity!is!categorized!as!poor,!fair,!good,!and!
excellent.!Poor!predictive!validity!suggested!poor!performance!in!accurate!risk!predictions.!
Tools!coded!as!excellent!demonstrated!excellent!predictive!validity.!The!following!indicators!
were!included!in!the!review:!risk!classifications,!offender!subgroups!(sex,!race/ethnicity,!and!
diagnostic!categories),!and!context!(research!versus!“real!world”!practice).!!
Specifically,!for!general!offending!including!violations,!predictive!validity!ranged!from!
poor!for!SPIn;W!assessments!to!excellent!for!SFS76!and!SFS81!assessments.!For!general!
offending!excluding!violations,!total!scores!for!over!two;thirds!of!instruments!had!either!good!
or!excellent!predictive!validity.!Moreover,!predictive!validity!ranged!from!fair!for!ORAS;PAT!
assessments!to!excellent!for!the!ORAS;CST,!ORAS;CSST,!PCRA,!and!STRONG!assessments!(see!
Table!3).!
When!taking!into!account!the!differences!in!offenders!(gender,!race/ethnicity,!and!
mental!health),!other!patterns!of!predictive!validity!emerged.!!!
!
Predictive!Validity!across!Offender!Subgroups!
!
Gender.!Overall,!predictive!validity!ranged!from!fair!to!excellent!across!gender.!Some!
instruments!performed!equally!well!for!male!and!female!offenders;!for!instance,!COMPAS!
assessments!demonstrated!good!predictive!validity!for!both!genders;!STRONG!assessments!
demonstrated!excellent!validity!for!both!male!and!female!offenders;!and!predictive!validity!for!
the!ORAS!instrument!for!which!comparisons!were!possible—namely,!the!ORAS;CST,!ORAS;
CSST,!ORAS;PIT,!and!ORAS;RT—ranged!from!good!to!excellent!for!both!groups.!Table!4!presents!
the!validity!of!total!scores!in!predicting!recidivism!by!the!offender’s!gender.!!!
!
Other!instruments!showed!differential!performance!by!offender!gender.!In!particular,!
LSI;R!assessments!showed!good!predictive!validity!for!male!offenders,!but!only!fair!predictive!
validity!for!female!offenders.!Similarly,!LSI;R:SV!assessments!presented!only!fair!predictive!
validity!for!female!offenders!but!ranged!from!fair!to!good!in!their!predictions!for!male!
counterparts.!!
!
16!|!P a g e !
!

!

Few!risk!tools!were!evaluated!
Table!4.!Validity!of!Total!Scores!in!
exclusively!for!male!or!female!
Predicting!Recidivism!by!Offender!Sex!
offenders!(Table!4).!Predictive!
INSTRUMENTS!
OFFENDER!SEX!
validity!of!SFS76!and!SFS81!
assessments!were!evaluated!for!
k!
Male!
k!
Female!
male!offenders,!only;!the!SFS76!
COMPAS!
2!
Good!
2!
Good!
demonstrated!excellent!validity,!
while!validity!of!SFS81!
LSI;Ra!
9!
Good!
8!
Fair!
assessments!ranged!from!good!to!
2!
Fair;Good!
1!
Fair!
LSI;R:SV!
excellent.!WRN!total!scores!were!
1!
Excellent!
1!
Good!
also!evaluated!for!male!offenders! ORAS;CST!
and!showed!fair!validity.!Designed! ORAS;CSST!
1!
Good!
1!
Excellent!
for!women,!the!SPIn;W!showed!
ORAS;PIT!
1!
Good!
1!
Good!
good!validity.!!
ORAS;RT!
1!
Good!
1!
Excellent!
!
No!studies!reported!predictive!
1!
Excellent!
–!
–!
SFS76b!
validity!of!assessments!by!
–! Good;Excellent! –!
–!
SFS81c!
offender!gender!for!the!IORNS,!
ORAS;PAT,!PCRA,!RMS,!SAQ,!
–!
–!
2!
Good!
SPIn;Wd,e!
SFS74,!or!WRN;R.!
STRONG!
1!
Excellent!
1!
Excellent!
!
WRN!
1!
Fair!
–!
–!
Race/ethnicity.!Comparisons!by!
offender!race/ethnicity!were!only!possible!for!assessments!completed!using!the!COMPAS!and!
LSI;R.!For!COMPAS!assessments,!predictive!validity!was!good!for!white!and!black!offenders.!For!
LSI;R!assessments,!predictive!validity!ranged!from!poor!to!good!across!white,!black,!Hispanic,!
and!non;white!offenders,!with!performance!varying!largely!depending!on!sample!size!and!
performance!indicator!rather!than!race/ethnicity.!Together,!these!findings!fail!to!provide!
evidence!of!differential!performance!of!COMPAS!and!LSI;R!assessments!as!a!function!of!
offender!race/ethnicity.!!
!
Diagnostic!categories.!No!comparisons!of!predictive!validity!within!or!across!instruments!as!a!
function!of!mental!state,!substance!use,!or!personality!disorders!were!possible.!Even!when!
these!sample!characteristics!were!reported,!predictive!validity!was!not!provided!by!subgroup.!
As!for!race/ethnicity,!there!is!a!critical!need!for!research!examining!risk!assessment!accuracy!
between!mentally!disordered!and!non;disordered!offenders!as!well!as!across!diagnostic!
subgroups.!That!said,!prior!meta;analytic!work!has!found!the!predictors!of!recidivism!to!be!
comparable!for!mentally!disordered!offenders,31!suggesting!that!assessments!also!may!perform!
comparably.!
17!|!P a g e !
!

!

IV.

PRAGMATIC!CONSIDERATIONS:!IMPLEMENTATION!AND!PRACTICE!

!!
A!myriad!of!pragmatic!considerations!should!be!taken!into!account!when!determining!
the!appropriate!risk!instrument!for!a!correctional!or!criminal!justice!setting.!Whether!the!use!of!
the!tool!is!in!a!prison!or!jail,!at!admission!or!release,!by!court!or!hearing!officers!or!the!parole!
board,!or!in!the!field!by!community!probation!or!parole!officers,!it!is!necessary!to!examine!
factors!such!as!target!populations!for!assessment,!timetables!for!re/assessment,!how!scores!
guide!supervision!levels,!facility!resources,!personnel,!and!quality!assurance.!Furthermore,!
agencies!must!query!the!availability!and!accessibility!of!official!records!and!collateral!
information!(e.g.,!arrest!records,!institutional!misconduct!records,!etc.),!the!amount!of!time!
required!to!conduct!the!assessment,!and!the!capacity!and!capability!of!staff!to!perform!the!
assessment!process!with!fidelity.!!
Some!agencies!and!institutions!have!made!existing!investments!to!the!use!of!
instruments,!and!so!the!integration!of!existing!data,!systems,!and!practices!becomes!another!
important!factor.!As!a!result,!organizations!may!have!to!allow!increased!conversion!and/or!
integration!time!prior!to!fully!implementing!the!risk!assessment!tools.!In!regard!to!data!and!
systems!integration,!some!risk!instruments!offer!“suites”!that!facilitate!the!integration!of!
supplemental!products,!data,!and!services.!Other!tools!are!stand;alone!assessments!and!do!not!
have!the!design!specifications!that!allow!for!integration!with!existing!structures.!In!addition,!if!
using!a!proprietary!tool,!agencies!should!frequently!consult!and!communicate!with!the!
owner/developer!to!ensure!the!capability!and!approval!to!
implement!changes.!!
Moreover,!depending!on!where!the!tool!is!being!
Accessibility:!What!
administered,!the!length!of!and!time!required!to!complete!
information!is!available?!!
the!assessment!can!be!a!critical!factor,!especially!when!
considering!use!at!short;term!facilities!such!as!reception!
Length:!How!much!time!
locations.!Most!risk!assessments!involve!a!semi;structured!
is!required!to!complete!
interview!with!an!offender,!which!requires!that!the!
the!assessment?!
offender!is!physically!present!(or!available!via!
videoconference),!coherent,!cooperative,!and!able!to!
understand!the!nature!of!the!questions!being!asked.!Some!
tools!also!use!self;assessment,!which!usually!requires!
literacy!equivalent!to!a!sixth;grade!reading!level.32!Other!tools!rely!solely!on!information!
available!in!the!offender’!file.!!
Developers!have!provided!time!estimates!for!the!assessment!process,!yet,!these!may!
vary!based!on!setting,!conditions,!training/familiarity!with!the!tool,!and!resources!(e.g.,!data).!
Table!5!shows!the!characteristics!and!duration!of!the!assessment!process!used!in!the!nine!
18!|!P a g e !
!

!

research!studies!that!analyzed!administration!time!for!the!instruments!listed!above.!But!one!
cautionary!note:!risk!assessments!were!completed!by!professionals!in!forensic!services!for!
approximately!three;quarters!of!the!studies!(82!percent);!the!remaining!assessments!were!
conducted!by!researchers!(15!percent),!and!two!studies!were!self;administered.!The!
assessments!were!most!often!completed!in!a!prison!setting!(28!percent)!or!in!the!community!
(38!percent),!but!at!times!they!were!conducted!in!jail!(10!percent),!a!clinic!or!hospital!(4!
percent),!or!at!another!facility!(6!percent).!In!terms!of!supervision!level,!roughly!one;third!of!
assessments!(36!percent)!were!performed!during!community!supervision,!one;quarter!were!
completed!pre;release!(26!percent),!and!the!remainder!were!conducted!either!prior!to!
incarceration!(11!percent)!or!at!admission!(10!percent).!Data!to!complete!the!instruments!were!
captured!from!file!reviews!in!24!samples!(33!percent),!interviews!in!12!samples!(17!percent),!
and!offender!self;report!in!two!samples!(3!percent).!!
Of!the!tools!reviewed!in!this!guide,!administration!time!was!reported!for!only!the!
following!five!instruments:!LSI;R,!LSI;R:SV,!IORNS,!COMPAS,!and!SAQ.!For!the!LSI;R,!
administration!time!ranged!from!30!to!60!minutes!for!assessments!conducted!in!the!context!of!
“real!world”!practice33!and!45!to!90!minutes!in!research!studies.34!The!LSI;R:SV!was!reported!to!
have!a!mean!administration!time!of!10!minutes!when!completed!in!practice.35!In!the!same!
study,!the!IORNS!required!15!minutes!to!complete;!however,!this!estimate!included!only!the!
interview!portion!of!the!assessment.!Across!three!studies,!administration!time!for!the!COMPAS!
varied!from!43!to!165!minutes.36!SAQ!assessments!were!reported!to!take!approximately!20!
minutes.37!To!reiterate,!the!availability,!accessibility,!and!quality!of!data!and!professional!
capacity!and!aptitude!of!the!assessor!may!affect!the!duration!of!time!to!administer!the!
assessment!and!level!of!human!error.!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

19!|!P a g e !
!

!

!

Table!5.!!Characteristics!of!Risk!Assessment!Instruments!
CHARACTERISTICS!

INSTRUMENTS!
k! Items!

Intended!
Population(s)!

COMPAS!

3!

70!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!&!
Violations!

10—60!

IORNS!

1!

130!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!&!
Violations!

15—20!

LSI;R!

25!

54!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!&!
Violations!

30—40!

LSI;R:SV!

2!

8!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!&!
Violations!

10—15!

ORAS;PAT!

3!

7!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

10—15!

ORAS;CST!

1!

35!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

30—45!

ORAS;CSST!

1!

4!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

5—10!

ORAS;PIT!

1!

31!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

ORAS;RT!

1!

20!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

PCRA!

2!

56!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!&!
Violations!

15—30!

RMS!

2!

65!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

SAQ!

2!

72!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

15!

SFS74!

3!

9!

Parolees!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

SFS76!

4!

7!

Parolees!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

SFS81!

8!

6!

Parolees!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

SPIn;W!

2!

100!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

STRONGa!

1!

26!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

WRN!

9!

53!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

WRN;R!

1!

52!

Any!Offender!

General!Offending!

Unknown!

Intended!Outcome(s)!

Time!
(minutes)!

20!|!P a g e !
!

!

Notes.! k! =! number! of! samples;! General! Offending! =! new! arrest,! charge,! conviction,! or!
incarceration;! Violations! =! technical! violation,! probation! revocation,! or! breach! of!
conditions.!!
a!
The! STRONG! includes! three! parts:! Static! Risk! Assessment,! Offender! Needs! Assessment,!
and! Offender! Supervision! Plan;! values! reflect! only! the! first! part,! which! is! the! component!
used!to!assess!risk!of!recidivism.!
!
!

21!|!P a g e !
!

!

V.

WHAT!ISN’T!KNOWN:!LIMITATIONS!AND!FURTHER!RESEARCH!

