Juvenile risk assessments are used to predict likelihood of reoffending in court-involved youths, and inform several decisions throughout court supervision. Accordingly, it is critical that the psychometric properties of juvenile risk assessment instruments are consistent for youths across demographic subgroups, particularly biological sex. This study tests the measurement invariance of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) by sex. Analyses draw from 2,384 youths who were adjudicated as delinquent in a county-level juvenile court. Results indicate that the factor configuration and structure of the YLS/CMI are consistent for youths across sex. However, boys and girls differ appreciably in risk profile. Findings validate the use of the YLS/CMI and highlight the importance of responsivity to sex-based variation in criminogenic risk.
AkersR. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Wadsworth Publishing.
2.
AndersonV. R.HoskinsK. M.RubinoL. L. (2019). Defining gender-responsive services in a juvenile court setting. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(6), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2019.1588836
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1995). LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Multi-Health Systems.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). LexisNexis.
5.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.
6.
BelisleL. A.SalisburyE. J. (2021). Starting with girls and their resilience in mind: Reconsidering risk/needs assessments for system-involved girls. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(5), 596–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820983859
BloomB.OwenB.CovingtonS. (2003). Gender-Responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders (p. 142). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
9.
BloomB.OwenB.DeschenesE. P.RosenbaumJ. (2002). Moving toward justice for female juvenile offenders in the new millennium: Modeling gender-specific policies and programs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986202018001004
10.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Die Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–22.
11.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.
12.
ChamberlainP.MooreK. J. (2002). Chaos and trauma in the lives of adolescent females with antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 6(1), 79–108. https://doi.org/10.1300/j146v06n01_05
13.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.
14.
Chesney-LindM.BelknapJ. (2004). Trends in delinquent girls’ aggression and violent behavior: A review of the evidence. In PutallazM.BiermanK. L. (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls (pp. 203–220). Guilford Press.
15.
Chesney-LindM.MorashM.StevensT. (2008). Girls troubles, girls’ delinquency, and gender responsive programming: A review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 162–189.
16.
Chesney-LindM.PaskoL. (2012). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. SAGE Publications.
17.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
18.
ChildsK. K.FrickP. J.GottliebK. (2016). Sex differences in the measurement invariance and factors that influence structured judgments of risk using the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY). Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(1), 76–92.
19.
ConrodP. J.NikolaouK. (2016). Annual research review: On the developmental neuropsychology of substance use disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(3), 371–394.
20.
ConradS. M.Tolou-ShamsM.RizzoC. J.PlacellaN.BrownL. K. (2014). Gender differences in recidivism rates for juvenile justice youth: The impact of sexual abuse. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4), 305–314.
21.
CovingtonS.SurreyJ. (2000). The relational model of women’s psychological development: Implications for substance abuse. In WilsnackR. W.WilsnackS. C. (Eds.), Gender and alcohol: Individual and social perspectives (pp. 335–351). Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies.
22.
CovingtonS. S. (1998). The relational theory of women’s psychological development: Implications for the criminal justice system. In ZaplinR. T. (Ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions (Vol. 2, pp. 113–131). Aspen.
23.
CovingtonS. S.BloomB. E. (2007). Gender responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. Women & Therapy, 29(3–4), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1300/j015v29n03_02
24.
DalyK. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2(1), 11–52.
25.
DalyK. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. Yale University Press.
26.
De La RueL.OrtegaL. (2019). Intersectional trauma-responsive care: A framework for humanizing care for justice involved girls and women of color. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(4), 502–517.
27.
DuckworthA. L.AllredK. M. (2012). Temperament in the classroom. Guilford Press.
28.
FeldB. C. (2009). Violent girls or relabeled status offenders? An alternative interpretation of the data. Crime and Delinquency, 55(2), 241–265.
29.
GiordanoP. C.CernkovichS. A.RudolphJ. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.
30.
HolsingerK. (2000). Feminist perspectives on female offending: Examining real girls’ lives. Women & Criminal Justice, 12, 23–51.
