 

I) .,

.UBRARY
Michicin State
-_ Liniversity

 

..___
:-;-¥-‘

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE EXPLORATION OF A MIXED METHOD AND
EMPIRICAL MODEL SHORTFORM USING THE YOUTH
LEVEL OF SERVICE CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTORY
(YLS/CMI)

presented by

CHRISTINA A. CAMPBELL

has been accepted towards futﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in PSYCHOLOGY

 

  
 

/

/%/-

      

 

 

MaT’risrofessor's Signature\'
1 1/04/09
Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equai Opportunity Employer

L“-.I---—

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 ICIProj/AccGIPres/CIRCIDateDueIindd

THE EXPLORATION OF A MIXED METHOD AND EMPIRICAL SHORT FORM
USING THE YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE/CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTORY
(YLSICMI)

By

Christina A. Campbell

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Psychology

2009

ABSTRACT

THE EXPLORATION OF A MIXED METHOD AND EMPIRICAL SHORT FORM

USING THE YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE/CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTORY
(YLSICMI)
By
Christina A. Campbell

Prior to the implementation of juvenile risk assessment instruments. juvenile
court intake referees relied on subjective approaches (i.e. professional
judgments) to identify a juvenile’s risk for recidivism and disposition. Such risk
assessments posed many problems due to their length and inability to serve as a
brief screener at the initial intake stage of the court process. This study explores
the utility of a juvenile risk assessment, known as the Youth Level of
Service/Case Management Inventory (YLSICMI). as a short form screener for a
juvenile court’s intake division. Archival data of 601 ﬁrst time juvenile offenders
within a Midwestern county were examined to determine which items were
maintained when mixed method and empirical methodological approaches were
adopted. Results suggested the mixed method (IS-item) and empirical (11-item)
short forms serve as both a reliable and valid predictor of 2-year recidivism as
compared to the original long YLSICMI form (42-item). Implications are

discussed regarding the utility for such short forms at the intake division.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Drs. WIlliam Davidson, Eyitayo Onifade, Zaje Harrell,
and Timothy Bynum for your guidance and assistance. I would also like to extend
my love and appreciation to my mother and others who have provided support.

Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...................................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER I
Purpose for Brief Risk Assessments ......................................................... 3
Problems with Current Risk Assessments and Beneﬁts of Short Forms..5
Criteria for Good Risk Assessments ................................................... 8
Approaches to Short Form Construction .................................................. 12
Mixed Method-Key Conceptual Domains ........................................ 13
EmpiricalMethodn .18
Guiding Principles fOr Short FOrms” ................................................ 19
Current Study ................................... 25
Research Questions ........................................................................... 27
CHAPTER II
Methods ............................................................................................. 28
Setting ....................................................................................... 28
Participants ................................................................................ 28
Measures ................................................................................. 28
Procedures ................................................................................ 30
Results .............................................................................................. 32
Discussion .......................................................................................... 36
Discussion of Methodological Principles ................................................... 42
Limitations .......................................................................................... 46
Conclusions ........................................................................................ 47

APPENDIX A. The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory

(Y LS/CMI) Interview Guide and Scoring Form ............................................ 50
APPENDIX B. Check List of Guiding Principles of Short Form Development...79
APPENDIX C. Result Tables of Mixed Method Short Form, Empirical Short Form,
and Original YLS/CMI Long Form ........................................................... 80
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 87

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Short Form Guiding Methodological Principles across Mixed Method and
Empirical Short Form ........................................................................... 79
Table 2 Mixed Method Short Form as Determined by Bivariate Correlations
across Two- Year Recidivism ................................................................ 80
Table 3 Empirical Short Form Table of Item Signiﬁcance by AUC Scores across
Two- Year Recidivism ......................................................................... 81
Table 4 Comparative \Reliability Outcomes of the Mixed Method, Empirical, and .
Original YLSICMI Forms ...................................................................... 82
Table 5 Comparative AUC Outcomes of Mixed Method, Empirical and Original
YLSICMI ............................................................................................ 83
Table 6 Crosstabulations of Recidivism Rates of Mixed Method Short Form ..... 84
Table 7 Crosstabulations of Recidivism Rates of Empirical Short Form .......... 85

Table 8 Crosstabulations of Recidivism Rates of Original YLSI CMI Form ...... 86

INTRODUCTION

Juvenile risk assessment instruments help guide court decision making by
determining risk of committing future crime. They also provide decision makers
(i.e. court refemes, judges, and juvenile court ofﬁcers) with information that may
assist with examining and sorting cases; this allows courts to be consistent when
assigning like juveniles to like outcomes (i.e. court dismissals. programming, and
interventions) (Funk, 1999). Prior to the implementation of risk assessment
instruments, decision makers relied on professional judgments when determining
juvenile outcomes (Hoge, 2002). This posed many concerns given the level of
subjeaivity and unconscious biases (i.e. gender, race, and socioeconomic
status) that inﬂuenced decision making (Schwalbe, F raser, Day, Cooley, 2006).
More generally, this issue has a long tradition within psychological assessment,
dating back decades, where it has long been demonstrated that actuarial
methods produce more valid predictions (Grove & Meehl, 1996).

Consequently, risk assessments have been offered as a means to
standardize court disposition and intervention practices. Traditional risk
assessments fulﬁll multiple purposes. Some of these purposes include the ability:
1) to predict future crime, 2) to provide intervention recommendations, and 3) to
Classify juveniles according to risk level and needs. However, risk assessments
are not without their own set of faults. Often times these assessments are
lengthy, due to their multiple purposes. For example, they may be too lengthy
and cumbersome to allow juvenile court referees/ofﬁcers who make initial intake

decisions to efﬁciently distinguish between the youth who are risk for recidivism.

1

Although formal divisions use risk assessment instruments to make valid
dispositional recommendations and assess smciﬁc intervention needs, intake
divisions are solely interested in determining who is at-risk for re-offending
(Schwalbe, Day, Arnold, 2004). In other words, the intake workers’ decision is
simpler to process than other steps within the court.

As a result, efﬁcient risk assessments are needed at intake to fulﬁll the
sole purpose of identifying offenders that should remain at intake or moved
forward to more formal dispositional alternatives (Turner & Fain, 2006). Given the
need to focus on youth who are at risk for future crime at the informal/Intake
stage of the court process, the most efﬁcient instrument is needed to address this
case management concern.

The few known short form risk assessments serve as a reliable and valid
screener for intake divisions. Of these short forms, the North Carolina
Assessment of Risk (NCAR) has been one of the more reliable and valid brief
assessment published in an academic journal. This 9-item assessment yielded a
reliability of .73 and signiﬁcantly predicted recidivism across low (34.2%),
moderate (44.7%), and high (53.6%) risk groups (Schwalbe et al., 2004).
However, unique assessments such as these are most often generated by using
pwdictive risk factors as speciﬁed by meta-analysis and are not derived from
longer instruments of known validity. Ultimately, it may be important to ﬁnd out
the best strategy to modify long forms to short forms, rather than adopting
different and unique assessments for each court division. This is important so

that consistent information Is gathered during each stage of the juvenile court

2

process, eliminating the ﬁscal cost of adopting multiple measures and enhancing
an agreed conceptualization of criminogenic risk across divisions.

The aim of this exploratory study was to determine if a short fonn, using
an original long form risk assessment, known as the YLSICMI, could serve as a
screener tool for predicting juvenile recidivism of youth at the point of intake. This
study was also an attempt to compare two commonly used test construction
strategies for developing a short form. Since there are few validated short forms
for juvenile risk assessment to help determine level of risk and needs for the
intake and no short form has been generated from an original long form risk
assessment, this study answered the following general question: Can the Youth
Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (Y LSICMI) be shortened without
sacriﬁcing reliability and predictive validity?

In order to further understand juvenile risk assessment instruments and
the need for a short form that serve as a risk assessment screener, risk
assessment instruments and procedures must further be examined. The
following sections will cover: 1) the purpose for brief risk assessments; 2) the
criteria for good risk assessments, 3) the approaches to short form construction,
4) the guiding principles of short form evaluation and 5) the speciﬁc research
questions of this study.

