Since their seminal work, Andrews and Bonta outlined the Central Eight assessment domains. As the landscape and utility of criminal justice assessments extended, tool developers expanded upon their initial development principles searching to further risk prediction gains. However, often overlooked in recent advancements is the foundation and usage of associated needs assessments. As a critical component of contemporary tools, particularly for youth, results of needs assessments identify and prioritize program placement. These additional tools comprise domain subscales that represent common predictors of need. Due to their latent nature, need assessment requires careful development and assessments of construct validity. While important, examinations of construct validity are seldom completed for contemporary tools, and their results rarely used for meaningful tool improvements. The current study describes the needs assessment development of the Modified Positive Achievement Change Tool (MPACT). Substantial psychometric evidence of construct validity is provided, describing the tool’s updated, six needs constructs.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1995). The level of service inventory—Revised. Multi-Health Systems.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Anderson/LexisNexis.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27.
5.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 88–100.
6.
AndrewsD. A.RobinsonD. (1984). The level of supervision inventory: Second report. Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
7.
BaglivioM. T. (2009). The assessment of risk to recidivate among a juvenile offending population. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 596–607.
8.
BaglivioM. T.EppsN. (2016). The interrelatedness of adverse childhood experiences among high-risk juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(3), 179–198.
9.
BaglivioM. T.EppsN.SwartzK.HuqM.SheerA.HardtN. (2014). The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 1–23.
10.
BaglivioM. T.WolffK. T.HowellJ. C.JackowskiK.GreenwaldM. A. (2018). The search for the holy grail: Criminogenic needs matching, intervention dosage, and subsequent recidivism among serious juvenile offenders in residential placement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 55, 46–57.
11.
BaglivioM. T.WolffK. T.PiqueroA. R.DeLisiM.VaughnM. G. (2018). The effects of changes in dynamic risk on reoffending among serious juvenile offenders returning from residential placement. Justice Quarterly, 35(3), 443–476.
12.
BairdC.HealyT.JohnsonK.BogieA.DankertE.ScharenbrochC. (2013). A comparison of risk assessment instruments in juvenile justice. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
13.
BarnoskiR. (1999). The community juvenile accountability act: Research-proven interventions for the juvenile courts(Report No. 99-01-1204). Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
14.
BarnoskiR. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington state juvenile court assessment(Report No. 04-03-1201). Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
15.
BarnoskiR.VanDietenM. (1998). Washington association of juvenile court administrators resource manual and scoring guide. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
16.
BontaJ. (1995). The responsivity principle and offender rehabilitation. Forum on Corrections Research, 7, 34–37.
17.
BrennanT.DieterichW.EhretB. (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(1), 21–40.
18.
BroidyL.PayneJ.PiqueroA. R. (2018). Making sense of heterogeneity in the influence of childhood abuse, mental health, and drug use on women’s offending pathways. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(10), 1565–1587.
19.
BrownT. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
20.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81.
21.
CatalánH. E. N. (2019). Reliability, population classification and weighting in multidimensional poverty measurement: A Monte Carlo study. Social Indicators Research, 142(3), 887–910.
22.
Chesney-LindM.MorashM.StevensT. (2008). Girls troubles, girls’ delinquency, and gender responsive programming: A review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 162–189.
23.
ChildsK. K.FrickP. J.GottliebK. (2014). 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.
24.
ComreyA. L.LeeH. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
25.
DalyK. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of law-breaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2, 11–52.
26.
DengL.ChanW. (2016). Testing the difference between reliability coefficients alpha and omega. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(2), 185–203.
27.
DeVellisR. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.
28.
DillonW.GoldsteinM. (1984). Multivariate analysis: Method and applications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
29.
DimitrovD. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(2), 121–149.
30.
DuweG.KimK. (2018). The neglected “r” in the risk-needs-responsivity model: A new approach for assessing responsivity to correctional interventions. Justice Evaluation Journal, 1(2), 130–150.
31.
EckhouseL.LumK.Conti-CookC.CiccoliniJ. (2019). Layers of bias: A unified approach for understanding problems with risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(2), 185–209.
32.
EspinosaE. M.SorensenJ. R.LopezM. (2013). Youth pathways to placement: The influence of gender, mental health need and trauma on confinement in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 42, 1824–1836.
33.
FarabeeD.ZhangS.RobertsR. E. L.YangJ. (2010). COMPAS validation study: Final report. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
34.
