Risk assessment instruments are an important tool for assessing an offender’s risk of recidivism. However, concerns have been raised regarding their applicability to different cultural groups, and it has been suggested that rater cultural bias may affect assessment. This study explored whether rater cultural bias impacted upon the scoring of the YLS/CMI-SRV and rater perceptions of offenders from diverse cultural backgrounds. Participants included a representative sample of postgraduate Australian Psychology students who were randomly assigned a vignette of a young offender from either a South Sudanese, Indigenous or Anglo-Australian background. No evidence of cultural bias was found in YLS/CMI-SRV scoring or rater perceptions of the offender.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonJ.NelsonJ.BrooksR.AtkinsonC., & RyanK. (2014). Addressing individual and community transgenerational trauma. In DudgeonP.MilroyH., & WalkerR. (Eds.) Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice (2nd ed., pp. 373–382). Commonwealth of Australia.
2.
AustinJ. (2004). The proper and improper use of risk assessment in corrections. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16(3), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2004.16.3.194
BarnesA. R.CampbellN. A.AndersonV. R.CampbellC. A.OnifadeE., & DavidsonW. S. (2016). Validity of initial, exit, and dynamic juvenile risk assessment: An examination across gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2015.1107004
6.
BoccacciniM. T.RufinoK. A.JeonH., & MurrieD. C. (2017). Does the predictive validity of psychopathy ratings depend on the clinical experience of the raters?International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 16(2), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2016.1266421
7.
BridgesG. S., & SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657267
8.
CampbellC.PappJ.BarnesA.OnifadeE., & AndersonV. (2018). Risk assessment and juvenile justice: An interaction between risk, race, and gender. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(3), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12377
9.
CatchpoleR. E. H., & GrettonH. M. (2003). The predictive validity of risk assessment with violent young offenders: A 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(6), 688–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803256455
10.
ChenaneJ. L.BrennanP. K.SteinerB., & EllisonJ. M. (2015). Racial and ethnic differences in the predictive validity of the level of service inventory–revised among prison inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548195
ChuC. M.YuH.LeeY., & ZengG. (2014). The utility of the YLS/CMI-SV for assessing youth offenders in Singapore. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1437–1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814537626
CuervoK., & VillanuevaL. (2018). Prediction of recidivism with the youth level of service/case management inventory (reduced version) in a sample of young Spanish offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11), 3562–3580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17741250
15.
DayA.TamateaA. J.CaseyS., & GeiaL. (2018). Assessing violence risk with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders: considerations for forensic practice. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law : An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(3), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1467804
16.
DudgeonP.WrightM.ParadiesY.GarveyD., & WalkerI. (2014). Aboriginal social, cultural and historical contexts. In DudgeonP.MilroyH., & WalkerR. (Eds.) Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–24). Commonwealth of Australia.
17.
ElbogenE. B.WilliamsA. L.KimD.TomkinsA. J., & ScaloraM. J. (2001). Gender and perceptions of dangerousness in civil psychiatric patients. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532501168299
18.
FassT. L.HeilbrunK.DematteoD., & FretzR. (2008). The LSI-R and the Compas: Validation data on two risk-needs tools. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1095–1108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808320497
19.
GattK. (2011). Sudanese refugees in Victoria: An analysis of their treatment by the Australian government. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 35(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2011.591904
20.
GroveW. M., & MeehlP. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The Clinical–Statistical Controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
21.
GutierrezL.WilsonH. A.RuggeT., & BontaJ. (2013). The prediction of recidivism with Aboriginal offenders: A theoretically informed meta-analysis. (Canada). Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55(1), 55–99. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2011.E.51
22.
GuyL. (2008). Performance indicators of the structured professional judgment approach to assessing risk for violence to others: A meta-analytic survey (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University.
23.
HartS. D., & LoganC. (2011). Formulation of violence risk using evidence-based assessments: the structured professional judgment approach. In SturmeyP. & McMurranM (Eds.), Forensic case formulation (pp. 81–106). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
24.
HogeR. D., & AndrewsD. A. (2006). Youth level of service/case management inventory (YLS/CMI) user’s manual. Multi-Health Systems.
25.
HogeR. D., & AndrewsD. A. (2009). Youth level of service/case management inventory screening version. Multi-Health Systems.