Purpose for Bn'ef Risk Assessments

According to Robertson, Grimes, & Rogers (2001), 1.8 million juveniles

came in contact with the courts in 1996. Ten years later courts processed 2

million juvenile offender cases annually (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006); this

3

increase of processed cases has occurred even though crime rates have
decreased in general. Although there are still some areas which offenses have
risen (e.g. simple assaults and weapon offenses among juveniles 10-17), many
have suggested that the decline in crime has been a consistent trend over the
past decade (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). This mismatch between the decline of
juvenile offending and the number of cases may expose the over processing and
unneeded attention given to potentially low risk and minor young offenders
(Schwalbe et al., 2006). This can be expensive and detrimental to the well-being
of the youth and the community.

A small percentage of juveniles are likely to return to the criminal justice
system. Failure to provide youth with an appropriate intervention based on
likelihood of re-offense and criminogenic need leads to major long term (Cohen,
1998; & Robertson et al., 2001). Given the need to focus on the small percentage
that will likely return to the court, resources should intentionally assist those who
have more intervention needs, despite the vast majority of juvenile offenders
classiﬁed as low risk (Onifade, Davidson, Campbell, Turke, Malinowski, 2008).

Due to the long term cost of juvenile offending, the ﬁnancial implications of
assessing and treating at-risk youth has become a paramount concern. A cost
beneﬁt analysis of the juvenile justice system suggest that providing the
appropriate intervention for high risk youth could save up to 2.3 million dollars per
_ juvenile (Cohen, 1998). As a result, standardized processes should be adopted
to better classify and manage youthful offenders based on risk for re-offense

(Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2007).

4

 

 

When caseloads are too large and/or juveniles who don’t exhibit risk for
re-offense are occupying and using court services, little attention is given to
those juveniles who will likely return. Cunent long form risk assessment
practices are not providing immediate attention to those who are most at-risk for
moffending (Schwalbe et al., 2004). Not only do these forms require a substantial
amount resources, they also bring attention to various risk factors that do not a
have strong relationship with recidivism. This hinders intake juvenile court
referees the ability to focus what matters, recidivism. When a juvenile comes in
contact with the justice system, court ofﬁcials should be able to quickly screen
youth by focusing on likelihood of re-offense. Given the number of cases that are
still being handled by juvenile courts, it may be a good idea to modify risk
assessment practices in order to improve court planning and decision-making
(Bechtel et al., 2007) at intake. If indeed, courts have mechanisms available to
reduce caseloads by diverting or dismissing those who will not reoffend, courts
can become more focused and accountable to those juveniles who exhibit more
needs.

Problems with Current Risk Assessments and Beneﬁts of Short Forms

Cunent risk assessments are too lengthy and pose many concerns when
predictive purposes are the only objective (Schwalbe et al., 2004). Although
some court divisions use risk assessments to assess speciﬁc interventions
needs, others (i.e. intake divisions) use risk assessments to solely determine
who is at-risk for re-offending. At the intake division, a juvenile court referee

must decide which juveniles should be seen before a judge and which juveniles

S

should be dismissed; predicting recidivism is the only focus at this initial stage.
Yet, these divisions currently administer relatively long risk assessment forms to
help determine risk for recidivism. Given this, short forms which serve as
screeners may be beneﬁcial for this initial stage. Research has shown that not
only do short versions improve case management and help preserve resources
like time and ﬁscal costs; it is also meets the Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) guidelines (Schwalbe et al., 2004).

Given short form risk assessment studies are few and suffer from
methodological short comings, more studies are needed to explore the potential
for short forms to have the same pmdictive capacity as lengthy risk assessment
tools (Schwalbe et al., 2004). Common unpublished brief assessments created
by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) were seen to predict
juvenile recidivism in Nebraska, Maryland, Missouri, VIrginia, across low,
moderate, and high risk groups, yet, two short forms involved condensing risk
categories and others showed no clear evidence of predictive ability across sub
groups like gender (Schwalbe et al., 2004). These characteristics jointly suggest
more research must be conducted within this area.

While the published brief assessment known as the North Carolina
Assessment of Risk (NCAR) attempted to address methodological issues like
maintaining predictive power across sub groups, like gender, this instrument still
may not be classiﬁed as a brief assessment. This is because the 9 items serve
more as domains versus individual items (Schwalbe et al., 2004). Moreover,

given there are current original assessments (long forms) that have

6

approximately 30 items, one can argue that NCAR may not sews as a risk
assessment screener for courts who currently use a long form risk assessment
around 30 item range. It is also important to note that past risk assessments
seem to be identiﬁed independent of an original long form posing the inability for
courts to use a more consistent and systematic approach to understanding risk
Classiﬁcation and factors which predict recidivism across all court divisions. In
order for risk assessment procedures to be improved, risk assessment tools must
be proven to be as equally accurate and reliable as long forms. This issue must
be addressed because It is very common for the juvenile courts to adopt one risk
assessment instrument system wide (Schwalbe et al., 2004). Scientiﬁcally, if
there are more simple models which will do as good a job of predicting future
behavior, the principle of parsimony is well served.

Short forms of assessments have been shown to save time, cost, and
various resources. This is especially valuable for court divisions who assess
juvenile offenders multiple times (i.e. different time points, pre/post, and/or follow-
ups) and need a quick glimpse of general characteristics exhibited by the juvenile
(McHomey & Wars, 1995). This ultimately Improves the level of efﬁciency when
providing recommendations, allowing courts to make more appropriate and
accurate recommendations. Since short forms may have the same predictive
capacity as lengthy risk assessment tools when developed appropriately
(Schwalbe et al., 2004), it is important for shifts to be made so that risk
assessments may be used as screeners to improve court processes at Intake.

Additionally, improvements may also serve to reduce the number of cases

7

currently being processed and or handled by the court. As courts strive to
improve risk assessment procedures within the juvenile court system in general,
it is important to shorten risk assessments as guided by assessment construction
theory and principles using already established, predictive, and reliable, original
long forms.

The theory of risk assessments, in general, has a long history of
systematically accounting for factors which are associated with reducing
criminogenic risk. These measurements should provide insight regarding the
theory of reducing crime by only engaging in multidimensional dynamic factors
that have the ability to improve/change over time (Bonta, 2002). Some of the
theories used to help establish risk assessments involve sociological, ecological,
and psychopathological models; these models jointly identify the juvenile
individual risk as it relates to broader societal and environmental root causes of
crime (Bonta, 2002). Upon the construction of such assessments, standards
established by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) provide
additional insight concerning criteria for good risk assessments.

Criteria for Good Risk Assessments

When examining risk assessments, the NCCD suggested that instruments
should demonstrate all of the following:

1) Validity

2) Reliability

3) Fairness across all juvenile offenders

4) Utility (a system useful for court personnel)

8

Each characteristic is a valuable asset to ensuring the quality of
assessing the risk and intervention needs of juveniles. This provides the
foundation for understanding the characteristics of good assessments, as it
relates to general guidelines. These criteria are discussed:

Validity. Effective classiﬁcation is essential because it tackles the
importance of addressing criminogenic needs of offenders (Flores, Travis &
Latessa 2004). Criminogenic needs refer to those factors which lead to future
criminal activity. If these needs are not addressed, then, theoretically, criminal
activity is likely to continue. In order to address the needs of offenders and
reduce risk, it is essential to dependably determine risk and understand how it is
may be best impacted by a given intervention (Flores at al., 2004). The
appropriate level of Intervention will maximize program effectiveness. Within this
line of thought, when classiﬁcation is accurate, risks can be lowered and
recidivism likelihood is decreased. Essentially, valid risk assessment may
provide a template for intervention focus. It is this accuracy (i.e. predictive
validity) that has been essential to addressing the current state of the juvenile
justice system and juvenile offending.

