Abstract
The Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) is an instrument used world-wide for offender risk/need assessment, and the predominant samples for the LSI-R literature were Caucasian participants. This study is the first attempt to examine the reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the LSI-R with 305 probationers (269 males, 36 females) in Guangzhou, China. Factor analysis was conducted using principal component analysis. The internal consistency was estimated by Cronbach’s alpha for the total and subscales. Under the cross-sectional design, technical violation (TV) was used as a dependent variable for bivariate correlations and binary logistic regression model to investigate the concurrent validity of the Chinese version of LSI-R, controlling the age. Results offered support to this instrument by sound internal consistency. Significant gender differences were apparent on the total scores, and subscales of Criminal History, Family/Marital, and Companions. Bivariate correlations and binary logistic regression analyses supported the concurrent validity of the LSI-R total score for technical violations, and the subscales of Criminal History and Education/Employment were significantly associated with technical violations, which are consistent with the LSI-R literature. Overall, the LSI-R, which has been translated into Chinese, is a reliable risk/need assessment instrument for technical violations for probationers in Guangzhou, China. Further studies with follow-up data for different offender groups are needed. Discussions about the results, implications, limitations, and further research were presented.
Risk/need assessment is an important aspect of the field of corrections, particularly for offender management and rehabilitation, and has been developed over several decades. Four generations of risk/need assessment technology and instruments have been identified: (a) The first generation (1G) consisted mainly of personal expertise and professional judgments of the probability of offending behavior, but suffered from inaccuracy. (b) Second-generation (2G) assessments, being statistical in nature and focused on empirically based risk static factors, are limited given the fact that they are based mostly on static items. (c) Third-generation (3G) assessments are also empirically based but have dynamic risk factors, or criminogenic needs, included. (d) The fourth generation (4G) assessments are extended to guide and follow the service and supervision for offenders from intake through case closure (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006).
The Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) is one of the most popular risk/need assessment instruments with sound reliability and validity (Andrews et al., 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Guastaferro, 2012; Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2013; Vose, Cullen, & Smith, 2008). It is widely used in western countries’ probation system (Girard & Wormith, 2004; Raynor, 2007) and validated for male and female offenders (Andrews et al., 2012; Smith, Cullen, & Latessa, 2009).
Rooted on the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model and general personality and cognitive social learning perspective (Andrews & Bonta, 2010), the LSI-R is a 54-item scale with 10 domains. The RNR model is the premier treatment model for correctional assessment and rehabilitation, supported by evidence from an impressive body of meta-analytic research that consists of three core principles to refute the “nothing works” perspective (Ward, Melser, & Yates, 2007). The risk principle states that high-risk and low-risk offenders should be exposed to different levels of interventions; the need principle suggests that criminogenic needs should be assessed and targeted for interventions; and the responsivity principle proposes that rehabilitative interventions should be tailored to match the characteristics of different offenders and in a cognitive behavioral format (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).
The LSI-R is a very powerful tool for predicting outcomes and general probation recidivism, and is used in more than 200 countries and jurisdictions throughout the world, including large parts of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (Hsu, Caputi, & Byrne, 2011). It is a 3G assessment instrument with 10 subscales: Criminal History, Education/Employment, Finance, Family/Marital, Accommodation, Leisure/Recreation, Companions, Alcohol/Drug Problems, Emotional/Personal Problems, and Attitudes/Orientations, based on a combination of static and dynamic risk factors with a profile of criminogenic needs for assessing the risk and needs with general populations of probationers. The LSI-R can help make informed decisions on formal decisions about the design and delivery of services to probationers by providing data on risk and need factors (Schlager & Pacheco, 2011).
The LSI-R can guide probation officers in identifying high-risk probationers. Utmost concern is given to the predictive accuracy of the instruments, but cultural and macro-sociopolitical factors might affect the yielded results, and the results of interjurisdictional studies are mixed, indicating intra- and interjurisdictional variations for the reliability and validity of the LSI-R (Hsu, Caputi, & Byrne, 2009). Olver et al. (2013) found regional differences in the predictive accuracy of Level of Service (LS) scales, which refers to the family of risk-need assessment tools with the origin of Level of Service Inventory (LSI) followed by the LSI-R, and argued that the quality assurance of scale administration, access to actual and complete offender records, familiarity with the instruments and rater drift might account for such differences. Well established and tested in western countries, the generality of the LSI-R into other jurisdictions with different culture, such as China, needs further investigation.
