A Latent Class Analysis of the Antisocial Attitudes Domain of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory

• Author: Matt Costaris,Michele Peterson-Badali,Tracey A. Skilling
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221084301
• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Date: 01 August 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 8, August 2022, 1192 –1209.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221084301

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1192

A LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS OF THE

ANTISOCIAL ATTITUDES DOMAIN OF THE

YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE/CASE

MANAGEMENT INVENTORY

MATT COSTARIS

MICHELE PETERSON-BADALI

University of Toronto

TRACEY A. SKILLING

Center for Addiction and Mental Health

University of Toronto

Antisocial attitudes are a strong predictor of reoffending and frequently incorporated into risk assessment tools, including the

Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). However, YLS/CMI Attitudes/Orientation domain items

appear to cover different issues—antisocial attitudes and willingness to engage in treatment—which have different implica-

tions for case management and service provision. Latent Class Analysis of data from 798 Canadian youth probationers

identified four classes based on item endorsement on the Attitudes/Orientation domain: High Overall Attitude Needs (19%),

Predominantly Antisocial Attitude Items (20%), Predominantly Lack of Service Engagement (9%), and Low Overall Attitude

Needs (52%). Class differences were found on index offense, criminogenic needs, and recidivism, with the High Overall

Attitude Needs class presenting as most “negative,” followed by Predominantly Antisocial Attitude Items, Predominantly

Lack of Service Engagement, and Low Overall. Understanding attitudes based on this class conceptualization can assist

probation officers in targeting services more effectively to justice-involved youth.

Keywords: antisocial attitudes; youth risk assessment; YLS/CMI; recidivism

Structured risk assessment tools are widely used to predict risk of recidivism and deter-

mine the needs of individuals involved in the criminal justice system, which allows for

targeted service provision (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). The Youth Level of Service/Case

Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2002, 2011) is one of the most fre-

quently utilized and well-validated youth risk assessment and case management tools for

justice system–involved youth (e.g., Hoge & Andrews, 2011; Olver et al., 2009).

The YLS/CMI was developed based on the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) framework,

a correctional psychology rehabilitation model that operates under three core principles.

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This study was supported by funding from the Social Science and Humanities

Research Council of Canada to the second and third authors. Correspondence concerning this article should

be addressed to Michele Peterson-Badali, Department of Applied Psychology & Human Development,

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, 12th Floor,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6; e-mail: m.petersonbadali@utoronto.ca.

1084301CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221084301Criminal Justice and BehaviorCostaris et al. / LATENT CLASSES IN ATTITUDES/ORIENTATION DOMAIN

research-article2022

Costaris et al. / LATENT CLASSES IN ATTITUDES/ORIENTATION DOMAIN 1193

The Risk Principle states that the intensity of intervention should be in keeping with the

individual’s level of risk to reoffend. The Need Principle states that intervention should

focus on strong and direct predictors of reoffending—termed criminogenic needs. According

to the Responsivity Principle, services must be tailored to individual characteristics and

needs that, while not directly predictive of reoffending, impact the effectiveness of inter-

ventions (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). General responsivity refers to the use of relevant, evi-

dence-based strategies for behavioral change while specific responsivity relates to the

tailoring of interventions to specific needs/characteristics of the individual (Bonta &

Andrews, 2017).

The YLS/CMI assesses risk in eight criminogenic need domains—Prior and Current

Offenses/Dispositions, Education/Employment, Substance Abuse, Personality/Behavior,

Family Circumstances/Parenting, Peer Relations, Leisure/Recreation, and Attitudes/

Orientation—and is used to guide service delivery. Aside from criminal history, these

domains represent dynamic factors that can be targeted and changed through intervention

(Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Reductions in recidivism of up to 30% have been demonstrated

when these principles are met in service delivery (Bonta & Andrews, 2017; Duncan et al.,

2010; Luong & Wormith, 2011), particularly when dynamic factors are successfully

addressed (Peterson-Badali et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2009; Vieira et al., 2009).

The YLS/CMI Attitudes/Orientation domain assesses antisocial/procriminal attitudes—

defined as “thoughts, feelings and beliefs that are supportive of criminal conduct” (Bonta &

Andrews, 2017, p. 123). One of the “Big Four” risk factors most predictive of recidivism,

antisocial attitudes have long been a clinical focus in correctional psychology (Bonta &

Andrews, 2017; Sutherland, 1947). Antisocial attitudes have been consistently predictive of

criminality and recidivism in both adults and justice-involved youth (Serin et al., 2013;

Skilling & Sorge, 2014). Indeed, meta-analyses have revealed a strong predictive link

between antisocial attitudes and recidivism in adults (Gendreau et al., 1996; Walters, 2012)

and youth (Hubbard & Pratt, 2002; Olver et al., 2014) involved in the criminal justice sys-

tem. Antisocial attitudes have also been consistently associated with a variety of other prob-

lematic behaviors: aggressive and externalizing behaviors (Gini et al., 2014; Granic &

Butler, 1998; Helmond et al., 2015), gang membership (O’Brien et al., 2013), negative

attitudes about education, employment and authority (Elliott et al., 1985), substance use

(Jones et al., 2012), and violence (Fritz et al., 2008), which are themselves criminogenic

needs.

Specific measures of antisocial attitudes that have been evaluated in relation to offending

include the Pride in Delinquency Scale (Shields & Whitehall, 1991) and the Criminal

Sentiments Scale–Modified (Shields & Simourd, 1991), higher scores on which have both

been significantly associated with reoffending in youth (Skilling & Sorge, 2014). The

Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (Mills et al., 2004) measures antisocial atti-

tudes and peers and has also been predictive of recidivism in adults (Mills et al., 2004) and

male youth (O’Hagan et al., 2019). In turn, reducing antisocial attitudes involves identify-

ing and modifying these beliefs, typically through a cognitive-behavioral approach (Banse

et al., 2013; Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Evaluations of specific programs targeting procrimi-

nal attitudes have demonstrated significant reductions in antisocial beliefs and reduced

recidivism posttreatment (Simourd et al., 2016; Tong & Farrington, 2006).

Assessment of antisocial attitudes is thus a common feature of evaluations of risk for

recidivism and, as noted above, is one of the seven criminogenic need domains included in