Validation is a key requirement for any prediction measurement.
Predictive validity provides a statistical understanding of the extent to which risk
assessments improve clinical assessments, judge decision making, or other
subjective approaches used to determine a juvenile’s level of risk (Flores et al.,
2004). Among the most common approach to determining predictive validity of

risk assessment instruments is the Area Under the Curve (AUC) test. This test

9

Each Characteristic is a valuable asset to ensuring the quality of
assessing the risk and intervention needs of juveniles. This provides the
foundation for understanding the characteristics of good assessments, as it
relates to general guidelines. These criteria are discussed:

Validity. Effective classiﬁcation is essential because it tackles the
importance of addressing criminogenic needs of offenders (Flores, Travis &
Latessa 2004). Criminogenic needs refer to those factors which lead to future
criminal activity. If these needs are not addressed, then, theoretically, criminal
activity is likely to continue. In order to address the needs of offenders and
reduce risk, it is essential to dependably determine risk and understand how it is
may be best impacted by a given intervention (Flores et al., 2004). The
appropriate level of intervention will maximize program effectiveness. Within this
line of thought, when classiﬁcation is accurate, risks can be lowered and
recidivism likelihood is decreased. Essentially, valid risk assessment may
provide a template for intervention focus. It is this accuracy (i.e. predictive
validity) that has been essential to addressing the current state of the juvenile
justice system and juvenile offending.

Validation is a key requirement for any prediction measurement.
Predictive validity provides a statistical understanding of the extent to which risk
assessments improve clinical assessments, judge decision making, or other
subjective approaches used to determine a juvenile’s level of risk (Flores at al.,
2004). Among the most common approach to determining predictive validity of

risk assessment instruments is the Area Under the Curve (AUC) test. This test

9

identiﬁes the correct classiﬁcation rate of predicting juveniles who are likely to
offend against the base rate of recidivism within the sample (Schwalbe, 2007).
This means that AUC score identiﬁes how well above the chance (the ﬂip of a
coin) a juvenile will likely come back in contact with the justice system. A meta-
analysis suggests that the standard/average AUC score across juvenile risk
assessment measures Is .6, which is interpreted as good/acceptable (Schwalbe,
2007). Such acceptable standards should also be achieved when examining the
reliability of the measurement.

Reliability. Reliability, on the other hand, provides information concerning
the consistency or reproducibility of a measure. Risk assessment measurements
should be able to identify a given set of needs for juveniles across time, setting,
and assessor. One way of assessing reliability is to assess consistency across
instrument items (Le. Cronbach’s alpha). It is also possible to examine the
degree of agreement across raters (inter-rater reliability) and time (test-retest
reliability). In general, psychometric literature suggested that when the length of
an instrument is reduced, the alpha coefﬁcient will likely decrease (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). This study will assess this reliability (internal consistency) in
addition to inter-rater reliability. Such reliabilities should be determined before
addressing whether or not a measure is fair.

Fairness. Risk assessments should provide equity and limit biases related
to demographic factors such as race, gender, or socio-economic status. This
criterion serves to address many issues regarding the disproportionate number of

minority youth who come in contact with the criminal justice system (Schwalbe et

10

al., 2006 8: Onifade et al. 2008). It is this inequity that is also apparent across
gender upon the evaluation of different crime types and or court divisions
(Onifade et. al. 2008). Fair assessment procedures move courts to less
subjective approaches and decision-making processes to more objective
strategies. Due to the level of fairness that risk assessments promise the
adoption of such Instruments will become as more courts utilize its function and
design. Like the other risk assessment criteria (i.e. validity and reliability)
discussed, fairness must be established before the exploration of a short risk
assessment. Once fairness Is achieved, courts can focus on the utility of risk
assessments.

Utility. Predictive validity, reliability, and fairness alone do not infer a good
risk assessment measure. It is important that risk assessment measures have
utility. This reflects the ability for risk assessment to be useful, simple, and easy
to Implement (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2001). It also reflects
the Instruments ability to Improve case management (Hoge, Andrews, &
Leschied, 1995) as it relates to speciﬁc decisions within the court (e.g.
Intake/Infonnal divisions). Utility determines if a risk assessment instrument is
efﬁcient and easy to Implement. Good utility for a decision at Intake requires an
abbreviated risk assessment form. While there are many beneﬁts of Improving
the utility of risk assessment measurements through the development of
abbreviated forms, to date, there has been little attention given to this area of
work. Given there are few brief assessments, It Is still unclear to the best

approaches to shorten forms. Unlike former brief assessments, this study will

11

 

explore a short form risk assessment using an original valid and reliable long
form and comparing common approaches to short form construction, mixed
(empirical and conceptual combined) and empirical methods.

Approaches to Short Form Construction

Short forms have been developed and utilized for psychological,
Intellectual, and behavioral uses since the early 1900’s. The BInet-Simon test of
Intelligence was among the earliest examples of how limited test Items were used
to measure and/or predict speciﬁc outcomes (I.e. intelligence). Still today, the
interests of developing short forms has spanned over various disciplines, topics
of interest, and purposes. While some researchers have developed short forms
solely for the purposes of saving both time and money, others have been more
Interested In using such forms as a means to better suit the needs of speciﬁc
groups, like children (Smith et al., 2000).

Regardless of the many uses and purposes of short forms, the ultimate
goal is to maintain an Instrument that does not compromise validity, reliability,
fairness, or utility. This study explores two commonly developed approaches to
short form development, mixed method (an approach which combines
conceptual and empirical principles) and a strictly empirical method. Although the
empirical methods focus on maximizing predictive validity, mixed method take

Into account the conceptual dimensions of original long form assessments.

12

Mixed Method - Key Conceptual Domains

Like original long forms, mixed method approaches seek to maintain the
} theoretical or conceptual integrity of the construct of interest while also attending
to reliability and validity. Hence this method attends to both the domain
representation of and psychometric properties. A mixed method juvenile risk
assessment represents both the developmental and ecological factors which
inﬂuence delinquency (Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Henry, 1996). This
Bronfenbrenner inspired theory involves items from multiple domains that
represent criminogenic risk (Gorman-Smith et al., 1996).

Many researchers have found both Individual and environmental risk
factors that correlated with juvenile offending are represented in ecological
models. These factors Included prior offenses and disposition (i.e. age of ﬁrst
offense or offense history), family circumstances and parenting (i.e. adequate
supervision), education and employment (i.e. truancy, skills, or vocational
training), peer relationships (i.e. delinquent friends), substance abuse (I.e.
chronic alcohol use), leisure and recreation (I.e. Involvement in extra-curricular
activities), personality and behavior (i.e. physically aggressive), and attitudes and
orientation (I.e. perception of authority) (Andrews. Bonta, & Hogs, 1990, Dembo
8: Schmeidler, 2003, Gorman-Smith et al., 1996, Onifade et al. 2008, &
Schumacher & Kurz, 2000 ). Although each risk factor may be slightly varied in
deﬁnition across studies, they generally still represent the characteristics and
elements which may lead to future offending. These factors become useful when

trying to target prevention and intervention needs (Bechtel et al., 2007). The

13

better such concepts/factors related to juvenile recidivism are understood, the
better the needs of juvenile offenders can be assessed. Failing this model, may
leave out important domains critical for valid predictions (Ware & Shearbom,
1992). These factors are further described.

Prior Offenses and Disposition. Research has examined the relationship
between criminal history and future offending. In a meta-analysis that Identiﬁed
riskfactors to pmdict recidivism including age of ﬁrst offense, number of prior
arrests, prior commitments, juveniles with longer dispositions, and those who
committed more violent crimes had a signiﬁcantly high risk for recidivating than
other juveniles at the p<.001 level (Cottle et al., 2001). When criminal history was
examined in juvenile offenders on community based orders, juveniles with a prior
history recidivated 25% more times than juveniles who had fewer offenses (1-5)
(Denning & Home, 2008). These data strongly suggested that criminal history
has a positive relationship with future offending and represents one of the many
layers within understanding criminogenic risk. This same relationship can be
found for family characteristics.