In China, probationers are supervised by officers in the community correction system, which is a new initiative resulting from the criminal justice reform in 2003. Traditionally, probationers were supervised by police, and now the task of supervision became the responsibility of the judicial administrative system, led by the Ministry of Justice of PRC after 2003. There were 573,000 offenders under community supervision at the end of 2012, and probationers and parolees were the majority (Ministry of Justice of PRC, in press). Chinese community correction system is quite similar to the western methods with emphasis on the balance of offender management and rehabilitation, but it suffers from the absence of evidence-based programs and interventions (S. J. Zhang, 2013). Upon intake, probationers are assessed and classified into high-, medium-, and low-risk groups. However, the methods of assessment vary in different areas. Large cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou use different instruments for assessment, but many cases in other cities are classified based on the judgments of the officers. Although some instruments have been used in big cities in several years, no published study reporting their reliability and validity can be found. Under such circumstances, introducing the LSI-R to the Chinese community correction system might be helpful for practitioners. The first challenge is to translate the LSI-R into Chinese, and examine its reliability and validity. The LSI-R has been used effectively, to some extent, among offenders with different cultural and racial differences (Whiteacre, 2006; Schlager & Simourd, 2007), so it is reasonable to hypothesize that the LSI-R would be effective in assessing Chinese offenders.
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the reliability and concurrent validity of the Chinese LSI-R among probationers in Guangzhou, China.
Method
Participants
The sample was composed of 305 probationers (269 males, and 36 females) recruited from Guangzhou in South China. There were about 2,000 probationers under supervision in Guangzhou across its 12 districts when the study was conducted. The researcher planned to sample 300 to 400 participants from 12 districts, so that the amount of samples from different districts was calculated based on their proportion to the whole probationer population. The Office of Community Correction of Guangzhou provided a list of probationers in each district, and then the participants were selected randomly. Selected probationers were informed about the study and asked whether they agreed to take part. Only those with informed consent were allowed to participate. The response rate was 98%. As probationers who commit new offense or with more than three technical violations (TV = 4 or above) would have been sent to prison, the current study did not include those probationers.
For male participants, the mean age was 31.27, SD = 12.90, with the sentence length from 9 to 60 months (M = 26.36 months, SD = 11.8), and 38.7% convicted violent offense. For female probationers, the mean age was 33.78, SD = 13.07, with sentence length from 9 to 60 months (M = 28.57 months, SD = 14), and 22% convicted violent offense (mostly accessory offenders in robbery cases). For most female participants, the most common offenses committed were fraud, burglary, and robbery.
In Guangzhou, all probationers lived communities; supervised by probation agencies. It is the probationer’s duty to comply with the following requirements from the supervision agency: (a) reporting to the supervision officer regularly at predetermined intensity; (b) finishing community service hours and attending education courses; (c) submitting an application for leaving or moving out to other cities, which could only be done after permission is given; and (d) refraining from going to some specific location as set by the injunction from the court.
Measures
The LSI-R comprises 10 subscales (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Authorization to use the LSI-R in Guangzhou was obtained.
The current study adapted a cross-sectional design. The participants selected were serving their probation terms (not at the start of probation) and were interviewed to score the LSI-R, and to obtain information about their previous history under probation supervision, including whether they had technical violations and what their needs are. When the research associates interviewed the participants and scored the LSI-R, they did not know whether the respondents had technical violations. The participants were informed that their records would be verified after the interview and consent was obtained from all participants. After an interview, the research associates checked the participant’s documents, while the access to the documents was permitted by the probation officers, to verify whether he or she had technical violation records. That is to say, the technical violations would have happened before the interviews if the participants had such records, but the research associates would not know that until the interviews were finished, and only those technical violations that had been verified by the participant’s documents would be recorded along with the data of the LSI-R.
Because of the cross-sectional design, technical violation was used as a dependent variable to test the concurrent validity of the Chinese version of the LSI-R, because a probationer who had committed a new offense would have been sent to prison with a revocation of the probation, and out of reach of the current study; thus, the risk and recent/current behavior of participants were assessed. According to the community correction regulations in China, a technical violation of a probationer will be defined as one of the following circumstances: (a) failing to report to the supervision agency within 10 days after the court sentence, (b) moving out to other cities without permission from the supervision agency, (c) refusing to finish the community service hours after being reminded by probation officers, and (d) failing to comply with the restraining order issued by the court. More than three technical violations will lead to a revocation of the probation.
