Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form Research Articles

Predicting Short-Term Parole Outcome in Substance Abusing Offenders with the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

The purpose of this study was three-fold: determine whether scores on the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF), a recidivism and re-offense risk assessment procedure, predict future criminal and drug use outcomes in substance abusing parolees, verify whether LCSF-defined risk identifies parolees likely to benefit from a case management strengths program, and ascertain whether the LCSF is as effective with women as it is with men. These three topic areas (use of the LCSF with substance abusing offenders, testing the risk principle, and seeing whether the LCSF applies to women) represent gaps in the current state of knowledge on the LCSF. In a secondary analysis of data including 811 (616 men, 195 women) substance-abusing adult parolees, results revealed that the LCSF was the only variable, out of six, to predict all six outcomes of interest across 3- and 9-month follow-up periods. When the sample was broken down by gender, the LCSF predicted all six outcomes in men but only the three 9-month outcomes in women. In an unanticipated development, men exposed to a case management strengths program reported more subsequent crime and drug use than participants not exposed to this special case management program.

Two-tiered violence risk estimates: A validation study of an integrated-actuarial risk assessment instrument.

This study is an initial validation study of the Two-Tiered Violence Risk Estimates instrument (TTV), a violence risk appraisal instrument designed to support an integrated-actuarial approach to violence risk assessment. The TTV was scored retrospectively from file information on a sample of violent offenders. Construct validity was examined by comparing the TTV with instruments that have shown utility to predict violence that were prospectively scored: The Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) and Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF). Predictive validity was examined through a long-term follow-up of 12.4 years with a sample of 78 incarcerated offenders. Results show the TTV to be highly correlated with the HCR-20 and LCSF. The base rate for violence over the follow-up period was 47.4%, and the TTV was equally predictive of violent recidivism relative to the HCR-20 and LCSF. Discussion centers on the advantages of an integrated-actuarial approach to the assessment of violence risk.

Taking the Next Step: Combining Incrementally Valid Indicators to Improve Recidivism Prediction

The possibility of combining indicators to improve recidivism prediction was evaluated in a sample of released federal prisoners randomly divided into a derivation subsample (n = 550) and a cross-validation subsample (n = 551). Five incrementally valid indicators were selected from five domains: demographic (age), historical (prior convictions), adjustment (prior incident reports), rating scale (Violation scale of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form), and self-report (General Criminal Thinking score from the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles). After converting scores on the five indicators to a common scale (z score), two combined scores were calculated: a simple summed score (unweighted summed score) and a score computed using beta weights from a Cox survival analysis of the derivation subsample (weighted summed score). Correlational and receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed that the unweighted and weighted summed scores produced equivalent results and that both improved significantly on the results of the five contributing indicators.

The Latent Structure of the Criminal Lifestyle

Three taxometric procedures, mean above minus below a cut (MAMBAC), maximum eigenvalue (MAXEIG), and latent mode factor analysis (L-Mode), were applied to the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF), the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS), and a combination of the two in a group of 771 male federal prisoners. It was hypothesized that the rating scale (LCSF) would demonstrate taxonic structure and the self-report measure (PICTS) would demonstrate dimensional structure. The PICTS—dimensional relationship was found but the LCSF—taxon relationship failed to surface. When the four most valid and factorially meaningful PICTS scales were combined with the four LCSF sub-scales, there was clear and consistent evidence of dimensional structure in the criminal lifestyle.

Predicting Institutional Adjustment With the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form and the Antisocial Features and Aggression Scales of the PAI

Abstract I included scores on the Antisocial Features (ANT) and Aggression (AGG) scales of the Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey, 1991 Morey, L. C. 1991. Personality Assessment Inventory: A professional manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]) and ratings on the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF; Walters, White,& Denney, 1991 Walters, G. D., White, T. W. and Denney, D. 1991. The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form: Preliminary data. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18: 406–418. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) along with age and prior disciplinary record in a series of negative binomial regression analyses of total, no aggressive, and aggressive incident reports (IRs) received in a 2-year follow-up of 120 male maximum security federal prisoners. Findings indicated that the AGG scale, but not the LCSF or ANT, predicted total and no aggressive IR counts. The LCSF achieved significant receiver operating characteristic (ROC) results in predicting dichotomized aggressive IRs, the ANT achieved significant ROC results in predicting dichotomized total and no aggressive IRs, and the AGG achieved significant ROC results in predicting all 3 dichotomized categories of IR. Supplemental analyses revealed that the AGG continued to predict total and no aggressive IRs when the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS; Walters, 1995 Walters, G. D. 1995. The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Part 1. Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22: 307–325. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) Proactive scale was included in the negative binomial regression but not when the PICTS Reactive scale was included in the negative binomial regression.