Family Circumstances and Parenting. Family factors, speciﬁcally parent
maltreatment (I.e. abuse and/or neglect) led to future offending among juvenile
Offending populations (Denning & Homel, 2008). Other family factors that have
been found to relate to juvenile offending include family problems, the juvenile’s
relationship with parents, and/or level of supervision (Cottle et al., 2001 &
Andrews et al., 1990). The most signiﬁcant family factors that related to juvenile

recidivism were if the juvenile was a victim of abuse (p<.001), from a single

14

parent household (p<.001), and experienced family problems (p<.001), while
parents exhibiting pathologies seem to be the only family factor examined that
were unrelated to juvenile recidivism patterns (Cottle et al., 2001). Given that
family patterns do affect a juvenile's school performance and academic
outcomes, the relationship between education and offending behavior has also
been studied.

Education and Employment. Both educational and employment factors
have been positively correlated with future offending. Education and employment
variables that have been commonly found to predict future offending have been
deﬁned by a juvenile’s history of special education, problems with teachers and
peers In school, disruptive behavior in classroom, and for those youth old enough
to obtain work, the lack of motivation to obtain a job (Cottle et al., 2001; Hoge,
Andrews, & Leschied, 1996, & Onifade et al., 2008). Other factors that have been
examined within education but have not yet shown much evidence for predicting
recidivism Include, school attendance, school reports of achievements (I.e.
grade point averages), and performance IQ scores (Cottle et al., 2001). In
general, there seems to be a stronger relationship between behavioral factors
related to school/education and employment, In terms of predicting recidivism,
than academic factors (i.e. grades and tests scores). Like many other factors,
using education as a predictor for juvenile outcomes leads to the conclusion “It
depends”. However, It Is consistently Clear that when juveniles have delinquent
peers in or outside of school they are more likely to participant In delinquent
activities.

15

Peer Relationships. Researchers have found a strong relationship
between juvenile offenders and poor/delinquent peer networks. Two studies that
used the YLSICMI Identiﬁed that the following peer characteristics led to higher
recidivism rates: some delinquent acquaintances, some delinquent friends, no to
few positive acquaintances, and no to few positive friends (Hoge et al., 1996 &
Onifade et. al., 2008). Consistently, a meta-analysis ofjuvenile risk assessments
also provided consistent evidence of the relationship of delinquent peers and
future offending (p<.001) (Cottle et al, 2001). Given what is known about social
learning, It Is not surprising that, juvenile offenders learn from peers (Wrnfree,
Backstrom, & Mays, 1994). As result, if juveniles have positive peers, they will
most likely participate in positive activities. This same conclusion concerning
Ieamed behavior and Interests In certain activities can be found true when
examining a juvenile’s pattern of substance use.

Substance Abuse. Although a juvenile may experiment and or use
substances, it does not necessarily suggest that helshe will recidivate. For
Instance, substance abuse (n=1,111, p<.001) may be more related to recidivism
than substance use alone (n=9, 366) (p>.05) (Cottle et al., 2001). It seems to be
excessive/chronic use of substances and Its Interference with a juvenile life that
shows the strongest relationship between those who recidivate. Although It is
unclear what constitutes Intensity, given that there Is a zero tolerance for the use
of Illegal substances there will always be some biased positive relationship
across offending and substance abuse. However, if youth are engaged and

involved with positive resources and or activities they are less likely to be

16

involved with delinquent activities given the implications of social bonding
(Hirschi, 1969).

Leisure and Recreation. Juveniles involved In positive activities provide
positive social bonding experiences (Hirschi, 1969). Juveniles who participate In
organized activities, have personal Interests, and make good use of their time are
less likely to come In contact with the juvenile justice system (Hoge et al., 1996).
Positive social activities serve as a great component to reducing future juvenile
offending. Youth who are involved tend to do better. It is the effective use of
leisure time and the availability of quality programs and services that can make a
difference In behavioral factors which Increase delinquent behaviors.

Personality and Behavior. Personality and behavioral factors have varied
In deﬁnition across studies used to examine criminal behavior. In general, this
construct refers to a juvenile’s overall temperament and conduct problems as it
relates to verbal aggression, physical aggression, short attention span, inability to
focus, tantrums, inadequate feelings of guilt, and conduct problems (Cottle et al.,
2001 & Hoge et al., 1996). These factors represent various individual
components which should be Identiﬁed In a criminogenic risk model. Other
individual components that should be considered are the juvenile’s attitudes and
orientation.

Attitudes and Orientation. Attitudes and orientation reﬂects a juvenile’s
perception of authority and or need to obtain and/or seek help. Repeat offenders
who deiﬁed authority, had antisocial traits, negative view of authority, procriminal

beliefs, and procriminal attitudes were consistently at risk for additional

17

delinquent petitions (Cottle et al., 2001 8: Hoge et al., 1996, & Onifade et al.,
2008). It is this factor/domain among others that can help provide courts with the
ability to better predict who Is likely to return, or in other words, those juveniles In
need of an Intervention.

Research has shown that by focusing on these criminogenic risk factors,
the likelihood of a juvenile returning to the justice system can be reduced. As
result, formal prediction tools have been developed to determine juveniles who
will likely return to the court and juveniles who need intervention as Identiﬁed by
the conceptual levels of delinquency. It is this model which identiﬁes the various
layers of delinquency and has been used to generate original/long version risk
assessments. Like long forms, short forms should also be grounded in this
ecological model. More speciﬁcally, once the criminogenic risk Is conceptualized,
empirical approaches used to Identify the most predictive factors across all
dimensions/domains are essential to the development of a strong mixed method
short form (McHomey & Ware, 1995). To the contrary, strictly empirical short
forms focus on the predictive capacity rather than domains.

Empirical Method

When empirical approaches to test construction are adopted predictive
validity is the primary concern. As result, pure empirical models will not consider
the conceptual domains covered in an original long form of an Instrument.
Rather, only the actual predictive validity of instrument elements; only the most
predictive assessment Items will be considered. This is because empirical

approaches highly rely on the ability for a given measure to maintain its ability to

18

predicting a given outcome/phenomena, In this case, juvenile recidivism. The
promising effects of empirical short forms serve to only focus on those Items
which will Improve or maintain predictive validity of the parent/original form. This
method has a long tradition within the ﬁeld of instrument construction (Grove 8:
Meehl, 1996).

Given the need to understand if the development of a screener form for
juvenile offenders is possible, this study will examine both approaches, mixed
method and empirical approaches and evaluate such approaches across short
form principles.

Guiding Principles for Short Forms

The goal of short forms Is to provide the same conclusion as long forms.
To do this, there are two fundamental questions that should be asked: 1) what Is
the new reliability and validity of the short form? And 2) does validity hold up In
comparison to the long form? (Smith et al., 2000). It Is essential that both the
reliability and validity of the short form is not compromised wherefore it no longer
has the potential to measure or predict recidivism. Additionally, there are 9
methodological Issues that should be closely attended to ensure the
development of a “good” short form (Smith et al., 2000). While all short forms
may not consider all 9 methodological Issues or “sins”, it is important to consider
those sins which most closely relates to the context, purpose, and utilization of
short form of Interest. These 9 methodological shortcomings provide a template

for directing short form development and will be discussed.

19

1. Develop a short form of an insufﬁciently validated measure.

One common methodological concern Is the need to validate the original
long form assessment prior to the development of a short form. In a former
review of short form studies 5 of the 12 short forms examined failed to establish
validity across the original long form (Smith et al., 2000). Validating the original
long form assessment is essential when trying to provide evidence whether the
short form is a sufﬁcient mechanism that should be adopted. Ultimately, It is this
ﬁrst principle allows you to adequately justify the short form (Smith et al., 2000).
2. Fail to show that classiﬁcation rates remain high with the short form.

Accuracy of classiﬁcation Is contingent on the purpose and use of the
short form. When short forms are used as screener mechanisms, it is essential to
have a screener that can equally determine false negative and false positives
classiﬁcation rates (Smith et al., 2000). One approach to determining accurate
classiﬁcation is through the use of the AUC test. It is this test that determines the
correct classiﬁcation rate of recidivism while accounting for the base rate within
the sample. Once the accuracy of classiﬁcation Is determined, one might
consider reviewing the content which was maintained on the abbreviated form.