Procedure
A researcher translated the LSI-R into Chinese, and another researcher translated it back to English for retroversion and comparison. The research associates were trained about interviewing participants and scoring the Chinese LSI-R. The participants had been serving their probation terms for several months and were under supervision of community correction agencies and officers, and they were selected from the 12 districts of Guangzhou. They were interviewed one-to-one, and were asked to fulfill the Chinese LSI-R. The LSI-R questionnaires were scored by the research associates, and supervised by the researchers.
Analyses
First, means of the LSI-R total and subscales were compared between male and female probationers by a two-sample t-test. Second, factor analysis using principal component analysis was made. Third, the internal consistency was estimated by Cronbach’s alpha for the total and subscales. Fourth, bivariate correlations, using Pearson’s r, were investigated to reveal the relationship among technical violation, age, LSI-R total, and subscales. Finally, a binary logistic regression model was used to examine the concurrent validity of the Chinese version of the LSI-R with respect to technical violations, and controlling the age. Participants who had technical violations were coded as 1, and those without technical violations were coded as 0. Gender was also used as an independent variable.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations of the Chinese LSI-R are provided in Table 1 (by total and gender). For the LSI-R total, the mean score was 8.96 (SD = 5.082) for the total sample, 9.23 (SD = 5.095) for males, and 6.92 (SD = 4.544) for females. There were significant gender differences in the LSI-R total scores, and in Criminal History and Companions. For Criminal History, the mean score was 0.977 (SD = 1.253) for males, and 0.42 (SD = 0.77) for females. For Family/Marital, the mean score was 0.71 (SD = 1.014) for males, and 0.25 (SD = 0.732) for females. For Companions, the mean score was 1.25 (SD = 1.538) for males, and 0.61 (SD = 1.225) for females. However, the small sample size of the female participants made the gender differences less robust and future investigation is needed.
Means and Standard Deviations for the LSI-R.
Note. LSI-R = Level of Service Inventory–Revised.
p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
Technical Violation (TV)
Eighty-six (28.2%) participants had technical violations, with 93% (N = 80) for males and 7% (N = 6) for females, respectively. As probationers with more than three violations would have been sent to prison, the participants with technical violations would have a TV number from 1 to 3. With reference to the TV rate, there is no significant difference between the proportions of male and female probationers in this respect, χ2(1, N = 305) = 2.68, p = .102.
Factor Analysis
The factor analysis will provide assistance in exploring the validity of the Chinese LSI-R in the Chinese context. For Canadian and American probationers, a three-factor solution was found, and a two-factor solution was also reported (Hsu, Caputi, & Byrne, 2011). The Kaiser−Meyer−Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (0.675) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < .001) indicated that the factor analysis can be done. The principal component analysis (PCA) suggested a four-factor solution, accounting for 57.6% of the variance in subscales. The loadings for subscales are presented in Table 2.
Loadings for Subscales.
From Table 2, at the loading level of .400, there are four factors retrieved from 10 subscales. Family/Marital, Accommodation, Leisure/Recreation, and Attitudes/Orientations were loaded to one factor, which mainly focuses on the probationers’ daily environment. Criminal History, Education/Employment, and Companions were grouped into another factor. This factor described the risk and differential associations of the probationers. Finance and Emotional/Personal Problems were included into one factor. More importantly, Alcohol/Drug Problems was identified as a separate factor.
Reliability
For the internal consistency of the Chinese LSI-R, Cronbach’s alpha for the total was .852, and ranged from .124 to .798 for subscales, which are presented in Table 3.
Cronbach’s Alpha of the LSI-R Total and Subscales.
Note. LSI-R = Level of Service Inventory–Revised.
The inter-item reliabilities of the Family/Marital (FM), Accommodation (AC), and Leisure/Recreation (LR) scales were .677, .660, and .617, respectively, slightly lower than the α criterion of .7.
In addition, the Financial Problems (FP) scale and Antisocial Personality Pattern−Emotional/Personal (EP) scale had very low Cronbach’s αs of .124 and .206, respectively.
Validity
Bivariate correlations among technical violation, age, LSI-R total, and subscales are presented in Table 4 (by total sample and gender). Significant correlation between technical violation and age existed for male probationers (r = −.372, p < .001). Significant LSI-R total scores and technical violation correlations were found for both male (r = .504, p < .001) and female probationers (r = .524, p < .001). The strongest correlation between the LSI-R subscale and technical violation was found in Criminal History across gender. For the other subscales, significant correlations were apparent for Education/Employment, Companions, Family/Marital, Accommodation, and Leisure/Recreation for male probationers. For female probationers, other subscales with significant correlation to technical violation, listed in order, are Alcohol/Drug Problems, and Education/Employment.