!
This!empirical!review!identified!no!fewer!than!66!risk!assessment!tools:!19!instruments!
in!broad!use!to!assess!the!risk!of!recidivism!and!at!least!47!instruments!designed!for!use!in!
specific!jurisdictions.!It!was!supported!by!an!initial!and!aggressive!analysis!of!studies!published!
in!peer;reviewed!journals,!as!well!as!government!reports,!doctoral!dissertations,!and!Master’s!
theses.!In!total,!this!effort!resulted!in!173!records!that!were!filtered!to!a!final!count!of!53!
studies!(72!samples).!!
!
!
Despite!the!breadth!and!depth!of!this!review,!there!are!still!important!limits!to!what!has!
been!established!in!research!about!risk!assessment!tools.!Some!of!those!limitations!are!
provided!below!along!with!areas!of!interest!as!next!steps!for!research!partners!and!the!broader!
criminal!justice!and!correctional!communities,!and!as!suggestions!for!future!research.!There!is!a!
significant!need!for!independent!research!and!the!development!of!a!refined!understanding!of!
the!importance!of!risk!assessment!tools’!impact!on!predicting!recidivism!for!target!populations.!!
!
The!identified!areas!of!concern!are:!!!
!
• Guiding!risk!management:!Most!studies!included!in!this!review!reported!findings!on!
whether!recidivists!generally!received!higher!risk!estimates!than!did!non;recidivists!
(known!as!discrimination).!Very!few!studies!reported!definitive!conclusions!on!whether!
those!offenders!who!were!identified!as!being!at!high!risk!for!recidivism!went!on!to!
recidivate!during!the!specified!follow;up!period!or!whether!those!offenders!who!were!
identified!as!low!risk!did!not!recidivate!(known!as!calibration).!However,!the!absence!of!
these!conclusions!is!not!unique!to!the!studies!included!in!the!current!review;!a!recent!
review!found!that!calibration!estimates!were!reported!in!less!than!a!fourth!of!violence!
risk!assessment!studies.38!Discrimination!and!calibration!are!two!sides!of!the!same!
coin—both!representing!important!qualities!of!an!instrument’s!predictive!validity—but!
address!different!issues.39!!!
!
Though!many!of!the!instruments!included!in!the!present!review!were!shown!to!have!
acceptable!levels!of!predictive!validity,!the!goal!of!risk!assessment!is!not!simply!to!
predict!the!likelihood!of!recidivism,!but,!ultimately,!to!reduce!the!risk!of!recidivism!by!
determining!intervention!targets,!appropriate!programming!level!and!intensity,!and!
supervision!level.!To!do!so,!the!information!derived!during!the!risk!assessment!process!
must!be!used!to!guide!risk!management!and!rehabilitation!efforts,!with!adherence!to!
the!RNR!model.!Specifically,!it!should!assess!offenders’!risk!of!recidivism,!with!more!
restrictive!and!intensive!efforts!focused!on!high;risk!offenders;!match!treatment!and!
22!|!P a g e !
!

!

•

•

•

rehabilitation!efforts!to!offenders’!individual!criminogenic!needs!(as!identified!in!the!risk!
assessment!process);!and!deliver!services!in!a!manner!that!is!responsive!to!individual!
learning!styles,!motivations,!personalities,!and!strengths.!!
!
Consistency!across!assessors:!The!research!rarely!examined!inter;rater!reliability,!
defined!as!the!degree!to!which!a!rate!scores!an!assessment!consistently!and!the!degree!
of!scoring!consistency!between!different!raters!when!assessing!the!same!individual,!of!
available!recidivism!risk!assessment!instruments.!With!the!exception!of!LSI;R!and!LSI;
R:SV,!there!was!no!available!information!regarding!whether!assessments!completed!
using!the!reviewed!instruments!were!consistent!across!assessors/raters.!This!is!not!
trivial;!inter;rater!reliability!has!been!referred!to!as!“the!most!basic!requirement!for!a!
risk!assessment!instrument.”40!Inter;rater!reliability!is!especially!critical!on!factors!that!
require!a!judgment!call!on!the!part!of!the!assessor.!To!check!inter;rater!reliability!of!
assessments,!agencies!can!present!the!same!case!to!multiple!staff!members!and!have!
those!staff!score!assessments,!compare!scores,!and!resolve!discrepancies.!Inter;rater!
reliability!can!be!conducted!online!as!well!as!in!person.!
!
Further!research!on!race,!gender,!and!mental!health:!Few!studies!examine!predictive!
validity!within!specific!offender!subgroups.!Only!a!handful!of!studies!included!in!this!
review!compared!validity!by!offender!gender!or!race/ethnicity.!No!study!examined!
predictive!validity!across!psychiatric!diagnostic!categories.!Due!to!limited!empirical!
support,!there!is!insufficient!evidence!to!conclude!that!risk!instruments!perform!
comparably!or!are!equally!applicable!to!specific!offender!subgroups.!As!described!
earlier,!actuarial!instruments!estimate!risk!of!recidivism!through!comparison!of!a!given!
offender’s!total!score!against!the!recidivism!rates!of!offenders!with!the!same!(or!a!
similar)!score!in!the!construction!sample!(the!individuals!studied!to!determine!the!
relationship!between!the!risk!variables!and!likelihood!of!recidivism).!Race/ethnicity!and!
gender!are!important!factors!associated!with!recidivism!that!may!not!be!accounted!for!
in!these!actuarial!models.!There!is!considerable!evidence!to!suggest!that!race/ethnicity!
and!gender!are!potentially!important!sources!of!assessment!bias.41!!
!
Independent!research:!Nearly!a!third!of!the!studies!included!in!this!review!were!
conducted!by!the!developer/owner!of!the!instrument!under!investigation.!To!note,!
performance,!or!accuracy!in!predicting!recidivism,!of!the!instruments!was!significantly!
better!in!studies!conducted!by!the!tool!developer!than!in!studies!conducted!by!
independent!researchers.!Allegiance!effects!(the!likelihood!that!the!developer!of!a!tool!
or!treatment!will!find!more!positive!results!than!independent!researchers)!were!unable!
to!be!tested!due!to!the!relatively!small!number!of!studies!per!instrument.!Though!the!
23!|!P a g e !

!

!

reasons!for!allegiance!effects!are!unclear,*!there!is!a!gap!as!far!as!independent!
evaluation!of!the!predictive!validity!of!risk!assessments.!!
!
•

Increased!understanding!of!violations:!More!than!two;thirds!of!studies!used!a!
prospective!study!design,!which!is!an!optimal!approach!for!examining!predictive!validity,!
and!the!average!length!of!follow;up!was!approximately!two!years!(23.5!months).!
Studies!were!most!frequently!conducted!in!midwestern!states!followed!by!the!
southwestern!and!northeastern!regions!of!the!U.S.!Nearly!70!percent!of!the!studies!
examined!general!recidivism!as!the!outcome;!roughly!a!quarter!considered!a!variety!of!
outcomes,!with!few!focusing!specifically!on!violations!of!conditions.!As!a!result,!the!
knowledge!of!the!validity!of!recidivism!risk!assessment!instruments!in!predicting!
violations!as!opposed!to!other!forms!of!recidivism!is!limited.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*
E.g.,!bias,!fidelity.!See!Grant!T.!Harris,!Marnie!E.!Rice,!and!Vernon!L.!Quinsey,!“Allegiance!or!Fidelity?!A!Clarifying!Reply,”!Clinical!Psychology:!
Science!and!Practice!17,!no.!1!(2010):!82–89.

24!|!P a g e !
!

!

CONCLUSION!
In!working!to!identify!the!most!appropriate!risk!assessment!instrument!in!practice,!
consider!these!central/primary!questions:!!
What!is!the!outcome!of!interest?!
!
This!review!revealed!that!some!instruments!performed!better!than!others!in!predicting!
particular!recidivism!outcomes.!Specifically,!the!SFS!instruments!performed!particularly!well!in!
predicting!general!offending!including!violations,!whereas!the!ORAS;CST,!ORAS;CSST,!PCRA,!and!
STRONG!were!excellent!predictors!of!general!offending!excluding!violations.!WRN!assessments!
fared!the!best!as!predictors!of!exclusively!violations.!!
!
Who!is!the!target!population!for!assessment?!
!
Certain!instruments!were!developed!to!assess!specific!populations;!for!example,!the!SFS!
instruments!are!designed!for!use!with!parolees.!Also,!several!instruments!appear!to!perform!
better!for!particular!subgroups!of!offenders!than!for!other!subgroups!of!offenders.!The!LSI!
instruments,!for!instance,!produced!assessments!with!only!fair!predictive!validity!for!female!
offenders,!though!predictive!validity!was!generally!good!for!male!offenders.!Other!instruments,!
such!as!the!COMPAS,!ORAS,!and!STRONG,!produced!assessments!with!good!validity!for!both!
male!and!female!offender!populations.!!
!
What!information!is!available,!how!should!the!assessment!be!conducted!(semi?structured!
interview,!record!reviews),!and!what!is!the!estimated!length!of!time!required!to!complete!the!
assessment!process?!!
!
Instruments!such!as!the!IORNS!are!completed!based!solely!on!offender!self;report;!
other!instruments,!such!as!the!PCRA!and!COMPAS,!combine!information!derived!from!a!
number!of!sources,!including!self;report,!interview,!and!review!of!official!records!and!collateral!
information.!And!some!instruments,!such!as!the!ORAS,!can!be!completed!exclusively!based!on!
file!review.!Similarly,!the!time!required!to!complete!a!risk!assessment!will!depend!not!only!on!
the!nature!and!amount!of!information!required!but!also!on!the!number!of!items!included.!The!
number!of!items!varied!broadly!across!instruments!from!4!items!(ORAS;CSST)!to!130!items!
(IORNS).!!
!
Decision!makers!should!consider!whether!the!amount!of!required!time!and!information!
necessary!to!complete!the!assessment!will!be!available!on!a!consistent!basis!for!those!who!will!
be!conducting!and!managing!the!intake!and/or!assessment!process.!Staff!should!engage!in!a!
25!|!P a g e !
!

!

continual!review!of!the!pertinent!literature!in!the!field!and!receive!refresher!training!courses!on!
assessment!administration,!especially!those!works!on!risk!assessment.!Organizations!should!
consider!the!methodology!of!the!study,!sample!size,!strength!of!the!empirical!support!for!inter;
rater!reliability!and!predictive!validity,!generalizability!of!findings,!and!possible!sources!of!bias.!
It!is!recommended!that!decision!makers!work!closely!with!researchers!to!ensure!that!the!
measures!and!scoring!threshold!for!the!tool!is!appropriate!for!the!intended!population.!!
!
Finally,!it!is!important!to!remember!that!the!goal!of!risk!assessment!is!not!simply!to!
predict!the!likelihood!of!recidivism,!but,!ultimately,!to!reduce!the!risk!of!recidivism.!To!do!so,!
the!data!derived!during!the!risk!assessment!process!must!be!used!to!inform!risk!management,!
treatment!planning,!and!rehabilitation!efforts.!Risk!assessment!results!should!guide!offender!
classification!and!staff!decisions!for!client!treatment!by!identifying!key!responsivity!factors!and!
offender!characteristics.!
!
Lastly,!with!increased!empirical!evidence!on!the!proper!use!and!limitations!of!risk!
assessments!and!the!appeal!for!implementation!of!evidence;based!practices!that!respond!to!
the!needs!of!offenders,!agencies!will!have!to!consider!organizational!readiness!to!change!and!
engage!and!educate!stakeholders!on!RNR!principles.!Adopting!a!risk!assessment!instrument!
should!contribute!to!a!shift!of!culture!and!alter!the!approach!to!classification,!treatment,!
reentry,!and!supervision.!To!maximize!the!adoption!process,!increase!departmental!
effectiveness,!produce!fiscal!efficiencies,!and!improve!offender!outcomes!and!produce!safer!
communities,!agencies!should!develop!strategic!messaging!and!carefully!deploy!the!adoption!
and!use!of!the!risk!assessment!tool.!The!planning!process!will!require!systems!to!assess!areas!of!
strength,!identify!existing!barriers/gaps,!and!finally!commit!leadership!and!stakeholders!to!
build!support!for!evidenced;based!practices!to!improve!public!safety.!
!
!

26!|!P a g e !
!

!

APPENDIX:!!SUMMARY!OF!FINDINGS!BY!INSTRUMENT!
In!this!section,!each!risk!assessment!instrument!is!described!and!findings!of!U.S.!studies!
examining!predictive!validity!are!summarized.!Instruments!are!presented!in!alphabetical!order.!!
!
!
Correctional!Offender!Management!Profiling!for!Alternative!Sanctions!!
!
Description!
The!Correctional!Offender!Management!Profiling!for!Alternative!Sanctions!(COMPAS)!is!an!
actuarial!risk!assessment!instrument!intended!to!assess!risk!for!general!offending!and!technical!
violations!across!offender!populations!(Brennan,!Dieterich,!and!Ehret!2009).!
!
The!COMPAS!contains!static!and!dynamic!risk!factors.!Content!areas!assessed!include!attitudes,!
associates!or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!personality!problems,!circumstances!at!
school!or!work,!leisure!or!recreational!activities,!substance!use!problems,!mental!health!
problems,!and!housing,!divided!across!22!scales!(Blomberg!et!al.!2010).!Scores!on!the!self;
report!assessment,!data!from!official!records,!and!information!from!interview!are!used!to!arrive!
at!an!overall!risk!score!for!each!offender.!
!
COMPAS!assessments!are!completed!through!a!combination!of!a!computer;assisted!self;report!
questionnaire,!an!interview!conducted!by!a!trained!assessor,!and!data!collected!from!the!
offender’s!records.!The!instrument!can!be!purchased!from!Northpointe!at!northpointeinc.com.!
Assessors!must!undergo!a!two;day!training!session!that!covers!practical!use,!interpretation!of!
results,!and!case;planning!strategies!in!order!to!administer!the!COMPAS.!Advanced!training!
options!that!focus!on!the!theoretical!underpinnings!of!offender!assessments,!gender!
responsivity,!motivational!interviewing,!and!other!topics!are!available.!!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
In!total,!four!studies!have!evaluated!predictive!validity!of!COMPAS!assessments!in!U.S.!samples.!
Blomberg!and!colleagues!(2010)!found!that!individuals!identified!as!higher!risk!were!indeed!
more!likely!to!recidivate;!specifically,!7!percent!of!those!identified!to!be!low!risk!recidivated,!16!
percent!of!those!identified!as!medium!risk!recidivated,!and!27!percent!of!those!identified!as!
high!risk!recidivated.!In!other!samples,!predictive!validity!was!determined!to!be!good!for!
general!offending!(Brennan,!Dieterich,!and!Ehret!2009)!and!fair!for!violations!(Farabee!and!
Zhang!2007).!Predictive!validity!for!male!and!female!offenders!has!ranged!from!good!to!
excellent!(Brennan,!Dieterich,!and!Ehret!2009).!!
27!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
There!have!been!no!comparisons!of!predictive!validity!in!U.S.!samples!between!total!scores!and!
risk!classifications,!assessments!completed!in!research!and!practice!contexts,!or!by!offender!
race/ethnicity.!There!also!have!not!been!any!U.S.!evaluations!of!inter;rater!reliability.!!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
For!the!self;report!portion!of!the!assessment,!the!computer!upon!which!the!offender!
completes!the!questionnaire!must!have!Internet!access!and!run!on!Windows.!The!assessor!
must!receive!training!to!be!qualified!to!administer!the!structured!interview.!!!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Thomas!Blomberg!et!al.,!Validation!of!the!COMPAS!Risk!Assessment!Classification!Instrument!
(Tallahassee,!FL:!Florida!State!University!Center!for!Criminology!and!Public!Policy!Research,!
2010),!available!at!
criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/pretrial/Broward%20Co.%20COMPAS%20Validation%202010.
pdf.!
!
Tim!Brennan,!William!Dieterich,!and!Beate!Ehret,!“Evaluating!the!Predictive!Validity!of!the!
COMPAS!Risk!and!Needs!Assessment!System,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior:!An!International!
Journal!36,!no.!1!(2009):!21–40.!
!
David!Farabee!and!Sheldon!Zhang,!COMPAS!Validation!Study:!First!Annual!Report!(Los!Angeles:!
California!Department!of!Corrections!and!Rehabilitation,!2007),!available!at!
cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Validation_Dec_2007.pdf.!
!
David!Farabee!et!al.,!COMPAS!Validation!Study:!Final!Report!(Los!Angeles:!California!
Department!of!Corrections!and!Rehabilitation,!2010),!available!at!
cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Final_Report_08;11;
10.pdf.!
!
!