FloresA. W.Travis IIIL. F.LatessaE. J. (2003). Case classification for juvenile corrections: An assessment of the youth level of service/case management inventory (YLS/CMI), final report. U.S. Department of Justice.
35.
ForthA. E.KossonD. S.HareR. D. (2003). Hare psychopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL: YV). Multi-Health Systems.
36.
FunkS. J. (1999). Risk assessment for juveniles on probation: A focus on gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(1), 44–68.
37.
GeiserC. (2012). Data analysis with Mplus. Guilford Press.
38.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological methods, 19(1), 72–91.
39.
HairJ.TathamR.AndersonR.BlackW. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
40.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.CampagnaM.BarnoskiR.LeeS.van WormerJ.BlockL. (2016). Designed to fit: The development and validation of the STRONG-R recidivism risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 230–263.
41.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.KowalskiM. A. (2020). Optimizing juvenile assessment performance. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
42.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.MeiX.RouthD.KowalskiM. A. (2018). PACT validation and weighting results: Technical report. Deliverable 1: Updated PACT risk and needs assessment. Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators.
43.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.MeiX.RouthD.KowalskiM. A. (2020). PACT validation and weighting results: Technical report. Deliverable 2: Updated PACT responsivity assessment. Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators.
44.
HamiltonZ.KowalskiM. A.KigerlA.RouthD. (2019). Optimizing youth risk assessment performance: Development of the modified positive achievement change tool (M-PACT) in Washington State. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(8), 1106–1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819857108
HarpurT.HareR.HakstianA. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment, 1, 6–17.
47.
HogeR. D.VincentG.GuyL. (2013). Bulletin 4: Prediction and risk/needs assessment (study group on the transitions between juvenile delinquency and adult crime). National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
48.
HollinC. R.PalmerE. J.ClarkD. (2003). The level of service inventory-revised profile of English prisoners: A needs analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 422–440.
49.
HsuC.CaputiP.ByrneM. (2010). Level of service inventory–revised: Assessing the risk and need characteristics of Australian indigenous offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 17(3), 355–367.
50.
JonesN. J.BrownS. L.RobinsonD.FreyD. (2016). Validity of the youth assessment and screening instrument: A juvenile justice tool incorporating risks, needs, and strengths. Law and Human Behavior, 40(2), 182–194.
51.
JungS.RawanaE. P. (1999). Risk and need assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 69–89.
52.
Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics. (2020, October15). The juvenile justice GPS updates risk assessment in probation. National Center for Juvenile Justice. http://www.jjgps.org/news/article/80/the-juvenile-justice-gps-updates-risk-as
53.
KazdinA. (2005). Parent management training: Treatment for oppositional, aggressive, and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. Oxford University Press.
54.
KerigP. K.SchindlerS. R. (2013). Engendering the evidence base: A critical review of the conceptual and empirical foundations of gender-responsive interventions for girls’ delinquency. Laws, 2(3), 244–282.
55.
KowalskiM. A. (2019). Unmet needs: Adverse childhood experiences and mental health issues as pathways to recidivism in justice-involved youth[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Washington State University.
56.
LatessaE.LovinsB.OstrowskiK. (2009). The Ohio youth assessment system. Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.
LovinsB.LatessaE. (2013). Creation and validation of the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) and strategies for successful implementation. Justice Research and Policy, 15(1), 67–93.
59.
LowderE. M.MorrisonM. M.KronerD. G.DesmaraisS. L. (2019). Racial bias and LSI-R assessments in probation sentencing and outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(2), 210–233.
60.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77–93.
61.
MatzA. K.MartinezA. R.KujavaE. (2020). Assessing risk in North Dakota juvenile probation: A preliminary examination of the predictive validity of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720950023
62.
McCormickS.Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT. A. (2017). The role of mental health and specific responsivity in juvenile justice rehabilitation. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 55–67.
63.
McGrathA.ThompsonA. P. (2012). The relative predictive validity of the static and dynamic domain scores in risk-need assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(3), 250–263.
64.
MeiX. (2018). Offender risk and needs assessment construction, validation and application[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Washington State University.
PalmerE. J.HollinC. R. (2007). The level of service inventory-revised with English women prisoners: A needs and reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 971–984.
68.