Bivariate Correlations Among Technical Violation, Age, LSI-R Total, and Subscales.
Note. LSI-R = Level of Service Inventory–Revised.
p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
A binary logistic regression model was used to examine the importance of concurrent validity in the Chinese LSI-R with respect to technical violations. The dependent variable group was coded as 0 (no technical violation) and 1 (has technical violation or violations). The total score is significantly related to technical violations for total sample and across gender, as shown in Table 5. Age as a control variable is negatively related to the likelihood of technical violations.
Binary Logistic Regression for LSI-R Total as a Predictor of Technical Violation.
Note. LSI-R = Level of Service Inventory–Revised.
p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
Gender was added as an independent variable. Male was coded as 1 and female as 2, and there is negative relation between the gender and technical violations, indicating the female probationers had less likelihood for technical violations.
For the logistic regression model, Cox & Snell R2 is .285, and Nagelkerke R2 is .408.
Discussion
Being the first attempt to generalize the LSI-R in the Chinese correctional system, the present study provided positive findings for the LSI-R as a reliable risk/need assessment instruments for technical violations for probationers in Guangzhou, China.
Significant gender differences were apparent in the LSI-R total scores, and subscales of Criminal History, Family/Marital, and Companions. The female sample is very small, but the results can provide useful information and direction for future study on the ability of the LSI-R to differentiate female probationers from male probationers. Male probationers had higher scores in total, Criminal History, and Companions. Male probationers had higher percentage of violent offenses, so they will have higher scores in Criminal History. For female probationers, 63.9% of them were married, compared with 50.2% of male probationers, and female probationers scored lower in the Family/Marital subscale, indicating they had fewer problems in this area and were satisfied with their family relationship as opposed to male probationers.
In previous studies, the results of factor solution were arranged from one to three factors, which are different from this study’s finding with four factors. Loza and Simourd (1994) reported a two-factor solution with Canadian federal male inmates; Hollin, Palmer, and Clark (2003) also concluded a two-factor solution from English male offenders. Criminal History, Education/Employment, Leisure/Recreation, Companions, Alcohol/Drug Problems, and Attitudes/Orientations were grouped as one factor, while Family/Marital, Accommodation, and Emotional/Personal Problems as the other one. However, Palmer and Hollin (2007) reported only one-factor solution with English female offenders. The difference between this study and previous research may be related to the heterogeneous nature of the offender population (Hsu et al., 2011). The above research used female or male inmates as samples, while this study took probationers as participants. Social context situations might also account for the difference of factor solutions. The previous results were found in western contexts, which is very different from the Chinese context. The result of the factor analysis of this study may reflect the specific risk and needs of probationers in China. Finance and Emotional/Personal Problems were included into one factor, when both scales have much lower Cronbach’s α than the other subscales, and the two variables might have correlations with each other. Alcohol/Drug Problems was identified as a separate factor. It can be interpreted that drug-related issue is a special factor for probationers in China, distinguished from other subscales of the LSI-R. The Drug Problem subscale has been proved to be a valid predictor to reincarceration in America (Kelly & Welsh, 2008), but drug problems are not common in Chinese probationers, with only five participants (four males and one female), which is 1.6% of the 305 participants, reported that they had used drug before. Meanwhile, those with drug problems are more likely to have reoffense in the probation practice in Guangzhou, so further investigation is needed. To be more precise, a structural equation model (SEM) might be used to confirm the factor structure of LSI-R according to findings from previous studies. However, to avoid prejudice in the Chinese context, PCA was used to explore the factor structure, since the current study is the first attempt to investigate the generality of LSI-R. Further studies may use different structure-analysis tools to explore the factor structure of LSI-R in the Chinese context.
