High- or low-risk prisoner,high- or low-risk ex-offender? Assessing the predictive validity of the level of service/risk-need-responsivity (LS/RNR) instrument among different subgroups of Danish prisoners
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2025
High- or low-risk prisoner,high- or low-risk ex-offender? Assessing the predictive validity of the level of service/risk-need-responsivity (LS/RNR) instrument among different subgroups of Danish prisoners
The use of risk assessment tools such as the level of service/risk-need-responsivity (LS/RNR) has spread in criminal justice systems across the world. Although risk assessments have been implemented in many European jurisdictions, there is still a need for empirical knowledge on the applicability of the instruments in these geographical contexts. In this study, we follow the first cohorts of Danish prisoners who were assessed with LS/RNR (N = 4075) and evaluate the predictive validity of recidivism within 24 months from prison release. The results suggest that LS/RNR is a medium-strong predictor of recidivism when evaluated with standard methods. However, we also find large differences in recidivism outcomes between subgroups (defined by age and minority background) within identical risk levels, and we discuss the implications of these findings for research and practice.
AndrewsDABontaJHogeRD (1990) Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior17(1): 19–52.
2.
AndrewsDABontaJWormithJS, et al. (2011) Sources of variability in estimates of predictive validity: A specification with level of service general risk and need. Criminal Justice and Behavior38(5): 413–432.
3.
AndrewsDABontaJWormithSJ (2006) The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency52: 7–27.
4.
AndrewsDABontaJWormithSJ (2008) The Level of Service/Risk Need Responsivity Inventory (LS/RNR): Scoring Guide. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
5.
BäckströmPJDanielssonMSuttonS, et al. (2022) Evaluation of the predictive validity of a risk-need-responsivity assessment tool (RNR-A) in the Swedish prison and probation service. The Prison Journal102(3): 367–390.
BenjaminiYHochbergY (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)57(1): 289–300.
8.
BergerNPOlsenLSchmidtA, et al. (2020) Ny model for modtagelse af indsatte i danske fængsler – procesevaluering af implementeringen [New Model for Reception of Prisoners in Danish Prisons – Process Evaluation of the Implementation]. Copenhagen.: The Danish Center for Social Science Research.
9.
BhuttaMHWormithJS (2016) An examination of a risk/needs assessment instrument and its relation to religiosity and recidivism among Probationers in a Muslim Culture. Criminal Justice and Behavior43(2): 204–229.
10.
BontaJAndrewsDA (2017) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 6th ed.New York: Routledge.
11.
CaudyMSDursoJMTaxmanFS (2013) How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction. Journal of Criminal Justice41(6): 458–466.
12.
ChenaneJLBrennanPKSteinerB, et al. (2015) Racial and ethnic differences in the predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised among prison inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior42(3): 286–303.
13.
ClausenS (2017) Indførelsen af RNR-principperne i den danske kriminalforsorg [The implementation of the RNR principles in the Danish correctional system]. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kriminalvidenskab104(1): 28–59.
14.
CuervoKVillanuevaLBasto-PereiraM (2020) Prediction of youth and adult recidivism among Spanish juveniles involved in serious offenses. Criminal Justice and Behavior47(2): 399–418.
15.
DahleKP (2006) Strengths and limitations of actuarial prediction of criminal reoffence in a German prison sample: A comparative study of LSI-R, HCR-20 and PCL-R. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry29(5): 431–442.
16.
DahleKPSchmidtS (2014) Prognostische Validität des Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie8(2): 104–115.
17.
DuweGRocqueM (2016) A jack of all trades but a master of none? Evaluating the performance of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) in the assessment of risk and need. Corrections1(2): 81–106.
18.
FarringtonDP (1986) Age and crime. Crime and Justice7: 189–250.
19.
GendreauPSmithP (2007) Influencing the “people who count” some perspectives on the reporting of meta-analytic results for prediction and treatment outcomes with offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior34(12): 1536–1559.
20.
GiguèreGLussierP (2016) Debunking the psychometric properties of the LS\CMI: An application of item response theory with a risk assessment instrument. Journal of Criminal Justice46: 207–218.
21.
GottfredsonMRGottfredsonDM (1988) Decision Making in Criminal Justice: Toward a Rational Exercise of Discretion. New York: Plenum Press.
22.
HartSD (2016) Culture and violence risk assessment: The case of Ewert v. Canada. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management3(2): 76–96.
23.
HigleyCALloydCDSerinRC (2019) Age and motivation can be specific responsivity features that moderate the relationship between risk and rehabilitation outcome. Law Human Behavior43(6): 558–567.
24.
HollinCRPalmerEJ (2006) The Level of Service Inventory–Revised profile of English prisoners: Risk and reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior33(3): 347–366.
25.
HolmS (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics6: 65–70.
26.
HolsingerAMLowenkampCTLatessaEJ (2006) Exploring the validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised with Native American offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice34(3): 331–337.
