The level of service inventory – revised

By Demetra Andrews, J. Bonta. 1995

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

A Causal Bayesian Networks Viewpoint on Fairness (2018, methodology): “The COMPAS general recidivism risk scale (GRRS) and violent recidivism risk scale (VRRS), the focus of ProPublica’s investigation, sought to leverage machine learning techniques to improve the predictive accuracy of recidivism compared to older RAIs such as the level of service inventory-revised [3]”
Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction (2015, background): “…(Hoffman and Adelberg 1980, Hoffman 1994), the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (Copas and Marshall 1998, Maden et al. 2006, Howard et al. 2009), the Statistical Information of Recidivism scale (Nafekh and Motiuk 2002), and the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (Andrews and Bonta 2000).”
Treatment Response of Adolescent Offenders With Psychopathy Features (2006, background): “Based on a review of studies, Andrews and Bonta (1995) reported acceptable internal consistency (M r = .77).”
Gender Matters: An Introduction to the Special Issues on Women and Girls (2016, background): “The Level of Service Inventory (LSI; Andrews & Bonta, 2000), an actuarial risk assessment tool for general recidivism, is one of the most widely implemented and well-validated measures available (Andrews, 2012).”
Risk and Need Assessment in Probation Services: an evaluation (2000, methodology): “…supervision and/or treatment services ● for making probation supervision decisions ● for making decisions regarding placement into halfway houses ● for deciding appropriate security level classification within institutions ● for assessing the likelihood of recidivism (Andrews and Bonta, 1995 p 3).”
The Predictive Validity of a Gender-Responsive Needs Assessment (2009, methodology): “These assessments included the state’s Intake Custody Classification Instrument, the LSI-R (Andrews & Bonta, 1995), and a series of scales designed to tap the aforementioned 556 Crime & Delinquency Salisbury et al. / Gender-Responsive Needs Assessment 557 gender-responsive measures (Van Voorhis,…”
Predictive Validity of the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) With Juvenile Offenders (2008, methodology): “Two instruments currently in the field of youth risk assessment are the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Andrews & Bonta, 1995) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003).”
Comparative Analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL:YV in Adolescent Offenders: A 10-year Follow-Up Into Adulthood (2011, methodology): “It was adapted for youth from an adult risk instrument referred to as the Level of Service Inventory Revised (Andrews & Bonta, 1995).”
The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. (2010, background): “…as third-generation tools with mostly dynamic or potentially changeable risk predictors (Level of Service Inventory and revised version [LSI/LSI-R]; Andrews & Bonta, 1995; Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management Violence Risk Assessment Scheme [HCR-20]; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997; and…”
Predicting the Prison Misconducts of Women Offenders (2007, methodology): “We consider as well those needs that are currently identified by gender-neutral, risk/needs assessments (e.g., employment, education, substance abuse, antisocial attitudes, and antisocial associates, see Andrews & Bonta, 1995; Brennan, Dieterich, & Oliver, 2006).”
The Accuracy of Five Risk Appraisal Instruments in Predicting Institutional Misconduct and New Convictions (2001, background): “Interrater reliability coefficients range from .80 to .96 (Andrews & Bonta, 1995).”
Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled” Proposition (2013, background): “…recidivism reduced the accuracy of the model by 5-12 percentage points (cited in Oleson, 2011). significant others fight about money and/or children, and a series of additional questions about marital/family, personal, and emotional issues, leisure habits, and substance use (Andrews & Bonta, 1995).”