This study aims to briefly compose a well-known tool, Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, and to obtain findings on the efficient use of tools. We hypothesize that sparse modeling can identify item combinations with high predictive validity. Using follow-up data on 516 justice-impacted youths (age range = 13-19 years) in Japanese juvenile classification homes, this study obtains area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.71 and 0.72 for seven- and eight-variable models itemized using LASSO and Elastic Net, respectively, as machine learning methods. Analysis demonstrates that the brief version using sparse modeling insignificantly differed from original version, although its AUC values were slightly lower, supporting the hypothesis. Through the effort to incorporate many types of risk factors into the tool, the use of sparse modeling to extract combinations of items with high predictive power for recidivism could lead to the creation of a user-friendly, item-count scale tool for forensic settings.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1995). The level of service inventory-revised. Multi-Health Systems.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2000). Level of service/case management inventory: LS/CMI. Multi-Health Systems.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756
4.
BerkR. (2017). An impact assessment of machine learning risk forecasts on parole board decisions and recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9286-2
5.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2023). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.
6.
BontaJ.HarmanW. G.HannR. G.CormierR. B. (1996). The prediction of recidivism among federally sentenced offenders: A re-validation of the SIR scale. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjcrim.38.1.61
7.
BorumR.BartelP.ForthA. E. (2002). Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). University of South Florida.
BurgessE. W. (1928). Factors determining success or failure on parole. In BruceA. A. (Ed.), The workings of the indeterminate-sentence law and the parole system in Illinois: A report to Hinton G. Clabaugh, chairman, Parole Board of Illinois (pp. 221–234). Patterson Smith.
10.
CampbellC.OnifadeE.BarnesA.PetersonJ.AndersonV.DavidsonW.GordonD. (2014). Screening offenders: The exploration of a youth level of service/case management inventory (YLS/CMI) brief screener. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.861314
11.
ChuC. M.LeeY.ZengG.YimG.TanC. Y.AngY.ChinS.RubyK. (2015). Assessing youth offenders in a non-Western context: The predictive validity of the YLS/CMI ratings. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038670
12.
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
13.
CookeD. J.MichieC.HartS. D.HareR. D. (1999). Evaluating the Screening Version of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL:SV): An item response theory analysis. Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.1.3
14.
CopasJ.MarshallP. (1998). The offender group reconviction scale: A statistical reconviction score for use by probation officers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, 47(1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9876.00104
15.
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
16.
DeLongE. R.DeLongD. M.Clarke-PearsonD. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44(3), 837–845. https://doi.org/10.2307/2531595
17.
DesmaraisS. L.JohnsonK. L.SinghJ. P. (2016). Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in U.S. correctional settings. Psychological Services, 13(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000075
18.
FazelS.BurghartM.FanshaweT.GilS. D.MonahanJ.YuR. (2022). The predictive performance of criminal risk assessment tools used at sentencing: Systematic review of validation studies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 81, 101902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101902
19.
GhasemiM.AnvariD.AtapourM.Stephen WormithJ.StockdaleK. C.SpiteriR. J. (2021). The application of machine learning to a general risk–need assessment instrument in the prediction of criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(4), 518–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820969753
20.
GroveW. M.ZaldD. H.LebowB. S.SnitzB. E.NelsonC. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19
21.
GruenewaldP. J.WestB. R. (1989). Survival models of recidivism among juvenile delinquents. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062738
22.
HamiltonZ.KowalskiM. A.KigerlA.RouthD. (2019). Optimizing youth risk assessment performance: Development of the modified positive achievement change tool in Washington State. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(8), 1106–1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819857108
23.
HareR. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist–revised. Multi-Health Systems.
24.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A. (2002). Youth level of service/case management inventory: YLS/CMI. Multi-Health Systems.
25.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A. (2009). Youth level of service/case management inventory–Screening version. Multi-Health Systems.
26.
HowellJ. C.LipseyM. W.WilsonJ. J.HowellM. Q.HodgesN. J. (2014). A handbook for evidence-based juvenile justice systems. Lexington Books.
27.