28!|!P a g e !
!

!

Federal!Post!Conviction!Risk!Assessment!
!
Description!
The!Federal!Post!Conviction!Risk!Assessment!(PCRA)!is!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!instrument!
intended!to!assess!risk!for!general!offending!and!technical!violations!across!offender!
populations!(Johnson!et!al.!2011).!
!
The!PCRA!contains!56!static!and!dynamic!risk!factors.!Content!areas!assessed!include!attitudes,!
associates!or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!relationships,!circumstances!at!work!or!
school,!and!substance!use!problems.!Self;report!assessment!scores!are!combined!with!
probation!officer!assessment!scores!to!arrive!at!an!overall!risk!score.!
!
PCRA!assessments!are!composed!of!two!components:!1)!the!Officer!Assessment,!and!2)!
Offender!Self;Assessment.!The!self;report!questionnaire!consists!of!items!that!are!“scored”!and!
“unscored.”!The!15!scored!items!are!those!that!have!been!shown!in!studies!conducted!by!the!
Administrative!Office!of!U.S.!Courts!(Administrative!Office)!to!predict!recidivism!and!contribute!
to!the!overall!risk!score.!The!41!unscored!items!have!been!shown!in!other!research!to!predict!
recidivism,!but!have!not!been!evaluated!by!the!Administrative!Office.!They!are!included!to!
inform!intervention!strategies,!but!do!not!contribute!to!the!risk!scores.!Assessments!must!be!
administered!by!probation!officers!who!have!passed!the!online!certification!test!created!and!
offered!by!the!Administrative!Office;!the!Administrative!Office!prohibits!uncertified!assessors!
from!accessing!the!PCRA.!Prior!to!the!online!certification,!probation!officers!must!complete!16!
hours!of!training.!They!also!must!renew!their!certification!every!year.!The!PCRA!is!available!
through!the!Administrative!Office!at!uscourts.gov.!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
One!study!has!assessed!the!predictive!validity!of!PCRA!assessments!in!two!large!U.S.!samples.!!
Johnson!et!al.!(2011)!found!excellent!predictive!validity!in!both.!There!have!been!no!
comparisons!of!predictive!validity!between!assessments!completed!in!research!and!practice!
contexts,!by!offender!gender,!or!by!offender!race/ethnicity.!There!also!have!not!been!any!U.S.!
evaluations!of!inter;rater!reliability.!!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
!
Overall,!research!evidence!is!limited.!There!have!been!no!evaluations!of!the!reliability!and!
predictive!validity!of!PCRA!assessments!beyond!the!initial!construction!and!validation!study.!
Whether!findings!generalize!to!other!samples!is!unknown.!Independent!replication!is!needed.!
29!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Administrative!Office!of!the!United!States!Courts,!Office!of!Probation!and!Pretrial!Services,!An!
Overview!of!the!Federal!Post!Conviction!Risk!Assessment!(Washington,!DC:!Administrative!
Office!of!the!United!States!Courts,!2011),!available!at!
uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/PPS/PCRA_Sep_2011.pdf.!
!
James!L.!Johnson!et!al.,!“The!Construction!and!Validation!of!the!Federal!Post!Conviction!Risk!
Assessment!(PCRA),”!Federal!Probation!75,!no.!2!(2011):!16–29.!
!
!
Inventory!of!Offender!Risk,!Needs,!and!Strengths!
!
Description!
The!Inventory!of!Offender!Risk,!Needs,!and!Strengths!(IORNS)!is!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!
instrument!intended!to!assess!risk!for!general!offending!and!technical!violations!across!
offender!populations!(Miller!2006a).!
!
The!IORNS!contains!130!static,!dynamic,!risk,!and!protective!factors.!Content!areas!assessed!
include!attitudes,!associates!or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!personality!problems,!
relationships,!circumstances!at!school!or!work,!substance!use!problems,!mental!health!
problems,!and!housing.!Individual!item!responses!are!summed!to!create!Static,!Dynamic!and!
Protective!indexes!as!well!as!an!Overall!Risk!index.!There!also!are!two!validity!scales.!
!
The!IORNS!is!a!true/false!self;report!questionnaire!completed!by!the!offender!and!requires!a!
third;grade!reading!level.!The!IORNS!manual!indicates!that!assessments!take!15!to!20!minutes!
to!administer!and!20!to!25!minutes!to!score.!There!are!no!training!requirements!for!assessors,!
provided!the!purchaser!of!the!exam!has!a!degree!in!forensic!or!clinical!psychology!or!psychiatry!
as!well!as!certification!in!psychological!testing.!The!purchaser!is!also!responsible!for!overseeing!
the!scoring!of!the!assessment.!IORNS!assessments!are!available!through!Psychological!
Assessment!Resources!(parinc.com).!Costs!include!those!associated!with!the!manual,!interview!
guides,!and!assessment!forms.!For!further!information!on!pricing,!see!parinc.com.!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
Predictive!validity!of!IORNS!assessments!have!been!evaluated!in!only!one!U.S.!sample!
conducted!by!the!author!of!the!instrument.!Miller!(2006b)!found!that!offenders!with!higher!
30!|!P a g e !
!

!

Overall!Risk!Indices!were!in!jail!more!frequently!and!had!more!non;violent!arrests!than!those!
with!lower!scores.!Similarly,!those!offenders!who!had!more!halfway!house!rule!violations!have!
significantly!lower!Overall!Risk!and!Dynamic!Needs!Indices.!!
!
There!have!been!no!comparisons!of!predictive!validity!in!U.S.!samples!between!assessments!
completed!in!research!and!practice!contexts,!by!recidivism!outcome,!offender!gender,!or!
offender!race/ethnicity.!There!also!have!not!been!any!U.S.!evaluations!of!inter;rater!reliability.!!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
Though!findings!are!promising,!predictive!validity!of!IORNS!assessments!has!only!been!
evaluated!in!one!study!conducted!by!the!instrument!developer;!independent!replication!is!
needed.!!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Holly!A.!Miller,!Inventory!of!Offender!Risk,!Needs,!and!Strengths!(IORNS)!(Odessa,!FL:!
Psychological!Assessment!Resources,!2006a).!!
!
Holly!A.!Miller,!“A!Dynamic!Assessment!of!Offender!Risk,!Needs,!and!Strengths!in!a!Sample!of!
Pre;Release!General!Offenders,”!Behavioral!Sciences!&!the!Law!24,!no.!6!(2006b):!767–782.!
!
!
Level!of!Service!Instruments!
!
Description!
The!Level!of!Service!family!of!instruments!includes!the!Level!of!Service!Inventory;Revised!(LSI;
R)!and!the!Level!of!Service!Inventory;Revised:!Screening!Version!(LSI;R:SV),!which!are!actuarial!
risk!assessment!instruments!intended!to!assess!risk!for!general!offending!and!technical!
violations!across!offender!populations!(Andrews!and!Bonta!1995,!1999).!!
!
The!LSI;R!contains!54!static!and!dynamic!risk!factors.!Content!areas!include!attitudes,!associates!
or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!personality!problems,!relationships,!circumstances!at!
school!or!work,!leisure!or!recreational!activities,!substance!use!problems,!mental!health!
problems,!and!housing.!Item!responses!are!scored!and!summed!for!a!total!score!from!0!to!54.!
!
The!LSI;R:SV!contains!eight!static!and!dynamic!items!selected!from!the!LSI;R.!Content!areas!
assessed!include!attitudes,!associates!or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!personality!
31!|!P a g e !
!

!

problems,!relationships,!circumstances!at!school!or!work,!and!substance!abuse!problems.!
Individual!item!responses!are!scored!and!summed!for!a!total!score!ranging!from!0!to!9.!This!
score!is!used!to!determine!if!the!offender!requires!a!full!LSI;R!assessment.!
!
LSI;R!and!LSI;R:SV!assessments!are!completed!through!interview!and!file!review,!a!process!
estimated!to!require!approximately!30!to!40!minutes!for!the!LSI;R!and!10!to!15!minutes!for!the!
LSI;R:SV!(though!studies!reported!longer!completion!times–see!below).!The!assessor!does!not!
need!formal!training,!but!scoring!must!be!overseen!by!someone!who!has!at!least!B;level!
qualifications!(i.e.,!post;secondary!training!in!psychological!assessment).!The!LSI;R!and!LSI;R:SV!
materials!are!available!through!Multi;Health!Systems!(mhs.com).!Costs!include!those!associated!
with!the!manual,!interview!guides,!and!assessment!forms.!For!further!information!on!pricing,!
see!mhs.com.!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
Predictive!validity!of!LSI;R!total!scores!has!been!evaluated!in!25!U.S.!samples.!Performance!has!
ranged!from!poor!to!good,!with!the!median!on!the!cusp!of!fair!and!good.!No!studies!have!
examined!the!predictive!validity!of!the!risk!classifications!(as!opposed!to!total!scores).!LSI;R!
total!scores!seem!to!perform!slightly!better!for!men!than!for!women,!though!performance!is!in!
the!fair;good!range!for!both.!U.S.!studies!have!not!shown!differences!in!validity!as!a!function!of!
race/ethnicity.!Predictive!validity!for!total!scores!completed!in!the!context!of!research!and!
practice!is!also!comparable.!Validity!in!predicting!general!offending!is!slightly!better!than!for!
technical!violations.!In!the!one!U.S.!study!reporting!inter;rater!reliability!data,!agreement!
ranged!from!poor!to!excellent!across!content!domains,!but!was!excellent!overall!(Simourd!
2006).!
!
Predictive!validity!of!the!LSI;R:SV!has!only!been!examined!in!two!U.S.!samples!with!mixed!
results:!one!study!showed!fair!performance!(Walters!2011)!and!the!other!showed!good!
performance!(Lowenkamp,!Lovins,!and!Latessa!2009).!The!LSI;R:SV!seems!to!perform!better!for!
men!(good!predictive!validity)!than!for!women!(fair!predictive!validity).!There!have!been!no!
comparisons!of!predictive!validity!between!total!scores!and!risk!classifications,!assessments!
completed!in!research!and!practice,!by!offender!race/ethnicity,!or!by!recidivism!outcome.!
Because!the!LSI;R:SV!is!a!self;report!instrument,!inter;reliability!is!not!relevant.!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
Researchers!and!professionals!have!reported!administration!times!that!deviate!from!the!LSI;R!
manual’s!estimate!of!30!to!40!minutes,!including!an!average!completion!time!of!60!minutes!in!
32!|!P a g e !
!