27.
JimenezACDelgadoRHVardsveenTC, et al. (2018) Validation and application of the LS/CMI in Nebraska probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior45(6): 863–884.
28.
LowenkampCTLovinsBLatessaEJ (2009) Validating the Level of Service Inventory–Revised and the level of service inventory: Screening version with a sample of probationers. The Prison Journal89(2): 192–204.
29.
MorganRDKronerDGMillsJF, et al. (2013) Dynamic risk assessment: A validation study. Journal of Criminal Justice41(2): 115–124.
30.
NealTMSGrissoT (2014) Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior41: 1406–1421.
31.
OlverMEStockdaleKCWormithJS (2009) Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior36(4): 329–353.
32.
OlverMEStockdaleKCWormithJS (2014) Thirty years of research on the Level of Service Scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment26(1): 156–176.
33.
OrtonLCHoganNRWormithJS (2021) An examination of the professional override of the Level of Service Inventory–Ontario Revision. Criminal Justice and Behavior48(4): 421–441.
34.
OstermannMSalernoLM (2016) The validity of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised at the intersection of race and gender. The Prison Journal96(4): 554–575.
35.
PerssonMBelfrageHFredrikssonB, et al. (2017) Violence during imprisonment, forensic psychiatric care, and probation: Correlations and predictive validity of the risk assessment instruments COVR, LSI-R, HCR-20V3, and SAPROF. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health16(2): 117–129.
36.
RaynorP (2007) Risk and need assessment in British probation: The contribution of LSI-R. Psychology, Crime & Law13(2): 125–138.
37.
RennieCDolanM (2010) Predictive validity of the youth level of service/case management inventory in custody sample in England. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology21: 407–425.
38.
RiceMEHarrisGT (1992) A comparison of criminal recidivism among schizophrenic and nonschizophrenic offenders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry15(4): 397–408.
39.
RiceMEHarrisGT (2005) Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior29(5): 615–620.
40.
SchmidtSHeffernanRWardT (2020) Why we cannot explain cross-cultural differences in risk assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior50: 101346.
41.
SchmidtSHeffernanRWardT (2022) Why dynamic risk factors cannot be applied universally: Their normative nature and the importance of cultural awareness in risk assessment and intervention. In: LiellGCFisherMJJonesLF (eds) Challenging Bias in Forensic Psychological Assessment and Testing. Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Working with Diverse Populations. London: Routledge, 52–68.
42.
SchmidtSvan der MeerETydeckscS, et al. (2018) How culture and migration affect risk assessment. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context10: 65–78.
43.
ShepherdSMLewis-FernandezR (2016) Forensic risk assessment and cultural diversity: Contemporary challenges and future directions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law22(4): 427–438.
44.
SkeemJMonahanJLowenkampC (2016) Gender, risk assessment, and sanctioning: The cost of treating women like men. Law and Human Behavior40(5): 580–593.
45.
SmithPCullenFTLatessaEJ (2009) Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy8(1): 183–208.
46.
Statistics Denmark (2022) Indvandrere i Danmark 2022 [Immigrants in Denmark 2022]. Copenhagen: Statistics Denmark.
47.
van de VijverFJRLeungK (2011) Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, models, and data analytic procedures. In: MatsumotoDRvan de VijverFJR (eds) Culture and Psychology. Cross-Cultural Research Methods in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–45.
48.
van EijkG (2017) Socioeconomic marginality in sentencing: The built-in bias in risk assessment tools and the reproduction of social inequality. Punishment & Society19(4): 463–481.
49.
van EijkG (2020) Inclusion and exclusion through risk-based justice: Analysing combinations of risk assessment from pretrial detention to release. The British Journal of Criminology60(4): 1080–1097.
50.
VennerSSivasubramaniamDLuebbersS, et al. (2021) Cross-cultural reliability and rater bias in forensic risk assessment: A review of the literature. Psychology, Crime & Law27(2): 105–121.
51.
VillanuevaLGomis-PomaresAAdriánJE (2019) Predictive validity of the YLS/CMI in a sample of Spanish young offenders of Arab descent. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology63(10): 1914–1930.
52.
WilsonHAGutierrezL (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 Behavior41(2): 196–219.
53.
WormithJS (2011) The legacy of D. A. Andrews in the field of criminal justice: How theory and research can change policy and practice. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health10: 78–82.
54.
WormithJSBontaJ (2018) The Level of Service (LS) Instruments. In: SinghJPKronerDGWormithJS, etal (eds) Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 117–145.
55.
WormithJSHoggSGuzzoL (2012) The predictive validity of a general risk/needs assessment inventory on sexual offender recidivism and an exploration of the professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior39(12): 1511–1538.
56.
WormithJSHoggSMGuzzoL (2015) The predictive validity of the LS/CMI with aboriginal offenders in Canada. Criminal Justice and Behavior42(5): 481–508.