3. Fail to show that the short form preserves the content coverage of each factor
in the measure.

When developing short forms, one goal should be to maintain as much
content as covered by the original long~ (Smith et al., 2000). This criterion is more
consistent with the mixed method of Instrument construction. As result, it Is

important to conduct a content analysis to evaluate the level of content that held

20

up on the short form as It relates to the content that is being maintained within
each speciﬁc domain. Nunnally 8r Bernstein (1994) recommended that no 1 Item
has the ability to represent a dimension. domain. andlor construct. This issue Is
particular Important where Inter-rater Item correlation is used to determined which
Items are maintained on the short form. This is because the more extensive a
construct is the less Inter-rater Item correlation approaches decreases the ability
to represent that given construct (Smith et al., 2000). As a result, when
developing short-fonns, especially during cases where Inter-rater correlations are
used to maintain items, It Is important to determine the level of content that Is
deleted and consider how this may affect the overall understanding of each
speciﬁc domain/factors being measured.
4. Fail to show that, your short form oﬁ'ers meaningful time or resource savings
for the loss in validity

Short forms should demonstrate that resources, like time, are being saved
although level of validity may be reduced (Smith et al., 2000). This Is among one
of the most important goals and reasons for the need of developing short form
instruments, especially among organization with limited resource, like the juvenile
court system. Due to the possibility that validity may decrease, It is essential to
understand If the reduction of validity Is worth the resources saved. Additionally,
It Is important to note that cost beneﬁt analysis Is unique to current needs of the
juvenile court, and therefore should be determined based on context. It is the

current context and needs of the court that can ultimately determine If the costs

21

are acceptable. In addition to examining validity, scale reliability must also be
determined.
5. Fail to show that short form measures each factor scale reliability.

There are various forms of reliability; some common forms of reliability
examined In psychological and behavioral tests include Internal consistency and
inter-rater reliability. It is expected that when test items are reduced and/or there
Is a small sample size that the level of reliability will be threatened (Smith et al.,
2000). Although reliability is likely to decrease, It is essential that short forms
demonstrate having a Cronbach’s alpha that Is equal to or greater than .70
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), especially when used for decision-making
processes. A
6. Fail to show empirically that your short form reproduces the factor structure of
a multicultural instmment.

The factor structure of short forms should be examined and compared to
the factor structure of the long form. While empirical forms rely speciﬁcally on
items more related to total scores or a speciﬁc outcome, more conceptual
approaches attempt to maintain the factor structure/domains identiﬁed on the
long form regardless of the strength of relationship between total scores and/or
the speciﬁc outcome of Interests (Smith et al., 2000). Although It Is assumed that
empirical approaches will not likely maintain the factor structure/domains of the
original form, conceptual models achieve the goal of insuring content as
compared to original form is available although there may be little to no

relationship to, In this case, juvenile recidivism. It Is through comparing the

22

content of the empirical and conceptual short forms that allows you to examine

the content that does not prove to uphold predictive power (Smith et al., 2000).

7. Fail to show that your short form has adequate overlapping variance with the
full form, using independent administration.

It is Important to identify the level of overlap short forms have with long
forms. Examining the correlation and overlap of variance based on an
Independent sample provides the best estimate of overlap of short and long
forms (Smith et al., 2000). Such Independent administration provides a greater
understanding of how similar the short form Is as compared to the long form.

8. If your short form omits subfactors and preserves only overall factors, than fail
to show that the short form preserves the content domains represented by the
subfactors.

Subfactorsldomains are used to help represent the overarching construct
of Interest; in this case, the YLSICMI identiﬁes 8 domains which measure
criminogenic risk. This construct focuses speciﬁcally on those factors which
relate to and highly predict juveniles who commit future criminal activity.
According to Smith et al. (2000), It is Important to identify those domains which
have been omitted from the short form structure. Smith et al. (2000) recommend
reporting the factor dimensionality of both the short and long form and examine
the similarities and differences across the factor structures. This helps provide a
better understanding on how well the short form covers the overarching construct

of interests.

23

9. Fail to show that each factor in the short form has validity on an independent
sample.

Once short forms are developed. it Is essential to further test short forms
on an independent sample to insure that the measure Is valid. Short forms are
often generated and tested using the same samples as long forms (Smith et al.,
2000). As a result, biases are introduced and the level of validity Is sometimes
over estimated. Due to the reduction of assessment content, It Is Important to
demonstrate further tests to examine convergent validity (Smith et al., 2000).
The goal here Is to insure that the short form perform similar to the long form and
reﬂects what is being hypothesized (Smith et al., 2000). When short forms are
indeed good, independent administration will conﬁrm that short forms can
perform comparable to its long original fOnn (Smith et al., 2000). Although this
principle Is not often examined due to the lack of resources like sample size,
time, and test administrators, the quality of the short form can be better
interpreted.

Given that the goal and purpose of each short form, not all methodological
principles are achieved. For Instance, the mixed method short form primary goal
is to maintain the original factor structure by including all of the conceptual
domains which identify the overarching construct of criminogenic risk as
Identiﬁed on the original long form. To the contrary, the empirical short form
primary goal Is to determine the Items that will maximize level of validity and
classiﬁcation rate of the risk assessment measurement. This in turn may or may

not maintain the original structure of the original form. Considering the

24

differences of the mixed method and empirical short forms, each form focuses
methodological principles that are relevant to strategies of the form developed.

After considering the purpose and goal of a short form. these
methodological principles provide criteria through which short forms can be
evaluated. As result, these methodological principles will be used to examine the
appropriateness of both the mixed method and empirical short forms developed
In this study. Table 1 (Appendix B) Identiﬁes each principle and whether or not it
will be achieved across both the mixed method and empirical short forms
developed.

As shown In Table 1 (Appendix 8), these principles provide a basis for
understanding how an abbreviated form can be improved and evaluated. When
creating short forms it is appropriate to explore multiple short forms and choose
the form which best represents the intended need while minimizing the
methodological issues that may interfere with the reliability and validity of the
short form (Smith et al., 2000). His study strived to minimize such issues.

Cunent Study

Among one of the most reliable and valid risk assessments is the
YLSICMI. Historically, YLSICMI had been adapted from an adult risk assessment
Instrument originally developed in Canada to determine risk factors and predict
reoffending; its design was based the ecological model and meta-analytic studies
which examined characteristics of re-offending adult populations (Flores, Travis
8r Latessa 2004). Following the construction of the adult assessment Instrument

known as the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSl-R), long term follow-ups

25

suggested that the measure had great utility and was successful at predicting
recidivism (Flores et al., 2004). Based on the evidence of predictive validity
among adult populations, the measure was adapted to juvenile populations. The
modiﬁcation of the LSl-R for juvenile offenders led to the construction of the 42
item YLSI CMI (Flores et al., 2004). Since the development of the YLSICMI, It
has been proven to have promising effects and Implications of juvenile offending
populations as a long form, yet it Is unknown if this form has similar promising
effects as a short form.

In recent years, the YLSICMI Is most researched. utilized, accurate, risk
assessment instrument adopted by juvenile courts (Schwalbe, 2007). Of other
juvenile risk assessments, the YLSICMI yielded the most consistent results
across effect sizes (.57-.75), accurate classiﬁcation (e.g. low, moderate, and high
risk) and predictive validity (Schwalbe, 2007 & Cottle, 2001). This 42 Item
assessment seems to maintain a level of consistency over time. Given that both
validity and level of consistency has been determined across vast samples and
studies, this measure meets the basic criteria for being modiﬁed as a short form.

Additionally, the YLSICMI has been among the most trusted risk
assessment instruments (Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes, 2005). It is one of the few
measures that show evidence of high reliability and adequate validity for boys
and girls over reliability long prediction interval. It is also one of the few risk
assessment Instruments that has become popular (Flores et al.. 2004). This
measure is said to provide the ability to classify juveniles by risk (low, moderate,

high), help determine appropriate outcome for juvenile offenders. Such fairness

26

displayed across various juvenile populations provides additional evidence that a
short form may be possible.