31.
HoltfreterK.CuppR. (2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 363–382.
32.
HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2003). The needs of women offenders. Women & Criminal Justice, 14(2–3), 137–160.
33.
HoyleR. H. (2000). Personality processes and problem behavior. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 953–966.
34.
JeongS.LeeY. (2019). Consequences of not conducting measurement invariance tests in cross-cultural studies: A review of current research practices and recommendations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 21(4), 466–483.
35.
JordanJ. V.KaplanA. G.StiverI. P.SurreyJ. L.MillerJ. B. (1991). Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the stone center. Guilford Press.
Kempf-LeonardK.JohanssonP. (2007). Gender and runaways: Risk factors, delinquency, and juvenile justice experiences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(3), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204007301293
38.
KerigP. K.BeckerS. P. (2012). Trauma and girls’ delinquency. In MillerS.LeveL. D.KerigP. K. (Eds.), Delinquent girls: Contexts, relationships, and adaptation (pp. 119–143). Springer.
39.
KerigP. K.FordJ. D. (2014). Trauma among girls in the juvenile justice system (pp. 1–11). The National Child Traumatic Stress Network.
40.
KerigP. K. (2018). Polyvictimization and girls’ involvement in the juvenile justice system: Investigating gender-differentiated patterns of risk, recidivism, and resilience. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(5), 789–809.
41.
KoS. J.FordJ. D.Kassam-AdamsN.BerkowitzS. J.WilsonC.WongM.BrymerM. J.LayneC. M. (2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 39(4), 396–404.
42.
KurtzP. D.JarvisS. V.KurtzG. L. (1991). Problems of homeless youths: Empirical findings and human services issues. Social Work, 36(4), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/36.4.309
43.
MallicoatS. L. (2007). Gendered justice: Attributional differences between males and females in the juvenile courts. Feminist Criminology, 2(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085106296349
44.
MorewitzS. J. (2016). School issues facing runaway and homeless youth. In MorewitzS. J. (Ed.), Runaway and homeless youth: New research and clinical perspectives (pp. 47–55). Springer International Publishing.
45.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2018). Plus user’s guide (6th ed.). Author.
46.
National Research Council (NAS). (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. The National Academics Press.
47.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (2015). Risk and needs assessment for youths. Author.
48.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (2021). Juvenile population characteristics. Author.
49.
PaskoL.LopezV. (2018). All the rage: Contextualizing intersectionality and violence in delinquent girls’ lives. In McQueeneyK.Girgenti-MaloneA. (Eds.), Girls, aggression, and intersectionality (pp. 109–129). Routledge.
50.
PuschN.HoltfreterK. (2018). Gender and risk assessment in juvenile offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817721720
51.
PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90.
52.
RavoiraL.GrazianoJ.Patino LydiaV. (2012). Urgent work: Developing a gender-responsive approach for girls in the juvenile justice system. Universitas Psychologica, 11(4), 1167–1181.
53.
ReisigM. D.HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600869152
54.
SalisburyE. J.BoppreB.KellyB. (2016). Gender-responsive risk and need assessment: Implications for the treatment of justice-involved women. In TaxmanF. (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need assessment (pp. 236–259). Routledge.
55.
SchmittN.KuljaninG. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 210–222.
56.
SchwalbeC. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31(5), 449–462.
57.
SeigleE.WalshN.WeberJ. (2014). Core principles for reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system. Council for State Governments Justice Center.
van der PutC. E.DekovićM.HoeveM.StamsG. J. J. M.van der LaanP. H.LangewoutersF. E. M. (2014). Risk assessment of girls: Are there any sex differences in risk factors for re-offending and in risk profiles?Crime and Delinquency, 60(7), 1033–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710384776
60.
van de SchootR.LugtigP.HoxJ. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492.
61.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.GrissoT. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. Implementation Science and Practice Advances Research Center Publications.
62.
WachterA. (2015). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation. JJGPS StateScan. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