Predicting Institutional Adjustment With the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form and the Antisocial Features and Aggression Scales of the PAI

I included scores on the Antisocial Features (ANT) and Aggression (AGG) scales of the Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey, 1991) and ratings on the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF; Walters, White,& Denney, 1991) along with age and prior disciplinary record in a series of negative binomial regression analyses of total, no aggressive, and aggressive incident reports (IRs) received in a 2-year follow-up of 120 male maximum security federal prisoners. Findings indicated that the AGG scale, but not the LCSF or ANT, predicted total and no aggressive IR counts. The LCSF achieved significant receiver operating characteristic (ROC) results in predicting dichotomized aggressive IRs, the ANT achieved significant ROC results in predicting dichotomized total and no aggressive IRs, and the AGG achieved significant ROC results in predicting all 3 dichotomized categories of IR. Supplemental analyses revealed that the AGG continued to predict total and no aggressive IRs when the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS; Walters, 1995) Proactive scale was included in the negative binomial regression but not when the PICTS Reactive scale was included in the negative binomial regression.

Risk-Appraisal Versus Self-Report in the Prediction of Criminal Justice Outcomes

Twenty-seven individual pairs of effect sizes from 22 prospective studies employing one or more of the following five risk-appraisal procedures: Historical-Clinical-Risk Scales (HCR–20), Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF), Level of Service-Inventory (LSI), Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), and one or more self-report measures were subjected to meta-analysis. Although risk-appraisal procedures displayed an advantage over self-report measures in recidivism prediction, the two methods produced comparable results when the meta-analysis was restricted to investigations using content-relevant self-report predictors. Incremental validity analysis of 72 risk-appraisal/self-report contrasts revealed that bothsets of measures accounted for criminal justice outcomes beyond the variance attributable to the alternate method.

Predicting Institutional Adjustment with the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form and Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles

The Lifestyle Criminal Screening Form (LCSF) total score and the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) Reactive (R) scale both predicted subsequent aggressive disciplinary infractions in a group of 103 maximum security prison inmates but only the R scale successfully predicted total and nonaggressive disciplinary infractions in this group. Testing the incremental validity of these two measures it was determined that the LCSF failed to contribute significant unique variance to the prediction of disciplinary outcome when prior disciplinary record, age, and education were entered before the LCSF in a logistic regression analysis, but that the R scale successfully predicted total and aggressive disciplinary reports when entered into a logistic regression equation behind the LCSF, prior disciplinary record, and demographics (age, education).

Predicting criminal justice outcomes with the Psychopathy Checklist and Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form: a meta-analytic comparison.

Studies that have used either the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) or the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF) to predict criminal justice outcomes (disciplinary adjustment and recidivism) were subjected to meta-analysis and compared. Analogous results were obtained with the PCL-R and LCSF even though the PCL-R takes 2-3 hours and the LCSF 10 minutes to complete. It is concluded that pending further evaluation in which these assessment measures are directly compared, the cost-effectiveness of the LCSF makes it an attractive alternative to the PCL-R in situations where risk of future offender disciplinary maladjustment or recidivism is of principal concern.

The Accuracy of Five Risk Appraisal Instruments in Predicting Institutional Misconduct and New Convictions

The predictive accuracy of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised, Level of Service Inventory– Revised, HCR-20, Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, and the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form were compared in a sample of male offenders. Both correlations and receiver operating characteristics measured the relationship between the instruments and the predictive outcome criteria of institutional misconduct and release failure. Although some instruments performed better across the outcome measures, there were no statistical differences in predictive accuracy among the instruments.

The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form as a predictor of federal parole/probation/supervised release outcome: A 3‐year follow‐up

Purpose. This study was conducted in an effort to predict the long‐term outcome of federal parole, probation and supervised release clients with the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF).Methods. A sample of 52 federal parolees/probationers/supervised releasees, the entire caseload of a US federal probation officer, were scored on the LCSF and followed up for three years. Outcome measures included revocation, all violations (revocation and technical) and adjustment (revocation, technical violations, drug use, employment).Results. Analyses revealed that the LCSF successfully predicted revocations, technical violations and poor adjustment independent of age, race or gender. A cutting score of 10 correctly classified 69.2 per cent of the sample in terms of good or poor adjustment, 75.0 per cent of the sample on revocations leading to incarceration, and 73.1 per cent of the sample with respect to all violations (technical and criminal).Conclusions. These findings lend further credence to the practical utility of the LCSF as a predictor of future adjustment difficulties in federal parolees, probationers and supervised releasees.