!

one!sample!(Holsinger!et!al.!2004)!and!ranges!from!45!to!90!minutes!in!two!others!(Evans!2009;!
Lowenkamp,!Lovins,!and!Latessa!2009).!!
!
There!is!considerable!variation!in!the!cut;off!scores!used!for!the!risk!categories.!The!manual!
encourages!altering!cut;off!scores!based!on!the!characteristics!of!offense!groups,!but!research!
should!be!conducted!prior!to!implementation!to!examine!the!predictive!validity!of!revised!cut;
off!scores!(Kim!2010).!
!
A!recent!addition!to!the!Level!of!Service!family!of!instruments!is!the!Level!of!Service/Case!
Management!Inventory!(LS/CMI),!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!with!43!items!intended!to!aid!
professionals!in!late!adolescent!and!adult!offender!management.!No!studies!examining!the!
LS/CMI!met!inclusion!criteria!for!this!review.!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Donald!A.!Andrews!and!James!L.!Bonta,!LSIYR:!The!Level!of!Service!InventoryYRevised!(Toronto:!
Multi;Health!Systems,!1995).!
!
Donald!A.!Andrews!and!James!L.!Bonta,!LSIYR:!SV!Level!of!Service!Inventory!Revised:!Screening!
Version!User’s!Manual!(Toronto:!Multi;Health!Systems,!1999).!
!
Stephanie!A.!Evans,!“Gender!Disparity!in!the!Prediction!of!Recidivism:!The!Accuracy!of!the!LSI;R!
Modified,”!(master’s!thesis,!University!of!Alabama,!2009).!
!
Alexander!M.!Holsinger,!Christopher!T.!Lowenkamp,!and!Edward!J.!Latessa,!“Validating!the!LSI;R!
on!a!Sample!of!Jail!Inmates,”Journal!of!Offender!Monitoring!17,!no.!1!(2004):!8–9.!
!
Hye;Sun!Kim,!“Prisoner!Classification!Re;visited:!A!Further!Test!of!the!Level!of!Service!
Inventory;Revised!(LSI;R)!Intake!Assessment.”!(PhD!diss.,!Indiana!University!of!Pennsylvania,!
2010).!
!
Christopher!T.!Lowenkamp,!Brian!Lovins,!and!Edward!J.!Latessa,!“Validating!the!Level!of!Service!
Inventory—Revised!and!the!Level!of!Service!Inventory:!Screening!Version!With!a!Sample!of!
Probationers,”!Prison!Journal!89,!no.!2!(2009):!192–204.!
!
David!Simourd,!Validation!of!Risk/Needs!Assessments!in!the!Pennsylvania!Department!of!
Corrections!(Mechanicsburg,!PA:!Pennsylvania!Department!of!Corrections,!2006).!
!
33!|!P a g e !
!

!

Glenn!D.!Walters,!“Predicting!Recidivism!with!the!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!
Styles!and!Level!of!Service!Inventory–Revised:!Screening!Version,”!Law!and!Human!Behavior!35,!
no.!3!(2011):!211–220.!
!
Ohio!Risk!Assessment!System!
!
Description!
The!Ohio!Risk!Assessment!System!(ORAS)!is!composed!of!five!actuarial!risk!assessment!
instruments!intended!to!assess!risk!for!recidivism!across!offender!populations!(Latessa!et!al.!
2009):!the!7;item!Pretrial!Assessment!Tool!(ORAS;PAT),!the!4;item!Community!Supervision!
Screening!Tool!(ORAS;CSST),!the!35;item!Community!Supervision!Tool!(ORAS;CST),!the!31;item!
Prison!Intake!Tool!(ORAS;PIT),!and!the!20;item!Prison!Reentry!Tool!(ORAS;RT).!Each!includes!
static!and!dynamic!risk!factors!and!is!designed!for!use!at!a!specific!stage!in!the!criminal!justice!
system.!Assessments!identify!criminogenic!needs!and!place!offenders!into!risk!categories.!An!
additional!sixth!instrument,!the!Prison!Screening!Tool!(ORAS;PST),!is!designed!to!identify!low;
risk!inmates!who!do!not!need!the!full!ORAS;PIT!assessment.!
!
Item!responses!are!scored!and!summed!to!create!total!scores!that!are!compared!against!risk!
classification!cut;off!values.!The!ORAS;PAT!has!a!range!from!0!to!9,!the!ORAS;CSST!from!0!to!7,!
the!ORAS;CST!from!0!to!49,!the!ORAS;PIT!from!3!to!29,!and!the!ORAS;RT!from!0!to!28.!Each!tool!
considers!the!offender’s!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!circumstances!at!school!or!work,!and!
substance!abuse!problems;!some!also!evaluate!additional!domains,!such!as!attitudes!(e.g.,!
ORAS;CST,!ORAS;RT),!and!mental!health!problems!(e.g.,!ORAS;PIT,!ORAS;RT).!
!
The!ORAS!tools!are!completed!through!a!structured!interview!and!analysis!of!official!records;!
the!ORAS;CSST,!ORAS;PIT,!and!ORAS;RT!additionally!use!self;report!questionnaires.!Assessors!
must!complete!a!two;day!training!package!that!accompanies!the!tool!prior!to!administering!any!
assessments.!The!ORAS!is!published!by!the!Ohio!Department!of!Rehabilitation!and!Correction!
(drc.ohio.gov).!The!system!is!non;proprietary!and!can!be!obtained!from!the!Center!of!Criminal!
Justice!Research!at!the!University!of!Cincinnati!(uc.edu/corrections/services/risk;
assessment.html).!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
ORAS;PAT!total!scores!demonstrated!fair!validity!in!predicting!arrest!in!the!construction!sample!
and!good!validity!in!the!validation!sample!(Latessa!et!al.!2009).!A!second!evaluation!found!fair!
predictive!validity!for!ORAS;PAT!assessments,!good!validity!for!ORAS;PIT!and!ORAS;RT!

34!|!P a g e !
!

!

assessments,!and!excellent!validity!for!ORAS;CCST!and!ORAS;CST!assessments!(Lowenkamp,!
Lemke,!and!Latessa!2008).!ORAS;PST!assessments!have!not!been!included!in!these!evaluations.!!
!
Predictive!validity!of!ORAS!assessments!differs!somewhat!in!relation!to!offender!gender.!
Specifically,!ORAS;CST!assessments!performed!slightly!better!for!male!than!female!offenders,!
though!predictive!validity!was!excellent!in!both!cases.!Conversely,!ORAS;PIT!and!ORAS;RT!
assessments!performed!better!for!female!(excellent!predictive!validity)!than!male!offenders!
(good).!ORAS;CSST!assessments,!in!contrast,!have!shown!comparable!predictive!validity!for!
both!male!and!female!offenders.!The!ORAS;PAT!total!scores!have!demonstrated!better!validity!
in!predicting!technical!violations!(good)!than!general!offending!(fair).!!
!
There!have!been!no!comparisons!of!predictive!validity!between!total!scores!and!risk!
classifications,!between!assessments!completed!in!research!and!practice!contexts,!or!by!
offender!race/ethnicity.!There!also!have!been!no!evaluations!of!inter;rater!reliability.!!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
Though!findings!are!promising,!there!has!been!relatively!little!research!on!the!predictive!validity!
of!the!ORAS,!with!only!one!evaluation!of!four!of!the!tools!in!the!suite!and!two!of!the!fifth!tool.!
What’s!more,!there!have!been!no!reports!on!the!inter;rater!reliability!of!the!assessments.!
Finally,!all!extant!research!has!been!completed!by!the!study!developers;!independent!
replication!is!needed.!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Edward!Latessa!et!al.,!Creation!and!Validation!of!the!Ohio!Risk!Assessment!System:!Final!Report!
(Cincinnati,!OH:!University!of!Cincinnati!Center!for!Criminal!Justice!Research,!2009),!available!at!
ocjs.ohio.gov/ORAS_FinalReport.pdf.!
!
Christopher!T.!Lowenkamp,!Richard!Lemke,!and!Edward!Latessa,!“The!Development!and!
Validation!of!a!Pretrial!Screening!Tool,”!Federal!Probation!72,!no.!3!(2008):!2–9.!
!
!
Risk!Management!Systems!
!
Description!
The!Risk!Management!Systems!(RMS)!is!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!instrument!intended!to!be!
used!to!assess!risk!for!general!offending!across!offender!populations!(Dow,!Jones,!and!Mott!
35!|!P a g e !
!

!

2005).!The!RMS!currently!contains!67!static!and!dynamic!risk!factors;!however,!when!it!was!
validated,!the!instrument!included!only!65!items.!The!assessment!is!split!into!four!parts:!1)!
Needs!(24!items),!2)!Risk!(9!items),!3)!Mental!Health!(10!items),!and!4)!Other;External!(24!
items).!Content!areas!assessed!include!attitudes,!associates!or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!
behavior,!personality!problems,!relationships,!circumstances!at!school!or!work,!substance!
abuse!problems,!mental!health!problems,!and!housing.!!
!
The!RMS!is!administered!using!a!computer;based!questionnaire.!As!such,!the!assessor!is!
removed!from!the!initial!assessment!process;!individual!item!responses!are!statistically!
analyzed!to!calculate!risk!of!recidivism.!Risk!scores!for!violence!and!recidivism!range!from!1.00!
(Low)!to!2.00!(High),!at!0.01!intervals.!However,!there!are!no!established!cut;off!scores!for!risk!
categories,!so!the!assessor!must!interpret!the!subsequent!level!of!risk/supervision!required.!
RMS!assessment!materials!can!be!purchased!through!Syscon!Justice!Systems!(syscon.net).!For!
information!on!pricing!see!syscon.net.!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
Predictive!validity!of!RMS!assessment!has!been!reported!in!two!U.S.!studies;!performance!has!
ranged!from!good!(Kelly!2009)!to!excellent!(Dow,!Jones,!and!Mott!2005).!The!risk!classifications!
have!notably!better!predictive!validity!(excellent)!compared!to!total!scores!(good).!Validity!is!
comparable!for!predicting!general!offending!and!technical!violations.!RMS!assessments!appear!
to!have!better!predictive!validity!when!completed!in!research!studies!(excellent)!than!in!the!
context!of!“real!world”!practice!(good);!however,!this!comparison!is!confounded!by!use!of!risk!
classifications!in!one!study!and!total!scores!in!the!other.!
!
There!have!been!no!U.S.!comparisons!of!predictive!validity!by!offender!gender!or!
race/ethnicity.!There!also!have!not!been!any!U.S.!evaluations!of!inter;rater!reliability.!!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
The!initial!development!and!validation!study!intended!the!tool!to!be!used!to!assess!risk!for!
general!offending!(Dow,!Jones,!and!Mott!2005);!a!later!study!established!the!validity!of!RMS!
assessments!in!predicting!technical!violations!(Kelly!2009).!Overall,!further!independent!
research!is!needed!to!replicate!and!establish!the!generalizability!of!findings,!as!well!as!to!
determine!the!validity!of!different!cut;off!scores.!!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
36!|!P a g e !
!

!

Edward!Dow,!Charles!Jones,!and!Jack!Mott,!“An!Empirical!Modeling!Approach!to!Recidivism!
Classification,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!32,!no.!2!(2005):!223–247.!
!
Bridget!Kelly,!“A!Validation!Study!of!Risk!Management!Systems,”!(master's!thesis,!University!of!
Nevada,!Las!Vegas,!2009,!available!at!digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/128.!
!
Deborah!Koetzle!Shaffer,!Bridget!Kelly,!and!Joel!D.!Lieberman,!“An!Exemplar;Based!Approach!to!
Risk!Assessment:!Validating!the!Risk!Management!Systems!Instrument,”!Criminal!Justice!Policy!
Review!22,!no.!2!(2011):!167–186.!
!
!
Salient!Factor!Score!!
!
Description!
The!Salient!Factor!Score!(SFS)!is!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!tool!intended!to!assess!risk!for!
general!offending!across!offender!populations.!This!tool!is!specifically!designed!to!determine!
whether!an!offender!should!be!granted!parole!or!not.!!
!
There!are!at!least!four!versions!of!the!SFS.!Items!have!been!adapted!over!the!years!to!be!
consistent!with!research!findings;!however,!each!version!of!the!instrument!only!measures!static!
risk!factors.!The!SFS74!contains!nine!items,!and!content!areas!include!history!of!antisocial!
behavior,!circumstances!at!work!or!school,!substance!use!problems,!and!housing.!The!SFS76!
contains!seven!items!and!content!areas!include!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!circumstances!at!
work!or!school,!and!substance!use!problems.!The!SFS81!contains!six!items,!and!content!areas!
include!history!of!antisocial!behavior!and!substance!use!problems.!The!SFS98!includes!six!items,!
and!the!only!content!area!included!is!history!of!antisocial!behavior.!Unlike!the!prior!versions,!
the!SFS98!also!considers!whether!the!offender!was!older!than!41!at!the!time!of!the!current!
offense.!
!
The!SFS!instruments!are!completed!through!review!of!official!records.!Item!ratings!are!summed!
to!arrive!at!an!overall!risk!score,!with!a!higher!score!indicating!lower!risk.!These!total!scores!are!
then!used!to!place!offenders!within!one!of!four!risk!categories:!very!good!risk,!good!risk,!fair!
risk,!and!poor!risk.!For!further!information!contact!the!United!States!Parole!Commission!
(justice.gov/uspc).!!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!

37!|!P a g e !
!

!

Predictive!validity!SFS74,!SFS76,!and!the!SFS81!assessments!have!been!examined!in!15!U.S.!
samples.!Validity!of!SFS74!and!SFS76!assessments!in!predicting!general!offending!has!ranged!
from!good!to!excellent.!SFS81!assessments!generally!have!also!shown!excellent!predictive!
validity!across!studies,!though!the!odds!ratio!was!notably!low!in!one!evaluation!(Howard!2007).!
No!U.S.!evaluations!of!the!predictive!validity!of!SFS98!assessments!were!discovered.!!!
!
There!have!been!no!U.S.!comparisons!of!the!predictive!validity!of!the!SFS!instruments!between!
total!scores!and!risk!classifications,!between!assessments!completed!in!research!and!practice!
contexts,!or!by!offender!race/ethnicity.!There!also!have!been!no!evaluations!of!inter;rater!
reliability.!!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
Though!items!are!relatively!straightforward!to!code,!investigations!of!inter;rater!reliability!are!
needed!to!establish!the!consistency!of!assessments!across!assessors.!!
!
Jurisdiction;specific!adaptations!include!the!Connecticut!Salient!Factor!Score.!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Peter!B.!Hoffman,!“Twenty!Years!of!Operational!Use!of!a!Risk!Prediction!Instrument:!The!United!
States!Parole!Commission’s!Salient!Factor!Score,”!Journal!of!Criminal!Justice!22,!no.!6,!(1994):!
477–494.!
!
Peter!B.!Hoffman!and!Sheldon!Adelberg,!“The!Salient!Factor!Score:!A!Nontechnical!Overview,”!
Federal!Probation!44,!no.!1!(1980):!44–52.!
!
Broooke!K.!Howard,!“Examining!Predictive!Validity!of!the!Salient!Factor!Score!and!HCR;20!
Among!Behavior!Health!Court!Clientele:!Comparing!Static!and!Dynamic!Variables,”!(PhD!diss.,!
Pacific!Graduate!School,!2007).!
!
!
Self?Appraisal!Questionnaire!
The!Self;Appraisal!Questionnaire!(SAQ)!is!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!instrument!to!assess!risk!
for!general!offending!among!male!offenders!(Kingston,!2005).!
!
The!SAQ!contains!72!dynamic!and!static!risk!factors.!Content!areas!include!attitudes,!associates!
or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!personality!problems,!and!substance!abuse!problems.!
38!|!P a g e !
!