PechorroP.BarrosoR.MarocoJ.VieiraR. X.GonçalvesR. A. (2014). Psychometric properties of the psychopathy checklist: Youth Version among Portuguese juvenile delinquents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(12), 1322–1337.
69.
PutnickD.BornsteinM. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 4, 71–90.
70.
RalstonC. A. (2008). Validation of the juvenile sexual offense recidivism risk assessment tool—II[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University.
71.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Taylor & Francis.
72.
RevelleW.ZinbargR. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the GLB: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154.
73.
RiosJ.WellsC. (2014). Validity evidence based on internal structure. Psicothema, 26(1), 108–116.
74.
RussellJ. D.MarseeM.RyalsJ. S. (2017). Identifying mental health issues in detained youth: Testing the structure and invariance of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Inventory-Version 2 (MAYSI-2). Psychological Assessment, 29, 720–726.
75.
SchmidtF.HogeR. D.GomesL. (2005). Reliability and validity analyses of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(3), 329–344.
76.
SchmidtN.LienE.VaughanM.HussM. (2017). An examination of individual differences and factor structure of the LS/CMI: Does this popular risk assessment tool measure up?Deviant Behavior, 38(3), 306–317.
77.
SchmittN.KuljaninG. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 210–222.
78.
SchwalbeC. S.FraserM. W.DayS. H. (2007). Predictive validity of the joint risk matrix with juvenile offenders: A focus on gender and race/ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 348–361.
79.
ScottT.BrownS. L.SkillingT. A. (2019). Predictive and convergent validity of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument in a sample of male and female justice-involved youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(6), 811–831.
80.
SijtsemaJ. J.KretschmerT.van OsT. (2015). The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in youth in a large community sample of young adult males and females: The TRAILS study. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 669–677.
81.
SinghJ. P.DesmaraisS. L.SellersB. G.HyltonT.TirottiM.Van DornR. A. (2014). From risk assessment to risk management: Matching interventions to adolescent offenders’ strengths and vulnerabilities. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 1–9.
82.
SkeemJ. L.KennealyP. J.HernandezI. (2013). CA-YASI construct validity: To what extent do the domains measure the risk factors they’re supposed to measure?Division of Juvenile Justice, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. http://risk-resilience.berkeley.edu/content/publications-1
83.
SkeemJ. L.KennealyP. J.TatarJ. R.HernandezI. R.KeithF. A. (2017). How well do juvenile risk assessments measure factors to target in treatment? Examining construct validity. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 679–691.
84.
SkeemJ. L.MonahanJ. (2011). Current directions in violence risk assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 38–42.
85.
SkowyraK. R.CocozzaJ. J. (2007). Blueprint for change: A comprehensive model for the identification and treatment of youth with mental health needs in contact with the juvenile justice system. The National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. Policy Research Associates, Inc.
86.
StevensonH. E.WormithS. (1987). Psychopathy and the level of supervision(User Report No. 1987-25). Solicitor General Canada.
87.
TaxmanF. S. (2017). Risk assessment: Where do we go from here? In SinghJ. P.KronerD.WormithS.DesmaraisS. L.HamiltonZ. (Eds.), Handbook of recidivism risk/needs assessment (pp. 269–284). John Wiley.
88.
TeplinL. A.AbramK. M.McClellandG. M.DulcanM. K.MericleA. A. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(12), 1133–1143.
89.
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.
90.
ViaB.DezemberA.TaxmanF. S. (2016). Exploring how to measure criminogenic needs: Five instruments and no real answers. In TaxmanF. S.DezemberA. (Eds.), Risk and need assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 312–330). Routledge.
91.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263–285.
92.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.GrissoT. (2012). Assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
93.
VincentG.SullivanC. J.SullivanC.GuyL.LatessaE.TysonJ.AdamsB. (2018). Studying drivers of risk and needs assessment instrument implementation in juvenile justice. OJJDP juvenile justice bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
94.
WachterA. (2015). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation. JJGPS statescan. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
95.
WilliamsM. M.RogersR.HartiganS. E. (2019). Dimensions of psychopathology and behavioral problems: A CFA study of the MAYSI-2 scales in legally involved juveniles. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 5(2), 143–153.
96.
WormithJ. S.BontaJ. (2017). The level of service (LS) instruments. In SinghJ. P.KronerD.WormithS.DesmaraisS. L.HamiltonZ. (Eds.), Handbook of recidivism risk assessment. Wiley.
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.