Given the YLSICMI Identiﬁes eight domains which identify ayouth’s
criminogenic risk factors/domains, the theoretical bases for understanding future
delinquent behavior for juveniles are evident. The eight domains that are
examined include the following: prior offenses/dispositions; family
circumstances/parenting; education/employment; peer relation; substance abuse;
leisure/recreation; personality/behavior; and attitudes/orientation. A juvenile
receives a risk score across each of the 8 domain and is summed to represent
overall risk level. This measure and scoring summary can be found in Appendix
A. Given what Is known about the original YLSICMI and evidence that the its long
form meets the criteria for a good risk assessment, this study examines two short
forms that may serve as screeners within a juvenile court’s Intake division. This
study achieved this by exploring the following research questions:

Research Questions

1) Which risk assessment items are maintained from the YLSICMI when mixed
method approaches to short forms construction are adopted?

2) Which risk assessment items are maintained from the YLSICMI when
empirical approaches to short form construction are adopted?

3) What Is the reliability and predictive validity of the mixed method and empirical

short form as compared to the original YLSICMI long form?

27

Methods

Setting

This study took place within an intake division at a juvenile court in a
Midwestern industrialized medium sized county. This division Is responsible for
ﬁrst time juvenile offenders who have received a criminal petition due to a minor
offense. It Is at this division where juvenile court referees are required to
determine if juveniles go forward in the court system, be dismissed, or be
maintained under Informal probation at intake. Minimal programming and
Intervention assignment is offered at this level of the court process. This is
because this division is heavily populated with low risk juvenile offenders who
exhibit low Intervention needs. The goal for juvenile court referees at this stage is
to base decision making on a juvenile’s risk for mcidivism.
Participants

Secondary archival data was used to examine juveniles (N=601) who
came in contact with the intake/Informal division ﬁom 2003-2006. The gender
distribution was 66% male and 34% female. Participants ranged In age from 9-17
with a mean age of 14.44 (SD= 1.71). Ethnicity of participants was as follows:
Caucasian (43%); African American/Black (39%); Latino/Mexican American (9
%); other (9%). All juveniles were ﬁrst time offenders and were followed over 2
years to examine patterns of recidivism.
Measures

YLSICMI. This study used data collected using the original 42 item long

form YLSICMI risk assessment. Former studies have suggested that YSUCMI Is

28

a reliable measure across various groups over long periods of time (Schmidt,
Hoge, & Robertson, 2002). Such studies reported alpha coefﬁcients for internal
consistency ranging from 51-91 (Schmidt, Hoge. & Robertson). and had an
overall reliability of .87 for this current study. This measure Identiﬁed overall risk
scores using four categories, very high, high, moderate, and low. These scores
were used as a predictor of recidivism, which is deﬁned by any court contact due
to a delinquent petition. The 42 Item measure included the following eight
domains: Prior Offenses and Dispositions, Family Circumstances and Parenting,
Education and Employment, Peer Relationships, Substance Abuse. Leisure and
Recreation, Personality and Behavior, and Attitudes and Orientation. Each
domain Involved a series of questions which allows court referees to Identify level
of risk within that domain. A juvenile can be classiﬁed as low, moderate, high risk
across each of the eight domains; based on the scores received across domains,
an overall score Is determined that represents overall risk for recidivism.

Independent Variable. The Independent variable examined was over all
risk level (i.e. low, moderate, and high risk levels) as determined by the YLSICMI
of juveniles who came In contact with the Intake/Informal division due to a
criminal petition and/or charge.

Dependent Variable. The dependent variable was future delinquency,
recidivism (yes/no). Recidivism was deﬁned as juveniles who received a petition

for any delinquent offense within a 2 year period.

29

Procedures

Secondary archival data collected by a local juvenile court were used to
generate mixed method and empirical short forms and examine recidivism across
a 2-year period. These data Included 601 juveniles who were ﬁrst time offenders
and came in contact with the Intake division. These juveniles were assessed by
juvenile court referees using the 42 Item YLSICMI upon initial contact with the
court. YLSICMI Interviews were tape recorded and scored according to the
YLSICMI scoring summary/checklist which determined if the juvenile was low,
moderate. or high risk for recidivism. Juveniles were asked a series of questions
In order to generate yes/no scores across all 42 YLSICMI Items. Each juvenile
received an overall risk score ranging from 0-42; the more yes check marks a
juvenile received, the more at-risk the juvenile was for recidivism. More details
regarding this measure and Interview guide can be found In Appendix A.

Inter-rater reliability checks were conducted across 10% YLSICMI
Interviews (n=60). There was a 90% agreement rate across the juvenile referee’s
assignment of juvenile risk score (0-42) and risk level (i.e. low, moderate, high).
Continuous training was provided for all juvenile court referees to improve both
case management, accuracy of scoring, and efﬁciency of processes.

This study focused on two year follow-up archival data. After year two of
each juvenile’s initial contact with the court, recidivism data was collected using
the county’s management information system. The juvenile court system which
Is used to record juvenile petitions provided juvenile recidivism. The adult court

module of the same management Information system provided recidivism for

30

 

juveniles who had legally become adults (those who turned 17 year of age).
Additionally, the court staff cross checked the local data with the Law
Enforcement Information Network, a nation-wide data base. While the actual
number of offenses was higher when the LEIN was Checked, in no Instance did
the ultimate categorization of 'recidivist” or “non-recidivist" change.

Short forms were established using both mixed method and empirical
approaches. The mixed method approach Involved Identifying key conceptual
domains, determined by the literature that predicted 2-year recidivism. These
conceptual domains were consistent with the areas Identiﬁed on the YLSICMI. In
order to select the best items within a given domain, a bivariate correlation was
used to identify which 2 items best predicted recidivism. Once items were
determined a reliability test was used to examine Inter-Item correlations and the
AUC test determined the predictive validity of the mixed method short from.

Unlike the mixed method short form the empirical short form, solely used
the AUC test to determine the fewest number of items needed to predict 2 year
recidivism Independent of the possibility that conceptual domains would be
eliminated. The test of the AUC was examined across each of the original 42
Items on the YLSICMI. All Items which signiﬁcantly predicted recidivism using the
AUC test was maintained for the empirical short form.

Once each short form was developed, these data were used to compare
reliability and validity information to the original 42-Item YLSICMI long form.

Additional crosstabulations were generated to examine proportion of low,

31

moderate, and high risk juveniles, sample percentages across risk level, and
proportion of recidivism across all forms.

Results
Question 1: Which risk assessment items are maintained from the YLS/CMI
when mixed method approaches to short forms construction are adopted?

Risk assessment meta-analyses and literature were reviewed to Identify
key factors that related to delinquency. Of these criminogenic risk factors, the
eight general domains that hold up across multiple studies in predicting
criminogenic needs are consistent with the domains identiﬁed by the YLSICMI.
These eight domains are as follows: Prior Offenses and Disposition, Family
Circumstances and Parenting, Education and Employment, Peer Relationships,
Substance Abuse, Leisure and Recreation, Personality and Behavior, and
Attitudes and Orientation. The level of matching across the factors within the
YLSICMI and factors identiﬁed in the meta-analyses suggested that the YLSICMI
had strong face validity. The YLSICMI seems to be a conceptually sound
measure of delinquency risk. Due to the evidence that suggested that the
YLSICMI Is Inclusive of the multilevel factors which predict juvenile recidivism,
the mixed method short form utilized each domain within the YLSICMI using both
conceptual and empirical techniques.