!

Items!are!divided!across!seven!subscales.!Scores!on!six!subscales!are!calculated!to!provide!an!
overall!risk!score.!A!seventh!anger!subscale!is!not!used!to!assess!risk!for!recidivism.!Therefore,!
of!the!72!total!items,!67!items!are!used!to!predict!recidivism.!Total!scores!are!used!to!place!
offenders!in!one!of!four!risk!categories:!low,!low;moderate,!high;moderate,!and!high.!!
!
The!SAQ!is!a!true/false!self;report!questionnaire.!There!are!five!items!that!can!be!used!to!
assess!the!validity!of!an!offender’s!answers!by!comparing!them!against!official!records.!The!SAQ!
takes!approximately!15!minutes!to!administer!and!5!minutes!to!hand!score.!The!assessor!does!
not!need!formal!training,!but!scoring!must!be!overseen!by!someone!who!has!at!least!B;level!
qualifications!(i.e.,!post;secondary!training!in!psychological!assessment).!The!SAQ!can!be!
purchased!from!Multi;Health!Systems!Inc.!at!mhs.com.!Costs!include!those!associated!with!the!
manual!and!assessment!forms.!For!further!information!on!pricing,!see!mhs.com.!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
Two!studies!have!evaluated!the!predictive!validity!of!the!SAQ!in!U.S.!samples.!These!studies!
used!low;,!moderate;,!and!high;risk!categories!rather!than!the!four!categories!suggested!by!the!
assessment!developer.!Mitchell!and!Mackenzie!(2006)!found!poor!validity!of!the!SAQ!
assessments!in!predicting!rearrest!and!failed!to!find!differences!in!total!scores!between!
recidivists!and!non;recidivists.!In!contrast,!using!a!longer!follow;up!period!and!a!larger!sample,!
Mitchell,!Caudy,!and!Mackenzie!(2013)!found!that!SAQ!assessments!predicted!time!to!first!
reconviction,!though!the!effect!size!was!small.!!
!
There!have!been!no!comparisons!of!predictive!validity!in!U.S.!samples!between!total!scores!and!
risk!classifications,!between!assessments!completed!in!research!and!practice,!by!offender!
gender,!or!by!race/ethnicity.!Because!the!SAQ!is!a!self;report!instrument,!inter;reliability!is!not!
relevant.!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
!
The!SAQ!requires!a!fifth;grade!reading!level.!Prior!studies!of!the!validity!of!SAQ!assessments!in!
predicting!violent!outcomes,!including!institutional!violence!and!violent!recidivism!(e.g.,!
Campbell,!French,!and!Gendreau!2009),!as!well!as!violent!and!non;violent!recidivism!in!
Canadian!samples!(e.g.,!Kingston,!MacTavish,!and!Loza;Fanous!2007)!have!shown!more!
promising!results!than!those!reported!herein!vis;à;vis!validity!in!predicting!non;violent!
offending!in!U.S.!samples.!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
39!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
Mary!A.!Campbell,!Sheila!French,!and!Paul!Gendreau,!“The!Prediction!of!Violence!in!Adult!
Offenders:!A!Meta;Analytic!Comparison!of!Instruments!and!Methods!of!Assessment,”!Criminal!
Justice!and!Behavior!36,!no.!6!(2009):!567–590.!!
Wagdy!Loza!Kingston,!The!SelfYAppraisal!Questionnaire!(SAQ):!A!Tool!for!Assessing!Violent!and!
NonYViolent!Recidivism!(Toronto:!Mental!Health!Systems,!2005).!
!
Wadgy!Loza!Kingston,!Angèle!MacTavish,!and!Amel!Loza;Fanous,!“A!Nine;Year!Follow;Up!Study!
on!the!Predictive!Validity!of!the!Self;Appraisal!Questionnaire!for!Predicting!Violent!and!
Nonviolent!Recidivism,”!J!Interpers!Violence!2007!22,!no.!9!(2007):!1144–55.!
!
Ojmarrh!Mitchell,!Michael!S.!Caudy,!and!Doris!Layton!Mackenzie.!“A!Reanalysis!of!the!Self;!
Appraisal!Questionnaire:!Psychometric!Properties!and!Predictive!Validity,”!International!Journal!
of!Offender!Therapy!and!Comparative!Criminology!57,!no.!4!(2013):!445–459.!
Ojmarrh!Mitchell!and!Doris!Layton!Mackenzie,!“Disconfirmation!of!the!Predictive!Validity!of!the!
Self;Appraisal!Questionnaire!in!a!Sample!of!High;Risk!Drug!Offenders,”!Criminal!Justice!and!
Behavior!33,!no.!4!(2006):!449–466.!
!
!
Service!Planning!Instruments!
!
Description!
The!Service!Planning!Instrument!(SPIn)!is!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!tool!intended!to!assess!
risk!for!offending!and!to!identify!the!service!needs!of!male!offenders.!The!SPIn;W!was!
developed!for!use!with!female!offenders.!!
!
Both!the!SPIn!and!SPIn;W!are!self;report,!computer;based!instruments.!The!SPIn!includes!90!
static,!dynamic,!risk,!and!protective!factors.!Content!areas!assessed!include!attitudes,!
associates!or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!relationships,!circumstances!at!school!or!
work,!substance!use!problems,!mental!health!problems,!and!housing.!The!SPIn;W!includes!100!
static,!dynamic,!risk,!and!protective!factors.!Content!areas!include!attitudes,!associates!or!
peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!relationships,!circumstances!at!school!or!work,!leisure!or!
recreational!activities,!substance!use!problems,!mental!health!problems,!and!housing.!
!
For!both!instruments,!software!is!used!to!calculate!an!offender’s!risk!score,!which!is!presented!
graphically!and!narratively.!The!assessor!must!compare!responses!on!static!items!to!the!
offender’s!official!records.!Assessors!are!required!to!attend!a!two;day!training!session.!
40!|!P a g e !
!

!

Additional!two;day!training!programs!to!help!administrators!better!prepare!for!the!case;
planning!process,!as!well!as!data!workshops,!refresher!courses,!technical!support,!and!quality!
assurance!are!also!available.!The!SPIn!and!SPIn;W!can!be!purchased!from!Orbis!Partners!Inc.!
(orbispartners.com).!For!information!on!pricing,!see!orbispartners.com.!!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
Predictive!validity!of!SPIn!assessments!has!not!been!assessed!in!U.S.!samples.!Two!studies!have!
evaluated!predictive!validity!of!the!SPIn;W!assessments;!performance!ranged!from!poor!to!
excellent.!
There!have!been!no!comparisons!of!predictive!validity!in!U.S.!samples!between!total!scores!and!
risk!classifications,!between!assessments!completed!in!research!and!practice!contexts,!by!
outcome,!or!by!offender!race/ethnicity.!There!also!have!been!no!U.S.!evaluations!of!inter;rater!
reliability.!!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
Overall,!evidence!regarding!the!predictive!validity!of!SPIn;W!assessments!is!both!limited!and!
mixed.!There!is!no!evidence!to!support!the!predictive!validity!of!SPIn!assessments,!nor!inter;
rater!reliability!for!either!the!SPIn!or!SPIn;W.!More!research!is!needed.!!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Cathleen!Meaden,!“The!Utility!of!the!Level!of!Service!Inventory;Revised!Versus!the!Service!
Planning!Instrument!for!Women!in!Predicting!Program!Completion!in!Female!Offenders,”!
(master's!thesis,!Central!Connecticut!State!University,!2012),!available!at!
content.library.ccsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ccsutheses/id/1771.!
Bart!Millson,!David!Robinson,!and!Marilyn!Van!Dieten,!Women!Offender!Case!Management!
Model!(Washington,!DC:!U.S.!Department!of!Justice,!National!Institute!of!Corrections,!2010),!
available!at!
cjinvolvedwomen.org/sites/all/documents/Women%20Offender%20Case%20Management%20
Model.pdf.!
!
!
Static!Risk!and!Offender!Needs!Guide!
The!Static!Risk!and!Offender!Needs!Guide!(STRONG)!is!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!instrument!
intended!to!assess!risk!for!general!offending!across!offender!populations!(Barnoski!and!Drake!
2007).!!
41!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
The!STRONG!consists!of!three!parts:!the!Static!Risk!Assessment,!which!contains!26!static!risk!
factors;!the!Offender!Needs!Assessment,!which!contains!70!dynamic!risk!and!protective!factors;!
and!the!Offender!Supervision!Plan,!which!is!auto;populated!based!on!the!results!of!the!
Offender!Needs!Assessment.!Content!areas!assessed!in!the!Static!Risk!Assessment!include!
history!of!antisocial!behavior!and!substance!use!problems.!Items!scores!are!used!to!create!
three!separate!scores:!Felony!Risk!Score,!Non;Violent!Felony!Risk!Score!(high!property!risk/high!
drug!risk),!and!Violent!Felony!Risk!Score.!These!three!scores!are!then!used!to!classify!offenders!
in!one!of!five!categories:!high;risk!violent;!high;risk!property;!high;risk!drug;!moderate!risk;!and!
low!risk.!Content!areas!assessed!in!the!Offender!Needs!Assessment!include!attitudes,!
associates!or!peers,!personality!problems,!relationships,!circumstances!at!work!or!school,!
substance!use!problems,!mental!health!problems,!and!housing.!Ratings!on!items!included!in!the!
Offender!Needs!Assessment!are!not!used!to!inform!risk!assessments!but!instead!guide!the!
development!of!interventions!designed!to!reduce!risk!of!future!criminal!justice!involvement.!
!
STRONG!assessments!are!completed!by!assessors!using!a!web;based!interface.!Assessors!must!
complete!an!initial!training!program!as!well!as!routine!booster!training!sessions.!The!STRONG!
was!developed!by!Assessments.com!in!collaboration!with!the!Washington!Department!of!
Corrections.!A!very!similar!version!can!be!purchased!for!use!in!other!jurisdictions!through!
assessments.com.!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
Only!one!U.S.!study!has!evaluated!the!predictive!validity!of!STRONG!assessments;!assessments!
demonstrated!excellent!predictive!validity!overall,!as!well!as!for!male!and!female!offenders!
separately!(Barnoski!and!Drake!2007).!Predictive!validity!has!not!been!examined!as!a!function!
of!offender!race/ethnicity,!type!of!recidivism!outcome,!or!between!assessments!completed!in!
the!context!of!research!versus!practice.!There!have!been!no!evaluations!of!inter;rater!
reliability.!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
!
Though!findings!are!promising,!predictive!validity!of!STRONG!assessments!has!only!been!
evaluated!in!one!study!conducted!by!the!instrument!developer;!independent!replication!is!
needed.!!
!

42!|!P a g e !
!

!

Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Robert!Barnoski!and!Elizabeth!K.!Drake,!Washington’s!Offender!Accountability!Act:!Department!
of!Corrections’!Static!Risk!Instrument!(Olympia,!WA:!Washington!State!Institute!for!Public!
Policy,!2007),!available!at!wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/07;03;1201R.pdf.!!
!
!
Wisconsin!Risk!and!Needs!Scales!
!
Description!
The!Wisconsin!Risk!and!Needs!Scales!(WRN)!is!an!actuarial!risk!assessment!instrument!intended!
to!assess!risk!for!general!offending!and!technical!violations!across!offender!populations.!A!
revised!version!(WRN;R)!was!designed!specifically!for!use!with!probationers!and!parolees!
(Eisenberg,!Bryl,!and!Fabelo!2009).!
!
The!WRN!contains!53!static!and!dynamic!risk!factors.!Content!areas!assessed!include!attitudes,!
associates!or!peers,!history!of!antisocial!behavior,!relationships,!circumstances!at!work!or!
school,!substance!use!problems,!and!mental!health!problems.!Individual!item!scores!are!scored!
and!summed!for!a!total!risk!score!ranging!from!0!to!52.!The!total!score!is!used!to!place!the!
offender!in!a!risk!category!based!on!predetermined!cut;offs:!Low!=!0!to!7;!Medium!=!8!to!14;!
and!High!=!15+.!!
!
The!WRN;R!retained!52!of!the!WRN’s!items!and!covers!the!same!content!areas.!The!weights!of!
the!different!factors!have!been!revised!from!the!original!WRN!based!on!the!results!of!a!
validation!study,!and!the!revised!total!risk!score!has!a!range!of!0!to!25.!The!total!score!is!used!
to!estimate!risk!level!based!on!new!cut;offs:!Low!=!0!to!8;!Medium!=!9!to!14;!and!High!=!15+.!
!
WRN!assessments!are!completed!using!information!obtained!through!interview.!The!WRN!is!
non;proprietary!and!available!at!no!cost!through!Justice!Systems!Assessment!&!Training!(j;
satresources.com/Toolkit/Adult/adf6e846;f4dc;4b1e;b7b1;2ff28551ce85).!
!
U.S.!Research!Evidence!
!
Predictive!validity!of!the!WRN!assessments!have!ranged!from!fair!(Eisenberg,!Bryl,!and!Fabelo!
2009)!to!excellent!(Connolly!2003).!WRN!assessments!appear!to!perform!better!for!predictive!
technical!violations!(excellent)!than!general!offending!(good).!Comparisons!between!predictive!
validity!of!assessments!completed!in!research!versus!practice!failed!to!identify!any!differences.!
There!have!been!no!comparisons!of!predictive!validity!in!U.S.!samples!between!total!scores!and!
43!|!P a g e !
!