JohnsonJ. L.LowenkampC. T.VanBenschotenS. W.RobinsonC. R. (2011). The construction and validation of the federal post-conviction risk assessment (PCRA). Federal Probation, 75, 16.
28.
LinZ. J.JungJ.GoelS.SkeemJ. (2020). The limits of human predictions of recidivism. Science Advances, 6(7), Article eaaz0652. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz0652
29.
MatsuuraN. (2015). Delinquency and criminal psychology. Akashi Publishing.
30.
MoriT.HaradaK.YamakiM.YamaguchiM. (2024). The limited value of machine learning approach to improving predicative performance: The ministry of justice case assessment tool. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 30(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000421
31.
MoriT.TakahashiM.KronerD. G. (2017). Can unstructured clinical risk judgment have incremental validity in the prediction of recidivism in a non-Western juvenile context?Psychological Services, 14(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000107
32.
NuffieldJ. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada. Communication Division Solicitor General Canada.
33.
NuffieldJ. (1989). The “SIR scale”: Some reflections on its application. Forum on Corrections Research, 1, 19–22.
34.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809331457
35.
OnifadeE.DavidsonW.CampbellC.TurkeG.MalinowskiJ.TurnerK. (2008). Predicting recidivism in probationers with the youth level of service case management inventory (YLS/CMI). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807313427
Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT.HaqaneeZ. (2015). Examining implementation of risk assessment in case management for youth in the justice system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814549595
38.
RennieC.DolanM. (2010). Predictive validity of the youth level of service/case management inventory in custody sample in England. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 21(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789940903452311
39.
SaloB.LaaksonenT.SanttilaP. (2019). Predictive power of dynamic (vs. static) risk factors in the Finnish risk and needs assessment form. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(7), 939–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819848793
40.
StoneA. G.LloydC. D.SerinR. C. (2021). Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 45(6), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000463
41.
TakahashiM.MoriT.KronerD. G. (2013). A cross-validation of the youth level of service/case management inventory (YLS/CMI) among Japanese juvenile offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 37(6), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000029
TingM. H.ChuC. M.ZengG.LiD.ChngG. S. (2018). Predicting recidivism among youth offenders: Augmenting professional judgement with machine learning algorithms. Journal of Social Work, 18(6), 631–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017317743137
44.
TolanS.MironM.GómezE.CastilloC. (2019). Why machine learning may lead to unfairness: Evidence from risk assessment for juvenile justice in Catalonia. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 83–92). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322640.3326705
45.
TollenaarN.Van Der HeijdenP. G. M. (2019). Optimizing predictive performance of criminal recidivism models using registration data with binary and survival outcomes. PLOS ONE, 14(3), Article e0213245. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213245
46.
UedaD.KakinumaT.FujitaS.KamagataK.FushimiY.ItoR.MatsuiY.NozakiT.NakauraT.FujimaN.TatsugamiF.YanagawaM.HirataK.YamadaA.TsuboyamaT.KawamuraM.FujiokaT.NaganawaS. (2024). Fairness of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Review and recommendations. Japanese Journal of Radiology, 42(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-023-01474-3
47.
Van de VenJ. T. (2004). Assessment of risk and need factors and service use in diverted youth [Doctoral dissertation]. Carleton University.
48.
Van VoorhisP.WrightE. M.SalisburyE.BaumanA. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357442
49.
ViljoenJ. L.VincentG. M. (2020). Risk assessments for violence and reoffending: Implementation and impact on risk management. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 31(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12378
50.
VillanuevaL.Basto-PereiraM.CuervoK. (2020). How to improve the YLS/CMI? Exploring a particularly predictive combination of items. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(9), 922–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19881926
51.
WertzM.SchobelS.SchiltzK.RettenbergerM. (2023). A comparison of the predictive accuracy of structured and unstructured risk assessment methods for the prediction of recidivism in individuals convicted of sexual and violent offense. Psychological Assessment, 35(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001192
ZijlmansJ.MarheR.BevaartF.Van DuinL.LuijksM. A.FrankenI.TiemeierH.PopmaA. (2021). The predictive value of neurobiological measures for recidivism in delinquent male young adults. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 46(2), E271–E280. https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.200103
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