A bivariate correlation with the dichotomous variable recidivism was used
to identify items which positively related to 2 year recidivism for each of the 8
YLSICMI domains (see Table 2). Maintaining these domains was essential to

meeting the criteria for key short form methodological principles as shown on

32

Table 1. As result, two Items were chosen from all but 1 of the 8 YLSICMI
domains, Prior Offenses and Disposition (domain 1). For the Prior Offenses and
Disposition domain, only one Item (Failure to Comply) demonstrated any
relevance to the sample. This Is because this sample Involved ﬁrst time offenders
at intake division and items within this domain are unique to offenders with a
criminal history (i.e. Prior Probation). In attempting to maintain all eight
subscales, this domain was represented by a single item In further analyses. In
other words, since the sample was generally low risk (lacking offense history),
this domain lacked variability, hindering Its statistical power. However, the best 2
predictive items were considered for the remaining 7 YLSICMI domains. The 2
items most highly correlated with recidivism were retained to form the mixed
method short form. This process generated a 15 Item mixed method short form.
In examining Table 2, the following is demonstrated. Failure to Comply
was most predictive of 2 year recidivism within domain 1. For domain 2, Family
Circumstances and Parenting, Inconsistent Parenting and Poor Relationship with
Father were retained. For domain 3, Education and Employment, Disruptive
Behava In the Classroom and Problems with Teachers were the 2 items
maintained. For domain 4. Peer Relationships, Some Delinquent Friends and
Some Positive Acquaintances were retained. Although the no Item was
signiﬁcantly predictive of future recidivism within domain 5, Substance Abuse, the
two Items most positively correlated with recidivism were retained, Occasional
Drug Use and Chronic Drug Use. In domain 6, Leisure and Recreation, Limited

Organized Activities and Could Make Better Use of Time signiﬁcantly predicted

33

future recidivism. In domain 7, Personality and Behavior, Inﬂated Self-Esteem
and Physically Aggressive signiﬁcantly predicted recidivism. LaStly, although no
one Item was signiﬁcant for domain 8, Attitudes and Orientation, the two items
most correlated with recidivism were retained, Pro-criminal Attitudes and Deﬁes
Authority. '

Question 2: Which risk assessment items are maintained from the YLSICMI
when empirical approaches to short form construction are adopted?

The empirical short from identiﬁed items of the original which best
predicted recidivism, regardless of their conceptual content. The empirical
version was generated by correlating all 42 Items from the original form with
recidivism and examining each item’s AUC statistic. Only those items which had
signiﬁcant AUC’s were retained (11 items — see Table 3). Once these Items were
identiﬁed, an additional test of the AUC was computed for the total of the 11
items.

As Shown In Table 3, 11 items from 4 of the 8 domains (Education and
Employment, Peer Relationships, Leisure and Recreation, and Personality and
Behavior) signiﬁcantly predicted juvenile who recidivated within a two year
A period. The items which were maintained are as follows: Disruptive Behavior In
the Classroom, Disruptive Behavior on School Grounds, Low Achievement,
Problems with Peers in School, Problems with Teachers, Some Delinquent
Acquaintances, Some Delinquent F riends. Limited Organized Activities, Could

Make Better Use of Time, Physically Aggressive, and Short Attention Span.

34

Question 3: What is the reliability and predictive validity of the mixed method and
empirical short form as compared to the original YLSICMI long form?

Reliability was examined for each short form (empirical and mixed
method). lntemal consistency was compared to the reliability coefﬁcient of the
original long form. As seen in Table 4, the mixed method short form and the
empirical short form both yielded a reliability coefﬁcient of .74 as compared to the
original YLSICMI reliability coefﬁcient of .87. This is to be expected given the
reduction of items as compared to the original form. While lower, the lntemal
consistency Is still within the acceptable range.

Short forms were also compared for predictive validity. The AUC test was
used to examine accuracy of classiﬁcation rates for both the long and short forms
(empirical and mixed model). The AUC statistic for each of the short forms was
compared to the AUC statistic of the original long form. As shown on table 5,
AUC test for the mixed model short form was .64 with a standard error of .02
(p<.05). For the empirical short form the AUC was .64 with a standard error of
.02 (p<.05). Additionally, the results of the AUC test for original long form was .63
with a standard error of .02 (p<.05). In other words, there is no difference
between the predictive validity of the three forms of the YLS.

Crosstabulations were computed to help determine cut scores for the
mixed method short form. These cut scores designated low, moderate, and high
risk based on the recidivism percentages and cut scores from the original

YLSICMI form. This means that the same proportion of youth who were classiﬁed

35

In low, moderate, and high risk on the original form matched the proportion of
youth classiﬁed using the mixed method.

The newly generated cut scores across high. moderate. and low risk
groups were used to determine recidivism rates across a two year period. These
new recidivism rates for high, moderate, and low risk were examined to
determine which form best predicted. Table 6 presents the results for the Mixed
Method Short Form. Crosstabulations generated the following 2- year recidivism
percentages for low (n=319), moderate (n=185) and high (n=53) risk groups: low
risk= 25%, moderate risk= 40%, and high risk= 47% (Table 6).

Discussion
Question 1: Which risk assessment items are maintained from the YLS/CMI
when mixed method approaches to short forms construction are adopted?

The mixed method short form maintained 2 Items from each of the eight
YLSICMI domains (except subscale #1, Prior Offenses and Disposition) using
bivariate analyses. Not all Items maintained were signiﬁcant predictors of
recidivism. However, due to the goal of maintaining all domains across the
YLSICMI, marginally signiﬁcant Items were considered to meet the 2 item
minimum across each domain. The domains that did not elicit any signiﬁcant
values. as It relates to predicting juvenile recidivism were as follows: Prior
Offenses and Dispositions (Failure to Comply), Substance Abuse (Occasional
Drug Use and Chronic Drug Use), and Attitudes and Orientation (Physically
Aggressive and Procriminal Attitude). The domains which elicited signiﬁcant

values were Family Circumstances and Parenting (Inconsistent Parenting and

36

Poor Relationship with Father), Education and Employment (Disruptive Behavior
in the Classroom and Problems with Teachers), Peer Relationships (Some
Delinquent Friends and Some Positive Acquaintances), Leisure and Recreation
(Limited Organized Activity and Could Make Better Use of Time), and Personality
and Behavior (Inﬂated Self-Esteem and Physically Aggressive).

These results suggested that in this sample criminal history. substance
abuse, and attitudes and orientation are less effective in determining juveniles
who are likely to recidivate within a two year period. Family, education, peer
relationships, leisure and activities, and personality and behavior were better at
predicting juvenile mcidIvIsm.

While inconsistent parenting may be the best predictor within the Family
Circumstances domain, it Is important to note that the Poor Relationship with
Father may not be that useful given the sample; few juveniles had fathers in the
home. Poor relationship with Father seems to be an irrelevant Item given the
sample characteristics however given that most juvenile had mothers In the
home; Poor Relationship with Mother did not signiﬁcantly predict 2 year
. recidivism, poor relationship with parents may not be the most appropriate way to
understand juvenile recidivism.

Additionally, education, peer relationships, and personality/behavior seem
to initiate the strongest level of signiﬁcance across 2 year recidivism. This
consistently suggested education, peer relationship items, and personality and

behavior items are essential to short form screeners. These items were also

37

more dynamic factors and were the same domains which were retained within
the empirical short form.

Question 2: Which risk assessment items are maintained from the YL S/CMI
when empirical approaches to short form construction are adapted?

Of the 42 items on the original YLSICMI, only 11 Items across 4 domains
signiﬁcantly predicted recidivism across a 2 year period ofjuveniles within an
Informal/Intake division when using empirical approaches. The 4 domains which
were maintained on the short form were Education/Employment, Peer
Relationships, Leisure and Recreation, and Personality and Behavior. Similar to
the mixed method short form, Disruptive Behavior In the Classroom and Could
Make Better Use of Time were the best items which predicted recidivism. This
ﬁnding was consistent with current literature; research has suggested that
education needs and the lack of leisure and recreation are key predictors for
future delinquent acts (Cottle, Lee, 8. Heilbum, 20018 Onifade et. al., 2008).
Research also shows strong evidence that negative peer networks also lead to
future crime (Cottle, Lee, 8: Heilbum, 20018 Onifade et. al., 2008). According to
the social learning theory, juveniles Ieam from those who are In their
environment. Juvenile with delinquent acquaintances and friends are more likely
to participate In criminal/delinquent activity therefore Increasing their likelihood of
returning to the criminal justice system. These same juveniles Often exhibit
behavior problems in the classroom and which Increase the chance of
reoffending. Cottle et al., (2001) found that juveniles involved In perpetual

offending showed evidence of physical aggression and acting out. Given the

38

strong association of education, peer relationship, and personality behavior
factors with future crime these become key domains to Involve in juvenile court
screening mechanism. Results suggested that by focusing solely on these
domains, those who are at-risk for reoffending can more quickly be Identiﬁed.
Maintaining only 11 Items across 4 domains came at the cost of omitting four
other domains.