26.
HoytW. T. (2000). Rater bias in psychological research: When is it a problem and what can we do about it?Psychological Methods, 5(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.1.64
27.
HsuC. I.CaputiP., & ByrneM. K. (2010). Level of service inventory–revised: Assessing the risk and need characteristics of Australian indigenous offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17(3), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710903089261
28.
JimenezA. C.DelgadoR. H.VardsveenT. C., & WienerR. L. (2018). Validation and application of the LS/CMI in Nebraska probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(6), 863–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818763231
29.
KennyD. T., & NelsonP. K. (2008). Young offenders on community orders: Health, welfare and criminogenic needs. Sydney University Press.
30.
McSherryB. (2004). Risk assessment by mental health professionals and the prevention of future violent behaviour. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 281, 1–6. https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi281
31.
MeyersJ. R., & SchmidtF. (2008). Predictive validity of the structured assessment for violence risk in youth (SAVRY) with juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807311972
32.
Moore, L. D., & Padavic, I. (2011). Risk assessment tools and racial/ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. Sociology Compass, 5(10), 850–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00416.x
33.
Multi-Health Systems (2019). MHS Purchase qualification form. Multi Health Systems Inc.
34.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C., & WormithJ. S. (2014). Thirty years of research on the level of service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035080
35.
OnifadeE.DavidsonW., & CampbellC. (2009). Risk assessment: The predictive validity of the youth level of service case management inventory with African American girls. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 7(3), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377930903143544
36.
Perrault, R. T., Vincent, G. M., & Guy, L. S. (2017). Are risk assessments racially biased?: Field study of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in probation. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000445
ShepherdS. M., & Lewis-FernandezR. (2016). Forensic risk assessment and cultural diversity: Contemporary challenges and future directions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000102
39.
ShepherdS. M., & Willis-EsquedaC. (2018). Indigenous perspectives on violence risk assessment: A thematic analysis. Punishment & Society, 20(5), 599–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517721485
40.
ShepherdS. M.AdamsY.McEntyreE., & WalkerR. (2014). Violence risk assessment in australian aboriginal offender populations: A review of the literature. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(3), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000017
41.
ShepherdS. M.NewtonD., & FarquharsonK. (2018). Pathways to offending for young Sudanese Australians. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(4), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865817749262
42.
ShepherdS. M.SinghJ. P., & FullamR. (2015). Does the youth level of service/case management inventory generalize across ethnicity?International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 14(3), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2015.1086450
43.
SinghJ. P.GrannM., & FazelS. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009
44.
SkeemJ.SchubertC.StowmanS.BeesonS.MulveyE.GardnerW., & LidzC. (2005). Gender and risk assessment accuracy: Underestimating women's violence potential. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-3401-z
45.
SmallboneS., & RallingsM. (2013). Short-term predictive validity of the static-99 and static-99-r for indigenous and nonindigenous Australian sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(3), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212472937
ThompsonA. P., & McGrathA. (2012). Subgroup differences and implications for contemporary risk-need assessment with juvenile offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093930
Van de VenJ. T. C.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation) (2004). Assessment of risk and need factors and service used in diverted youth.Carelton University.
50.
VarelaJ. G.BoccacciniM. T.MurrieD. C.CapertonJ. D., & GonzalezE. (2013). Do the Static-99 and Static-99R perform similarly for white, black, and Latino sexual offenders?International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12(4), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2013.846950
51.
VennerS.SivasubramaniamD.LuebbersS., & ShepherdS. M. (in press). Cross-cultural reliability & rater bias in forensic risk assessment: A review of the literature. Psychology, Psychiatry and Law, https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1775829
52.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.FuscoS. I., & GershensonB. G. (2012). Field reliability of the SAVRY with juvenile probation officers: Implications for training. Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093974
53.
WhitacreK. W. (2006). Testing the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) for racial/ethnic bias. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(3), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403405284766
54.
WilsonH. A., & GutierrezL. (2014). Does one size fit all?: A meta-analysis examining the predictive ability of the level of service inventory (LSI) with aboriginal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(2), 196–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813500958
55.
YangM.WongS. C. P., & CoidJ. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 740–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020473