!

risk!classifications,!or!by!offender!gender!or!race/ethnicity.!There!have!also!been!no!U.S.!
evaluations!of!inter;rater!reliability.!!
!
To!date,!predictive!validity!of!the!WRN;R!has!been!evaluated!in!one!U.S.!study;!assessments!
demonstrated!good!predictive!validity.!
!
Practical!Issues!and!Considerations!
!
A!high!percentage!of!offenders!are!classified!as!high!risk!using!the!WRN!due!to!the!heavy!
weight!given!to!convictions!for!an!assaultive!offense!in!the!past!five!years.!There!is!concern!that!
such!overclassification!is!“counter!to!the!goal!of!risk!classification:!to!differentiate!the!
population!by!risk!and!allocate!resources!accordingly”!(Eisenberg,!Bryl,!and!Fabelo!2009,!iv).!
!
In!2004,!a!new,!automated!assessment!and!case!management!system!called!the!Correctional!
Assessment!and!Intervention!System!(CAIS)!was!developed!based!upon!the!WRN!and!the!Client!
Management!Classification!tools!(Baird,!Heinz,!and!Bemus!1979).!This!CAIS!is!an!actuarial!risk!
assessment!instrument!intended!to!assess!risk!for!general!offending!and!technical!violations!
across!offender!populations,!as!well!as!to!be!used!in!the!development!of!case!management!
plans.!Its!predictive!validity!has!not!yet!been!evaluated.!
!
Selected!References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Christopher!Baird,!Richard!C.!Heinz,!and!Brian!J.!Bemus,!The!Wisconsin!Case!Classification/Staff!
Deployment!Project:!A!TwoYYear!FollowYup!Report!(Madison,!WI:!Wisconsin!Department!of!
Corrections,!1979).!
!
Michele!M.!Connolly,!“A!Critical!Examination!of!Actuarial!Offender;Based!Prediction!
Assessments:!Guidance!for!the!Next!Generation!of!Assessments.”!(PhD!diss.,!University!of!Texas!
at!Austin,!2003),!available!at!
repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/522/connollymm036.pdf?sequence=2.!
!
Mike!Eisenberg,!Jason!Bryl,!and!Tony!Fabel,!Validation!of!the!Wisconsin!Department!of!
Corrections!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!(New!York:!Council!of!State!Governments!Justice!
Center,!2009),!available!at!csgjusticecenter.org/wp;
content/uploads/2012/12/WIRiskValidationFinalJuly2009.pdf.!
!
!
!

44!|!P a g e !
!

!

OTHER!TYPES!OF!INSTRUMENTS!USED!TO!ASSESS!!
RECIDIVISM!RISK!
!
!
Violence!Risk!Assessment!Instruments!
!
Violence!risk!assessment!instruments,!such!as!the!Historical;Clinical;Risk!Management;20!(HCR;
20)!(Webster!et!al.!1997)!and!Violence!Risk!Appraisal!Guide!(VRAG)!(Quinsey!et!al.!2006),!are!
intended!to!assess!risk!of!future!violence!specifically,!but!also!are!frequently!used!to!assess!risk!
of!non;violent!recidivism.!!
!
HCRY20!
!
The!HCR;20!is!a!structured!professional!judgment!scheme!composed!of!20!static!and!dynamic!
items!that!assess!historical!risk!factors,!clinical!risk!factors,!and!risk!management!factors.!The!
individual!item!ratings!are!used!to!inform!a!final!professional!judgment!of!low,!moderate,!or!
high!risk.!Only!one!study!has!evaluated!the!validity!of!HCR;20!assessments!in!predicting!
recidivism!in!a!U.S.!sample!(Barber;Rioja!et!al.!2012).!Overall,!the!assessment!total!score!was!
found!to!have!excellent!validity!in!predicting!both!general!offending!and!technical!violations.!
The!HCR;20!has!been!widely!validated!outside!the!U.S.!(see!
kdouglas.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/hcr;20;annotated;biblio;sept;2010.pdf).!Materials!for!
the!HCR;20!are!proprietary!and!must!be!purchased.!
!
VRAG!
!
The!VRAG!is!an!actuarial!instrument!designed!for!use!with!previously!violent,!mentally!
disordered!offenders.!It!consists!of!12!items!that!gather!information!on!static!and!dynamic!risk!
factors.!Individual!item!responses!are!weighted!and!summed!for!a!total!score,!which!is!then!
used!to!estimate!level!of!risk!based!on!an!actuarial!table.!The!predictive!validity!of!VRAG!
assessments!for!both!general!offending!and!violations!also!has!been!evaluated!in!only!one!U.S.!
sample!(Hastings!et!al.!2011).!Validity!in!predicting!general!offending!ranged!from!good!to!
excellent!for!male!offenders!and!fair!to!good!for!female!offenders.!Validity!in!predicting!
technical!violations!ranged!from!fair!to!good!for!male!offenders!and!poor!to!fair!for!female!
offenders.!Like!the!HCR;20,!much!research!completed!outside!the!U.S.!has!examined!the!
validity!of!VRAG!assessments.!For!more!information,!visit!mhcp.on.ca.!The!VRAG!is!available!at!
no!cost.!
!

45!|!P a g e !
!

!

References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Barber;Rioja!et!al.,!“The!Utility!of!the!HCR;20!and!PCL:SV!in!the!Prediction!of!Diversion!
Noncompliance!and!Reincarceration!in!Diversion!Programs,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!39,!
no.!4!(2012):!475–492.!
!
Seena!Fazel!et!al.,!“Use!of!Risk!Assessment!Instruments!to!Predict!Violence!and!Antisocial!
Behaviour!in!73!Samples!Involving!24,827!People:!Systematic!Review!and!Meta;Analysis,”!BMJ:!
British!Medical!Journal!345,!no.!1!(2012):!19.!
Mark!E.!Hastings!et!al.,!“Predictive!and!Incremental!Validity!of!the!Violence!Risk!Appraisal!Guide!
Scores!with!Male!and!Female!Jail!Inmates,”!Psychological!Assessment!23,!no.!1!(2011):!174–
183.!
!
Vernon!L.!Quinsey!et!al.,!Violent!Offenders:!Appraising!and!Managing!Risk!(2nd!ed.)!
(Washington,!DC:!American!Psychological!Association,!2006).!
!
Christopher!D.!Webster!et!al.,!HCRY20:!Assessing!Risk!for!Violence!Version!2!(Burnaby,!BC:!
Simon!Fraser!University,!Mental!Health,!Law,!and!Policy!Institute,!1997).!
!
!
Personality!Assessment!Instruments!!
!
Personality!assessment!instruments,!such!as!the!Psychopathy!Checklist;Revised!(PCL;R)!(Hare!
2003),!the!Psychopathy!Checklist:!Screening!Version!(PCL:SV)!(Hart,!Cox,!and!Hare!1995),!and!
the!Personality!Assessment!Instrument!(PAI)!(Morey!1991)!evaluate!personality!constructs!that!
correlate!with!criminal!offending.*!!
!
PCL!Instruments!
!
The!PCL;R!is!a!20;item!actuarial!assessment!that!can!be!used!to!diagnosis!psychopathy,!a!form!of!
antisocial!personality!disorder!characterized!by!a!persistent!pattern!of!severe!and!refractory!
callous;unemotionality.!Individual!items!are!scored!through!file!review!and!semi;structured!
interview,!then!summed!for!a!total!score!ranging!from!0!to!40!(where!30+!indicates!the!
presence!of!psychopathy).!The!PCL:SV!is!a!shorter,!12;item!version.!Again,!individual!item!ratings!
are!scored!and!summed,!with!a!cutoff!score!of!18!typically!used!for!classification!of!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*
For!a!meta;analytic!review!see!Jay!P.!Singh!and!Seena!Fazel,!“Forensic!Risk!Assessment:!A!Metareview,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!37,!no.!9!
(2010):!965–988.

46!|!P a g e !
!

!

psychopathy.!Research!demonstrates!excellent!correspondence!between!the!two!measures!in!
correctional!samples!(Guy!and!Douglas!2006).!Validity!of!PCL;R!and!PCL:SV!assessments!in!
predicting!recidivism!has!been!evaluated!extensively!in!the!U.S.,!with!performance!ranging!from!
poor!to!good!(e.g.,!Gonsalves,!Scalora,!and!Huss!2009;!Salekin!et!al.!1998;!Walters!and!Duncan!
2005).!For!more!information!on!the!PLC;R!and!PCL:SV,!see!hare.org/scales/,!where!materials!can!
also!be!purchased.!
!
PAI!
!
The!PAI!contains!344!self;report!items!that!are!divided!into!22!validity,!clinical,!treatment!
consideration,!and!interpersonal!scales.!Individual!item!responses!within!the!scales!are!hand!
scored!and!assessed!in!conjunction!with!interpretive!guidelines!included!in!the!professional!
manual!(Morey!2007).!In!U.S.!studies!assessing!the!predictive!validity!of!the!PAI,!the!assessment!
scale!scores!had!fair!to!good!validity!in!predicting!general!offending!(e.g.,!Barber;Rioja!et!al.!
2012;!Walters!2009;!Walters!and!Duncan!2005).!For!an!overview!and!bibliography,!see!
www4.parinc.com/Products/Product.aspx?ProductID=PAI,!where!materials!can!also!be!
purchased.!!
!
Other!Personality!Assessment!Instruments!
!
Other!instruments!including!the!California!Psychological!Inventory:!Socialization!Scale!(CPI:SO),!
Lifestyle!Criminality!Screening!Form!(LCSF),!Minnesota!Multiphasic!Personality!Inventory!
(MMPI),!Neuroticism,!Openness!to!Exposure!Personality!Inventory;Revised!(NEO;PI;R),!and!the!
Peterson,!Quay,!and!Cameron!Psychopathy!Scale!(PQC)!can!produce!valid!assessments!of!
recidivism!risk,!though!performance!varies!widely.*!
!
References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Virginia!Barber;Rioja!et!al.,!“The!Utility!of!the!HCR;20!and!PCL:SV!in!the!Prediction!of!Diversion!
Noncompliance!and!Reincarceration!in!Diversion!Programs,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!39,!
no.!4!(2012):!475–492.!
!
Robert!D.!Hare,!Hare!Psychopathy!ChecklistYRevised!(PCLYR):!Second!Edition,!Technical!Manual!
(Toronto:!Multi;Health!Systems,!2003).!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*
See Glenn!D.!Walters,!“Predicting!Criminal!Justice!Outcomes!with!the!Psychopathy!Checklist!and!Lifestyle!Criminality!Screening!Form:!a!Meta;
Analytic!Comparison,”!Behavioral!Sciences!&!the!Law!21,!no.!1!(2003):!89–102;!Glenn!D.!Walters,!“Risk;Appraisal!Versus!Self;Report!in!the!
Prediction!of!Criminal!Justice!Outcomes:!A!Meta;Analysis,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!33,!no.!3!(2006):!279–304.

47!|!P a g e !
!

!