The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

ABSTRACT The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF) is reviewed in an effort to evaluate its potential use in clinical and probation settings. The individual strengths and weaknesses of the LCSF are discussed in light of its demographic correlates, reliability, and validity. It is recommended that clinical interpretation of the LCSF consider the total score grouped into three categories (scores below 7 being classified as “low risk,” scores between 7 and 9 as “moderate risk,” and scores of 10 or higher as “high risk”) which can then be used to establish the client's optimal level of supervision/intervention.

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

A confirmatory factor analysis of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF) was performed using data derived from 542 male medium-security federal prison inmates. The results demonstrate the superiority of a four-factor solution, encompassing the four standard LCSF subscales (Irresponsibility, Self-Indulgence, Interpersonal Intrusiveness, and Social Rule Breaking), over a one-factor model and three two-factor models. An empirical model, comprised of four factors obtained from an earlier exploratory factor analysis, achieved the best fit of any of the models tested, suggesting that the factor structure of the LCSF is dimensionally complex.

Factor Structure of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF) was subjected to a factor analysis with image extraction and direct oblimin (oblique) rotation. Four samples of male federal offenders with a total N of 400 served as subjects for this study. The results implied the presence of a four-factor solution -antisocial identity, intrusiveness of the confining offense, family/interpersonal conflict, and poor school/work adjustment. The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

Predictive validity of the Drug Lifestyle Screening Interview: a two-year follow-up.

One hundred and eighteen inmates enrolled in a comprehensive residential drug treatment program were administered the Drug Lifestyle Screening Interview (DLSI) and followed for 2 years. A marginally significant predictive effect was observed in which subjects achieving elevated DLSI scores (> or = 12) displayed more subsequent alcohol and drug misuse than lower scoring subjects, 21.7 versus 9.7%. The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF) enjoyed a somewhat stronger predictive relationship with future outcome in that 27.3% of the high scoring subjects (LCSF score > or = 10) subsequently misused alcohol or other drugs as opposed to only 4.4% of the low scoring subjects. Regression analysis also revealed the superiority of the LCSF in predicting future outcome. These findings suggest that criminal background should be taken into account when evaluating the relapse potential of drug-involved offenders once they leave treatment.

The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form and Antisocial Personality Disorder: predicting release outcome in a state prison sample.

The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF) was compared with a clinical diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder for the purposes of determining the relative efficiency of each measure in predicting the release outcome of 100 medium security New Mexico state prisoners. An 18-month follow-up revealed that high LCSF scores (total score > or = 10) and clinical diagnoses of Antisocial Personality Disorder effectively identified inmates who were eventually reincarcerated for a parole violation or new offense. However, because substantial overlap occurred between these two predictors (kappa = .58) partial correlations were calculated and revealed that only the LCSF displayed a robust relationship with release outcome independent of the other predictor measure.

Predicting the Disciplinary Adjustment of Maximum and Minimum Security Prison Inmates Using the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

Using a person-environment fit paradigm it was reasoned that the lifestyle criminal adjusts best in environments which are highly structured. In the first of two studies examining this issue, it was determined that the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF), a putative measure of lifestyle criminality, successfully discriminated between disciplinary and nondisciplinary inmates in a less structured situation (minimum security) but not in a more highly structured situation (maximum security). In a second study, successively sampled inmates were organized according to their scores on the LCSF and compared as to the number of disciplinary reports received within a six-month period. Results of this second study revealed that the total LCSF score predicted disciplinary problems in the minimum security facility but not in the maximum security penitentiary. These findings tend to support the validity of the LCSF, as well as the hypothesis that lifestyle criminals may have problems functioning in environments which are less than maximally structured.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Comparability of the Standard and Interview Versions of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

An interview schedule was developed for use with the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF). Results achieved through use of this interview procedure were compared with findings obtained by means of the standard version (i.e., records review) of the LCSF. Subjects were 35 successively sampled maximum security prison inmates in the process of completing an admissions and orientation program as part of their induction into the general inmate population at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth. The standard and interview versions of the LCSF were found to correspond modestly when LCSF diagnosis and several individual items were considered; moderately when the majority of individual items and section scores were examined; and moderately high in the case of one individual item (confining offense), one section score (interpersonal intrusiveness) and the total LCSF score.