The reliability of the Chinese version of the LSI-R was examined for the total and subscales, revealing moderate to strong internal consistency, except for the Finance and Emotional/Personal Problems subscales that fell below the benchmark cutoff of .6. The low reliability may be correlated to the different answer ratios of the items in the same scales. In the Financial Problem subscale (FP), item FP2 “Are you relying upon social assistance” had only 3.3% (10 out of 305) participants answering “Yes,” which cannot match the data of first item (27, or 8.9% participants reported their financial situation as “Very Bad,” and 174, or 57% participants reported their financial situation as “Not So Good”). So an inconsistency exists. This phenomenon arises because of the Chinese policy for probationers. Although the government regulations do not explicitly state that probationers are not eligible for poverty assistance in China, they will experience difficulties when applying for poverty support. For example, in Guangzhou, probationers find it difficult to apply for poverty support until 2011. At the same time, unemployment insurance has always been denied to offenders serving their sentence both in prison and in the community. Thus, the number of probationers answering “Yes” to the question of whether they were relying on social assistance was understandably low.
For the Emotion/Personal subscale (EP), such items with very low positive answer ratios were EP2 “Do you perform severe interference?” EP3 “Did you receive mental health treatment ever?” EP4 “Do you receive mental health treatment presently?” and EP5 “Do you have other psychological problems?” in the scale. In all, 43% of respondents reported having anxiety, depression, or insomnia, though the symptoms were not severe; but no respondent reported severe mental illness. Two participants answered “Yes” for having received mental health treatment before, while one participant responded “Yes” for receiving treatment at present. Three probationers indicated having other psychological problems. The mismatch between the 43% participants reporting anxiety and depression and low positive answer ratios for having received mental health treatment may account for the inconsistency of this subscale. On one hand, probationers have no serious mental illness. According to China’s Criminal Law, a person with serious mental illness (verified by qualified forensic agencies) is free of criminal responsibility when he commits criminal activities, even for assault or murder. On the other hand, mental health services are under-developed in China, especially for common mental disorder. Data from World Mental Health surveys show that in the 12-month prevalence of anxiety disorders, 7% of Chinese adults have mood disorder by DSM-IV, but only 11.3% of these individuals have accepted relevant health services. There is a wide gap between the demand and supply of mental health services (M. Y. Zhang, 2006). It should also be further noted that the Finance and Emotion/Personal subscales that did not perform well in the current study have been removed from the updated LS/CMI (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004).
LSI-R total and Criminal History were significantly correlated to technical violation across gender, which is consistent with the literature (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Hsu et al., 2009). It is noticeable that a strong correlation between Drug/Alcohol existed for female probationers only. This is consistent with the findings of Andrews et al. (2012), which indicated stronger predictive validity of substance abuse with female offenders for recidivism. Rettinger and Andrews (2010) also found a strong association between substance abuse and general crime, violent crime, and the number of new offenses.
The result of regression analysis offered support for the concurrent validity of the Chinese LSI-R. Increase in the LSI-R total score is correlated with greater likelihood of technical violation, indicating that probationers with higher LSI-R total scores are more likely to have technical violations. For the control variable of age, an increase will lead to a decrease in the risk of technical violations, consistent with international findings of the negative correlation between age and criminal behavior (Hsu et al., 2011), and refutes the argument that LSI items are simply tapping into age. The LSI-R total score is a valid index to discriminate high-risk from low-risk provationers, which can aid probation officers in classifying the probationers and plan specific supervision strategies for probationer groups. The LSI-R will be a helpful assessment tool for developing evidence-based practices in the Chinese correctional system.
There are some limitations of the present study. The study does not use the number of technical violation in the logistic regression model and the predictive validity might have suffered from cross-sectional data. Under such a design, the LSI-R is coded after someone might have had a technical violation; thus, the LSI-R score might be different due to dynamic items, as dynamic items included would have been differently coded if the interviews were conducted before the technical violation occurred. This limits the evidence of the LSI-R score for its predictive validity, and a future study that includes follow-ups after LSI-R interviews is required. The exact time of the participants’ technical violations was also not recorded by the research associates when interviews were conducted, so survival analysis was hard to apply in data analysis. Another reason for the difficulty of using survival analysis is that there is no follow-up session for the participants in the current study. Survival analysis will be used in the next study when the data, which includes the participants’ recidivism rate after interviews, can be collected. Participants were selected from the probationers in Guangzhou, and the generality of the Chinese LSI-R to other areas and offender groups in China still needs further investigation. Finally, cultural differences were not fully explored in the present study. Developed from Caucasian offenders, the LSI-R is often questioned for its capacity to account for culturally specific factors related to non-White offenders (Wilson & Gutierrez, 2013). Offender’s behaviors are shaped by the society and culture they live in. Given the cultural difference between Chinese and Western offenders, the ability of the LSI-R to differentiate the cultural risk/need factors in the Chinese correctional system still needs further study.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.