Stephen!D.!Hart,!David!N.!Cox,!and!Robert!D.!Hare,!The!Hare!Psychopathy!Checklist:!Screening!
Version,!1st!ed.!(Toronto:!Multi;Health!Systems,!1995).!
!
Valerie!M.!Gonsalves,!Mario!J.!Scalora,!and!Matthew!T.!Huss,!“Prediction!of!Recidivism!Using!the!
Psychopathy!Checklist—Revised!and!the!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!Styles!
within!a!Forensic!Sample,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!36,!no.!7!(2009):!741–756.!
!
Leslie!C.!Morey,!Personality!Assessment!Inventory!Professional!Manual,!2nd!ed!(Lutz,!FL:!!
Psychological!Assessment!Resources,!2007).!
!
Randall!T.!Salekin!et!al.,!“Psychopathy!and!Recidivism!Among!Female!Inmates,”!Law!and!Human!
Behavior!22,!no.!1!(1998):!109–128.!
!
Glenn!D.!Walters,!“The!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!Styles!and!Psychopathy!
Checklist:!Screening!Version!as!Incrementally!Valid!Predictors!of!Recidivism,”!Law!and!Human!
Behavior!33,!no.!6!(2009):!497–505.!
!
Glenn!D.!Walters!and!Scott!A.!Duncan,!“Use!of!the!PCL;R!and!PAI!to!Predict!Release!Outcome!in!
Inmates!Undergoing!Forensic!Evaluation,”!Journal!of!Forensic!Psychiatry!&!Psychology!16,!no.!3!
(2005):!459–476.!
!
Criminal!Thinking!Questionnaires!
!
Criminal!thinking!questionnaires,!such!as!the!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!Styles!
(PICTS)!(Walters!1995)!and!the!Texas!Christian!University!Criminal!Thinking!Scales!(TCU!CTS)!
(Knight,!Simpson,!and!Morey!2002),!are!designed!to!identify!attitudes!and!thought!patterns!
associated!with!criminal!behavior.!!
!
PICTS!
!
The!PICTS!is!an!80;item,!self;report!measure!composed!of!eight!thinking!pattern!scales,!two!
validity!scales,!four!factor!scales,!two!composite!scales,!and!a!General!Criminal!Thinking!(GCT)!
scale.!The!validity!of!PICTS!scores!in!predicting!general!offending!has!been!evaluated!in!a!
number!of!U.S.!studies!with!mixed!findings.!Performance!of!the!GCT!scale!scores!ranges!from!
poor!to!good!(e.g.,!Walters!2009a,!2009b,!2011);!however,!other!research!suggests!the!eight!
thinking!pattern!scales!have!poor!validity!(Gonsalves,!Scalora,!and!Huss!2009).!!
!
TCU!CTS!
48!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
The!TCU!CTS!is!an!actuarial,!self;report!instrument!designed!to!measure!criminal!thinking.!The!
instrument!contains!37!items!distributed!across!six!thinking!pattern!scales:!Entitlement,!
Justification,!Power!Orientation,!Cold!Heartedness,!Criminal!Rationalization,!and!Personal!
Irresponsibility.!In!one!U.S.!study,!the!six!thinking!pattern!scale!scores!had!poor!validity!in!
predicting!both!general!offending!and!technical!violations!(Taxman,!Rhodes,!and!Dumenci!
2011).!More!information!and!a!copy!of!the!TCU!CTS!assessment!materials!are!available!at!no!
cost!from!ibr.tcu.edu/pubs/datacoll/cjtrt.html.!
!
References!and!Suggested!Readings!
!
Valerie!M.!Gonsalves!et!al.,!“Prediction!of!Recidivism!Using!the!Psychopathy!Checklist—Revised!
and!the!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!Styles!within!a!Forensic!Sample,”!Criminal!
Justice!and!Behavior!36,!no.!7!(2009):!741–756.!
!
Kevin!D.!Knight,!Dwayne!Simpson,!and!Janis!T.!Morey,!TCUYNIC!Cooperative!Agreement:!Final!
Report!(Fort!Worth,!TX:!Texas!Christian!University,!Institute!of!Behavioral!Research,!2002).!
!
Faye!S.!Taxman,!Anne!Giuranna!Rhodes,!and!Levent!Dumenci,!“Construct!and!Predictive!
Validity!of!Criminal!Thinking!Scales,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!38,!no.!2!(2011):!174–187.!
!
Glenn!D.!Walters,!“The!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!Styles!Part!I:!Reliability!and!
Preliminary!Validity,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!22,!no.!3!(1995):!307–325.!
!
Glenn!D.!Walters,!“Effect!of!a!Longer!Versus!Shorter!Test;Release!Interval!on!Recidivism!
Prediction!with!the!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!Styles!(PICTS),”!International!
Journal!of!Offender!Therapy!and!Comparative!Criminology!53,!no.!6!(2009a):!665–678.!
!
Glenn!D.!Walters,!“The!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!Styles!and!Psychopathy!
Checklist:!Screening!Version!as!Incrementally!Valid!Predictors!of!Recidivism,”!Law!and!Human!
Behavior!33,!no.!6!(2009b):!497–505.!
!
Glenn!D.!Walters,!“Predicting!Recidivism!with!the!Psychological!Inventory!of!Criminal!Thinking!
Styles!and!Level!of!Service!Inventory;Revised:!Screening!Version,”!Law!and!Human!Behavior!35,!
no.!3!(2011):!211–220.!
!

49!|!P a g e !
!

!

APPENDIX!A!!
List!of!Jurisdiction?Specific!Risk!Assessment!Instruments!
1.

Alabama!Risk!and!Needs!Assessment!!

2.

Allegheny!County!Risk!Assessment!

3.

Arizona!Risk!Assessment!Suite!!

4.

Arkansas!Post;Prison!Board!Transfer!Risk!Assessment!!

5.

California!Parole!Violation!Decision!Making!Instrument!!!

6.

California!Static!Risk!Assessment!!!

7.

Colorado!Actuarial!Risk!Assessment!Scale!!

8.

Connecticut!Salient!Factor!Score!!

9.

Delaware!Parole!Board!Risk!Assessment!!

10.

Georgia!Board!of!Pardons!and!Parole’s!Field!Log!of!Interaction!Data!!

11.

Georgia!Parole!Behavior!Response!and!Adjustment!Guide!!

12.

Georgia!Parole!Decisions!Guidelines!Grid!System!

13.

Georgia!Department!of!Corrections!Offender!Tracking!Information!System!!!

14.

Hawaii!Risk!and!Needs!Assessment!

15.

Illinois!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!!

16.

Illinois!Risks,!Assets!and!Needs!Assessment!Tool!

17.

Indiana!Risk!Assessment!System!!

18.

Kentucky!Pretrial!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!

19.

Kentucky!Parole!Guidelines!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!!

20.

Iowa!Board!of!Parole!Risk!Assessment!!

21.

Louisiana!Risk!Needs!Assessment!!

22.

Maryland!Public!Safety!Risk!Assessment!!

23.

Michigan!Parole!Guidelines!Score!Sheet!

24.

Mississippi!Parole!Risk!Instrument!

25.

Missouri!Sentencing!Assessment!Risk!Instrument!!
50!|!P a g e !

!

!

26.

Missouri!Parole!Board!Salient!Factor!Guidelines!

27.

Montana!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!!

28.

Nebraska!Criminal!History!Assessment!instrument!

29.

Nevada!Parole!Risk!Assessment!!

30.

New!Mexico!Risk!and!Needs!Assessment!

31.

North!Carolina!Risk!Needs!Assessment!

32.

Oregon!Criminal!History/Risk!Assessment!

33.

Public!Safety!Checklist!for!Oregon!!

34.

Orange!County!Pretrial!Risk!Assessment!!

35.

Rhode!Island!Parole!Risk!Assessment!

36.

South!Carolina!Parole!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!

37.

South!Dakota!Initial!Community!Risk/Needs!Assessment!

38.

State!of!Hawaii!LSI;R!Proxy!

39.

Tennessee!Offender!Risk!Assessment/Needs!Assessment!

40.

Tennessee!Parole!Grant!Prediction!Scale!and!Guidelines!!

41.

Texas!Parole!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!!

42.

Utah!Criminal!History!Assessment!

43.

Vermont!Parole!Board!Risk!Assessment!!

44.

Virginia!Pretrial!Risk!Assessment!Instrument!!

45.

Virginia!Risk!Assessment!Tool!

46.

Washington!Risk!Level!Classification!!

47.

West!Virginia!Parole!Board!Assessment!

!

!

51!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
Glossary!of!Terms!!
Actuarial!Risk!Assessment!
!
Mechanical!approach!to!risk!assessment!in!which!offenders!are!scored!on!a!series!of!items!
statistically!associated!with!recidivism!risk!in!the!sample!of!offenders!upon!whom!the!
instrument!was!developed.!The!total!score!is!cross;referenced!with!a!statistical!table!that!
translates!the!score!into!an!estimate!of!recidivism!risk!during!a!specified!timeframe.!
!
Area!Under!the!Curve!(AUC)!
!
Performance!indicator!measuring!the!probability!that!a!randomly!selected!offender!who!
recidivated!during!follow;up!would!have!received!a!higher!risk!classification!using!a!given!risk!
assessment!approach!than!a!randomly!selected!offender!who!did!not!recidivate!during!follow;
up.!
!
Cohen’s!d!
!
Performance!indicator!measuring!the!standardized!mean!difference!between!the!estimated!
level!of!risk!or!total!score!of!offenders!who!did!and!did!not!recidivate!during!follow;up.!
!
Dynamic!Factor!!
!
Changeable!characteristics!(e.g.,!substance!abuse)!that!establish!a!relative!level!of!risk!and!help!
inform!intervention;!they!can!be!either!relatively!stable,!changing!relatively!slowly!over!time!
(e.g.,!antisocial!cognition),!or!acute,!changing!more!quickly!over!time!(e.g.,!mood!state).!
!
Kappa!(k)!
!
Measure!of!inter;rater!reliability!representing!the!percentage!of!categorizations!(e.g.,!low,!
moderate,!or!high!risk)!upon!which!multiple!assessors!agreed,!statistically!corrected!for!chance.!
!
IntraYClass!Correlation!Coefficient!(ICC)!
!
Measure!of!inter;rater!reliability!representing!the!strength!of!agreement!between!multiple!
assessors!on!continuous!variables!(e.g.,!total!scores),!statistically!corrected!for!chance.!
52!|!P a g e !
!

!

!
MetaYanalysis!
!
Systematic!review!that!includes!a!quantitative!synthesis!of!the!findings!of!primary!research.!
!
Observed!Agreement!
!
Measure!of!inter;rater!reliability!representing!the!percentage!of!categorizations!(e.g.,!low,!
moderate!or!high!risk)!upon!which!multiple!assessors!agreed.!
!
Odds!ratio!(OR)!
!
An!odds!ratio!(OR)!is!a!measure!of!association!between!an!exposure!and!an!outcome.!The!OR!
represents!the!odds!that!an!outcome!will!occur!given!a!particular!exposure,!compared!to!the!
odds!of!the!outcome!occurring!in!the!absence!of!that!exposure.!Odds!ratios!are!most!
commonly!used!in!case;control!studies.!
!
Parole!
!
Conditional!release!of!a!prisoner!before!the!expiration!of!his!or!her!sentence!subject!to!
conditions!supervised!by!a!designated!parole!officer.!
!
Performance!Indicator!
!
Statistical!measure!of!predictive!validity.!
!
PointYBiserial!Correlation!Coefficient!(rpb)!
!
Performance!indicator!measuring!the!direction!and!strength!of!the!association!between!a!
continuous!predictor!(e.g.,!total!score)!and!a!dichotomous!outcome!(e.g.,!recidivating!versus!
not).!
!
Primary!Research!
!
Collection!of!new!data!that!does!not!already!exist.!
!
Probation!
!
53!|!P a g e !
!

!

Release!of!an!offender!from!detention!or!sentence!served!in!the!community!in!lieu!of!
detention,!subject!to!conditions!supervised!by!a!probation!officer.!
!
Protective!Factors!!
!
Characteristics!of!the!offender!(e.g.,!physical!health,!mental!health,!attitudes),!his!or!her!
physical!and/or!social!environment!(e.g.,!neighborhood,!family,!peers),!or!situation!(e.g.,!living!
situation)!that!are!associated!with!a!decrease!in!the!likelihood!of!offending.!
!
Recidivism!
!
The!repetition!of!criminal!or!delinquent!behavior,!most!often!measured!as!a!new!arrest,!
conviction,!or!return!to!prison!and/or!jail!for!the!commission!of!a!crime!or!for!the!violation!of!
conditions!of!supervision.!!
!
Risk!Assessment!!
!
Process!of!estimating!the!likelihood!an!offender!will!recidivate!to!identify!those!at!higher!risk!
and!in!greater!need!of!intervention.!Also!may!assist!in!the!identification!of!treatment!targets!
and!the!development!of!risk!management!and!treatment!plans.!
!
Risk!Assessment!Instrument!
!
Instrument!composed!of!empirically!or!theoretically!based!risk!and/or!protective!factors!used!
to!aid!in!the!assessment!of!recidivism!risk.!
!
Risk!Factors!
!
Characteristics!of!the!offender!(e.g.,!physical!health,!mental!health,!attitudes),!his!or!her!
physical!and/or!social!environment!(e.g.,!neighborhood,!family,!peers),!or!situation!(e.g.,!living!
situation)!that!are!associated!with!an!increase!in!the!likelihood!of!offending.!
!
Somer’s!d!
!
Performance!indicator!measuring!the!direction!and!strength!of!the!association!between!an!
ordinal!predictor!(e.g.,!estimate!of!risk!as!low,!moderate,!or!high)!and!a!dichotomous!outcome!
(e.g.,!recidivating!versus!not).!
!
54!|!P a g e !
!

!

Structured!Professional!Judgment!!
!
Structured!approach!to!risk!assessment!focused!on!creating!individualized!and!coherent!risk!
formulations!and!comprehensive!risk!management!plans.!Assessors!estimate!risk!through!
consideration!of!a!set!number!of!factors!that!are!empirically!and!theoretically!associated!with!
the!outcome!of!interest.!Total!scores!are!not!used!to!make!the!final!judgments!of!risk.!Instead,!
assessors!consider!the!relevance!of!each!item!to!the!individual!offender,!as!well!as!whether!
there!are!any!case!specific!factors!not!explicitly!included!in!the!list.!
!
Static!Factors!
!
Historical!or!otherwise!unchangeable!characteristics!(e.g.,!history!of!antisocial!behavior)!that!
help!establish!absolute!level!of!risk.!
!
Systematic!Review!!
!
A!process!by!which!the!empirical!literature!from!multiple!primary!studies!on!a!particular!topic!
meeting!pre;determined!inclusion!and!exclusion!criteria!is!descriptively!analyzed.!
!
Technical!Violation!!
!
A!breach!of!the!conditions!of!parole!or!probation.!
!
Unstructured!Risk!Assessment!!
!
A!subjective!assessment!of!recidivism!risk!based!on!the!assessor’s!intuition,!knowledge!of!
theory,!and!professional!experience.!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
55!|!P a g e !
!

!

NOTES!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1

!Patrick!A.!Langan!and!David!J.!Levin,!Recidivism!of!Prisoners!Released!in!1994!(NCJ!193427)!(Washington,!DC:!
Bureau!of!Justice!Statistics,!2002).!
2

!Stefania!Ægisdóttir!et!al.,!“The!Meta;Analysis!Of!Clinical!Judgment!Project:!Fifty;Six!Years!Of!Accumulated!
Research!on!Clinical!Versus!Statistical!Prediction,”!Counseling!Psychologist,34,!no.!3!(2006):!341–382.!
3

!Jennifer!L.!Skeem!and!John!Monahan,!“Current!Directions!in!Violence!Risk!Assessment,”!Current!Directions!in!
Psychological!Science!20,!no.!1!(2011):!38–42.!
4

rd

!Donald!A.!Andrews!and!James!Bonta,!The!Psychology!of!Criminal!Conduct!(3 !ed.)!(Cincinnati,!OH:!Anderson!
Publishing!Company,!2003);!Clive!R.!Hollin,!“Risk;Needs!Assessment!and!Allocation!to!Offender!Programmes,”!in!
Offender!Rehabilitation!and!Treatment:!Effective!Programmes!and!Policies!to!Reduce!Reoffending,!ed.!James!
McGuire!(Chichester,!UK:!Wiley,!2002),!309–22.!!
5

!Ernest!Watson!Burgess,!“Factors!Determining!Success!or!Failure!on!Parole,”!in!The!workings!of!the!IndeterminateY
Sentence!Law!and!the!Parole!System!in!Illinois,!eds.!Andrew!Alexander!Bruce,!Albert!James!Harno,!John!Landesco,!
and!Ernest!Watson!Burgess!(Springfield,!IL:!Illinois!State!Board!of!Parole,!1928),!221–234.!
6

!Donald!A.!Andrews,!Craig!Dowden,!and!Paul!Gendreau,!Clinically!Relevant!and!Psychologically!Informed!
Approaches!to!Reduced!Reoffending:!A!MetaYAnalytic!Study!of!Human!Service,!Risk,!Need,!Responsivity,!and!Other!
Concerns!in!Justice!Contexts!(unpublished!manuscript,!1999);!Edward!J.!Latessa!and!Christopher!T.!Lowenkamp,!
“What!are!Criminogenic!Needs!and!Why!are!they!Important?”!For!the!Record!4!(2005):!15–16;!James!Bonta!and!
Donald!A.!Andrews,!RiskYNeedYResponsivity!Model!for!Offender!Assessment!and!Rehabilitation!(Ottawa,!ON:!Public!
Safety!Canada,!2007);!Donald!A.!Andrews!and!James!L.!Bonta,!Level!of!Service!InventoryYRevised:!Screening!Version!
(LSIYR:SV):!User’s!Manual!(Toronto:!Multi;Health!Systems,!1998).!
7

!Langan!and!Levin,!Recidivism!of!Prisoners!Released!in!1994.!

8

!Christopher!T.!Lowenkamp!and!Edward!J.!Latessa,!“Understanding!the!Risk!Principle:!How!and!Why!Correctional!
Interventions!Can!Harm!Low;Risk!Offenders,”!Topics!in!Community!Corrections!(2004):!3–8;!Latessa!and!
Lowenkamp,!“What!are!Criminogenic!Needs!and!Why!are!they!Important?”!15–16;!James!Bonta!and!Donald!A.!
Andrews,!RiskYNeedYResponsivity!Model!for!Offender!Assessment!and!Rehabilitation!(Ottawa,!ON:!Public!Safety!
Canada,!2007).!
9

!Lowenkamp!and!Latessa,!“Understanding!the!Risk!Principle,”!3;8;!Latessa!and!Lowenkamp,!“What!are!
Criminogenic!Needs!and!Why!are!they!Important?”!15–16;!Bonta!and!Andrews,!RiskYNeedYResponsivity!Model!for!
Offender!Assessment!and!Rehabilitation.!
10

!Tracey!Kyckelhahn,!Justice!Expenditure!and!Employment!Extracts,!2007–Revised!(Washington,!DC:!Bureau!of!
Justice!Statistics,!2012).!
11

!David!A.!Anderson,!“The!Aggregate!Burden!of!Crime,”!Journal!of!Law!and!Economics!42,!no.!2!(1999):!611–642.!

12

!Pew!Center!on!the!States,!One!in!31:!The!Long!Reach!of!American!Corrections!(Washington,!DC:!!Pew!Charitable!
Trusts,!2009).!
13

!Bonta!and!Andrews,!RiskYNeedYResponsivity!Model.!

56!|!P a g e !
!

!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14

!Christopher!T.!Lowenkamp!et!al.,!“Adhering!to!the!Risk!and!Need!Principles:!Does!It!Matter!for!Supervision;
Based!Programs?,”!Federal!Probation!70,!no.!3!(2006):!3–8.!
15

!Sarah!L.!Desmarais!et!al.,!“Using!Dynamic!Risk!and!Protective!Factors!to!Predict!Inpatient!Aggression:!Reliability!
and!Validity!of!START!Assessments,”!Psychological!Assessment!24,!no.!3!(2012):!685–700.!
16

!R.!Karl!Hanson!and!Andrew!J.!R.!Harris,!“A!Structured!Approach!to!Evaluating!Change!Among!Sexual!Offenders,”!
Sexual!Abuse:!A!Journal!of!Research!and!Treatment!13,!no.!2!(2001):!105–122.!
17

!Don!A.!Andrews!and!James!Bonta,!The!Psychology!of!Criminal!Conduct,!2nd!ed.!(Cincinnati,!OH:!Anderson,!1998).!!

18

!Catherine!M.!Wilson!et!al.,!“Predictive!Validity!of!Dynamic!Factors:!Assessing!Violence!Risk!in!Forensic!Psychiatric!
Inpatients,”!Law!and!Human!Behavior!37,!no.!6!(2013):!377–88.!
19

!Stephen!D.!Hart,!Christopher!D.!Webster,!and!Kevin!S.!Douglas,!“Risk!Management!using!the!HCR;20:!A!General!
Overview!Focusing!on!Historical!Factors,”!in!HCRY20!Violence!Risk!Management!Companion!Guide,!eds.!Kevin!S.!
Douglas,!Christopher!D.!Webster,!Stephen!D.!Hart,!Derek!Eaves,!and!James!R.!P.!Ogloff!(Burnaby,!BC:!Simon!Fraser!
University,!Mental!Health,!Law!&!Policy!Institute,!2001),!27–40.!
!
20
!Bree!Derrick!and!Beth!Skinner,!Risk!Assessment:!Moving!from!the!Basics!to!the!Tough!Questions!(New!York:!
Council!of!State!Governments!Justice!Center,!2014).!
21

th

!Don!A.!Andrews!and!James!Bonta,!The!Psychology!of!Criminal!Conduct,!4 !ed.!(Newark,!NJ:!LexisNexis,!2006).!!

22

!Robert!L.!Sampson!and!John!H.!Laub,!“A!Life;Course!View!of!the!Development!of!Crime,”!Annals!of!the!American!
Academy!of!Political!and!Social!Science!602,!no.!1!(2005):!12–45.!
23

!John!Irwin,!The!Warehouse!Prison:!Disposal!of!the!New!Dangerous!Class!(Los!Angeles:!Roxbury!Publishing,!2005);!
Erving!Goffman,!Asylums:!Essays!on!the!Social!Situation!of!Mental!Patients!and!Other!Inmates!(Garden!City,!NY:!!
Anchor!Books,!Doubleday!and!Company,!1961).!!
24

!Ægisdóttir!et!al.,!“The!Meta;Analysis!of!Clinical!Judgment!Project,"!341–382.!

25

!Cynthia!A.!Mamalian,!State!of!the!Science!of!Pretrial!Risk!Assessment!(Washington,!DC:!Pretrial!Justice!Institute,!
2011).!
26

!Skeem!and!Monahan,!“Current!Directions!in!Violence!Risk!Assessment,”!38–42.!

27

!John!Monahan,!“Mandated!Community!Treatment:!Applying!Leverage!to!Achieve!Adherence,”!Journal!of!the!
Amercian!Academy!of!Psychiatry!and!the!Law!36,!no.!1!(2008):!282–285.!!
28

!Andrews!and!Bonta,!The!Psychology!of!Criminal!Conduct;!Randy!Borum,!“Improving!The!Clinical!Practice!of!
Violence!Risk!Assessment:!Technology,!Guidelines!and!Training,”!American!Psychologist!51,!no.!9!(1996):!945–956;!
Joel!A.!Dvoskin!and!Kirk!Heilbrun,!“Risk!Assessment!and!Release!Decision;Making:!Toward!Resolving!the!Great!
Debate,”!Journal!of!the!American!Academy!of!Psychiatry!and!the!Law!29,!no.!1!(2001):!6–10;!Stephen!D.!Hart,!
“Actuarial!Risk!Assessment,”!Sexual!Abuse:!A!Journal!of!Research!and!Treatment!15,!no.!4!(2003):!383;88;!Robert!
D.!Hoge!and!Don!A.!Andrews,!Evaluation!of!Risk!for!Violence!in!Juveniles!(New!York:!Oxford!University!Press,!2010).!!

57!|!P a g e !
!

!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
29

!Seena!Fazel!et!al.,!“Use!of!Risk!Assessment!Instruments!to!Predict!Violence!and!Antisocial!Behaviour!in!73!
Samples!Involving!24,827!People:!Systematic!Review!and!Meta;analysis,”!BMJ:!British!Medical!Journal!345,!no.!1!
(2012):!19.!
30

rd

!Jack!Fitzgerald!and!Steven!Cox,!Research!Methods!and!Statistics!in!Criminal!Justice,!3 !ed.!(Belmont,!CA:!
Wadsworth!Thomson,!2002).!!
31

!James!Bonta,!Moira!Law,!and!Karl!Hanson,!“The!Prediction!of!Criminal!and!Violent!Recidivism!Among!Mentally!
Disordered!Offenders:!A!Meta;analysis,”!Psychological!Bulletin!123,!no.!2!(1998):!123–142.!
32

!Derrick!and!Skinner,!Risk!Assessment.!

33

!Alexander!M.!Holsinger,!Christopher!T.!Lowenkamp,!and!Edward!J.!Latessa,!“!Validating!the!LSI;R!on!a!Sample!of!
Jail!Inmates,”!The!Journal!of!Offender!Monitoring!17,!no.!1!(2004):!8–9;!Christopher!T.!Lowenkamp,!Brian!Lovins,!
and!Edward!J.!Latessa,!“Validating!the!Level!of!Service!Inventory—Revised!and!the!Level!of!Service!Inventory:!
Screening!Version!With!a!Sample!of!Probationers,”!The!Prison!Journal!89,!no.!2!(2009):!192–204.!
34

!Edward!Latessa!et!al.,!Creation!and!Validation!of!the!Ohio!Risk!Assessment!System:!Final!Report!(Cincinnati,!OH:!
University!of!Cincinnati!Center!for!Criminal!Justice!Research,!2009),!available!at!
ocjs.ohio.gov/ORAS_FinalReport.pdf;!Stephanie!A.!Evans,!"Gender!Disparity!in!the!Prediction!of!Recidivism:!The!
Accuracy!of!the!LSI;R!Modified"!(master's!thesis,!University!of!Alabama,!2009).!
35

!Holly!A.!Miller,!“A!Dynamic!Assessment!of!Offender!Risk,!Needs,!and!Strengths!in!a!Sample!of!Pre;Release!
General!Offenders,”!Behavioral!Sciences!and!the!Law!24,!no.!6!(2006):!767–782.!
36

!David!Farabee!and!Sheldon!Zhang,!COMPAS!Validation!Study:!First!Annual!Report!(Los!Angeles:!Department!of!
Corrections!and!Rehabilitation,!2007),!available!at!
cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Validation_Dec_2007.pdf;!Tim!Brennan,!
William!Dieterich,!and!Beate!Ehret,!“Evaluating!the!Predictive!Validity!of!the!COMPAS!Risk!and!Needs!Assessment!
System,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!36,!no.!1!(2009):!21–40;!David!Farabee!et!al.,!COMPAS!Validation!Study:!
Final!Report!(Los!Angeles:!California!Department!of!Corrections!and!Rehabilitation,!2010),!available!at!
cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_Final_Report_08;11;10.pdf.!!
37

!Ojmarrh!Mitchell!and!Doris!Layton!Mackenzie,!“Disconfirmation!of!the!Predictive!Validity!of!the!Self;Appraisal!
Questionnaire!in!a!Sample!of!High;Risk!Drug!Offenders,”!Criminal!Justice!and!Behavior!33,!no.!4!(2006):!449–466.!
38

!See!Jay!P.!Singh,!Sarah!L.!Desmarais,!and!Richard!A.!Van!Dorn,!“Measurement!of!Predictive!Validity!in!Studies!of!
Risk!Assessment!Instruments:!A!Second;Order!Systematic!Review,”!Behavioral!Sciences!and!the!Law!31,!no!1!
(2013):!55–73.!!
39

!Jay!P.!Singh,!“Predictive!Validity!Performance!Indicators!in!Violence!Risk!Assessment:!A!Methodological!Primer,”!
Behavioral!Sciences!and!the!Law!31,!no.!1!(2013):!8–22.!!
40

!Kevin!S.!Douglas,!Jennifer!L.!Skeem,!and!Elizabeth!Nicholson,!“Research!Methods!in!Violence!Risk!Assessment,”!
in!Research!Methods!in!Forensic!Psychology,!Barry!Rosenfeld!and!Steven!D.!Penrod!(Hoboken,!NJ:!John!Wiley!&!
Sons,!Inc.,!2011),!333.!

58!|!P a g e !
!

!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
41

!Kristy!Holtfreter!and!Rhonda!Cupp,!“Gender!and!Risk!Assessment!the!Empirical!Status!of!the!LSI;R!for!Women,”!
Journal!of!Contemporary!Criminal!Justice!23,!no.!4!(2007):!363–382;!Anne;Marie!R.!Leistico!et!al.,!“A!Large;Scale!
Meta;Analysis!Relating!the!Hare!Measures!of!Psychopathy!to!Antisocial!Conduct,”!Law!and!Human!Behavior!32,!
no.!1!(2008):!28–45.!

59!|!P a g e !
!