Four domains were excluded from the empirical short form because of
their lack of ability to signiﬁcantly predict future crime. These domains include
Offense History, Family Circumstances, Substance Abuse, and Attitudes and
Orientation. All of these domains are often seen to be key predictors of future
offending and have been used to screen juveniles to determine who goes formal
In the court system. However, criminal history Is not among a strong predictor of
determining future crime (Cottle et al., 2001). Instead, it is a static factor that
should be only used as descriptive information to Inform juvenile court ofﬁcers
the level of services already received by the juvenile. However, it is common for
courts to focus on crime type and criminal history, rather than other factors (e.g.
peer relationships) seen to be more useful when predicting delinquent behaviors
although there Is no way to Change a juvenile’s criminal history (prior offenses
and dispositions).

Similarly, courts focus on substance use although it Is not a strong
predictor of future crime. This focus is reﬂective to zero tolerance drug policies
which exist among courts at both the adult and juvenile level. Often leading to

being detained, with or without a treatment program or services (Watson,

39

2004).Not only does substance use does not signiﬁcantly predict future crime for
juvenile offenders but It is among one of the most difﬁcult behaviors/risk to
change. This is because effective Intervention programs and strategies are not
without their own set of faults (Watson, 2004) Providing In-consistent screening,
follow-up, and or failure to appropriately assess substance abusing behavior are
some of the Obstacles that plague the level of service delivery around substance
use (Watson, 2004). Since there seems to be little evidence that suggest courts
know what to do and or how to handle this epidemic, much of Intervention
strategies should focus on the domains which haven the greatest ability to
Improve.

The domains that were not maintained for the empirical short form
seemed to be most reﬂective of static variables. For Instance, criminal history.
attitudes and orientation, and family circumstances are among key domains
which identify risk factors that may have little to no opportunity for Change
overtime. It seems evident that the empirical form maintains dynamic factors
which signiﬁcantly predict recidivism across a 2 year period. Literature which
identiﬁes best practice approaches in within the juvenile just system recommends
that courts should only focus on those factors that have the best ability to change
over time. By focusing on dynamic factors versus static factors, courts will have
the greatest opportunity reducing criminogenic risks.

Overall, both mixed method and empirical short forms maintained the
ecological model by maintaining multiple domains. Although the mixed method

short form was more inclusive of the various domains which help explain

4O

criminogenic risk, both short forms capture key ecological components. These
factors Include the family, education, peer relationships, and Individual
characteristics like behavior. These multilevel components further emphasize the
need to address recidivism from a comprehensive approach (Gorman- Smith et
al., 1996). Brofenbrenner (1979) suggest that It Is the interaction of the youth’s
social systems which Impact the development of that youth. In order to
appropriately address delinquency, both individual and environmental
mechanisms must be taken into account.

Question 3: What is the reliability and predictive validity of the mixed method and
empirical short form as compared to the original YLS/CMI long form?

Research suggests that when determining the reliability of an assessment,
the basic standard Is .60 (cite). Knowing this, the original YLSICMI original long
form would be classiﬁed as excellent (r=.87). Nunnally & Bernstein (1994)
suggest that the number of items Is reﬂective and related to the level of reliability.
As result, reducing the number of Items on a test may reduce the level of
reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). It was assumed that both the empirical
and mixed method short form would have a reduced reliability coefﬁcient. After
testing the reliability, the coefﬁcient for the mixed method and empirical short
form was the same (.74). This suggested that the understanding of the construct
‘criminogenic risk” was not drastically compromised, although reliability
decreased, when test items were reduced. Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) would
rate each short form acceptable! good given internal consistency was above .60.

Wnile there was a slight decrease In reliability, the same attention was given to

41

each short form to determine level of predictive validity of short forms as It
compares to the original form.

AUC test across low, moderate and high risk groups were used to predict
recidivism (yes/no). The original AUC score for the original YLS‘was .63. After
constructing the mixed method and empirical short form the AUC for both was
.64. This suggested that although the mixed method and empirical form are
shorter, they have the same predictive capacity as the long form (although not
signiﬁcantly different). Not only does each of the forms predict equally but they
also predict just as well as the original YLSICMI. Research suggests that the
standard for AUC test across juvenile risk assessment Instruments Is .60 (Cattle,
2001). Given this the AUC scores generated from both the mixed method and
empirical form meet such standards, these forms seem to be promising
screeners for Intake/Informal juvenile justice divisions.

Discussion of Methodological Principles

1. Develop a short form of a suﬂ‘iciently validated measure

Both short forms utilized the AUC statistic as a means to examine validity.
This is commonly used to examine predictive power of juvenile offender risk
assessments. Given the results from the AUC test both mixed method and
empirical short forms predict future crime equally and meet the .60 standard of

measures of juvenile recidivism.

42

2. Show that classiﬁcation rates remain high with the short form

The AUC not only examines predictive power but it does this by examining
the classiﬁcation rate of each juvenile. It is used to determine the rate of true
positive classiﬁcation as it relates to the likelihood of future recidivism; this
speciﬁes how well above chance each short form can predict recidivism. The two
groups examined (recidivist and non-recidivlst) total scores were analyzed to
examine If the classiﬁcation rate of both the mixed method and empirical short
form was comparable to the original long form; each of the short forms yielded
high classiﬁcation accuracy (.60+) as compared to the original form, which meets

the standard and average of juvenile offender risk assessment Instruments.

3. Show that short form preserves the content coverage of each factor in the

measure

The empirical short form goal was to examine the fewest number of test
items needed to predict recidivism, the mixed method short form was used to
examine level of content coverage as compared to the long form. To Insure that
all areas of the original YLSICMI were included In a short form, the mixed method
form Involved all of the YLSICMI domains in addition to selecting equal number
of items across each of the domains. The empirical and mixed method short form
share some level of content coverage. However, conceptually there is some gain

of content coverage with the mixed method short form.

43

4. Show that short form Offers meaningful time or resource savings for the loss in

validity

Both short forms cut down the intakefrnfon'nal division Interviewing
process by half, yielding the savings of time which will consequent reduce cost.
Additionally, given the juveniles have an increased opportunity to be dismissed
form the court early In the process, the cost that are saved by eliminating such
youth In the juvenile court process Is drastic. More examination of ﬁscal cost
must be further examined In the future. However, the two short forms were able
to cut the long form administration time (1 hour) by more than half, given the

interview and scoring time was reduced.

5. Show that short fOnn measures each factor scale reliability

Once the overall reliability of the original long form was determined,
additional tests of reliability identiﬁed levelof reliability across both mixed method
and empirical short form. Although It was expected that the level of reliability
would decrease due to the decrease In test items, the new reliability scores of
both short forms were deemed good. This methodological principle was met by

both of the short forms.

6. Show empirically that short form reproduces the factor structure of a

multicultural instrument

The developers of the original YLSICMI pro-identiﬁed the factor structure

for criminogenic risk/risk for recidivism. This structure suggested that there were

44

8 domains that explained this construct. Given the need to meet this principle,
the mixed method short form retained the original factor stmcture of the
YLSICMI. This was not true of the empirical short form. Not all short forms may
meet this principle; It depends on the goal of the short form. In this case, this

principle was solely relevant to the mixed method short form.

7. Show that short form has adequate overfapping variance with the full form,

using independent administration

Determining the overlapping variance of short forms with the original forms
mquires Independent administration. This was not possible across either short
form. Consequently, this was a limitation and is discussed in the limitation

section.

8. Short form omits sub-factors and preserves only overall factors, than fail to
show that the short form preserves the content domains represented by the sub-

factors

Sub-factors were eliminated on the empirical short form, however these
were Identiﬁed. Factors omitted were: Prior Dispositions and Offenses, Family
CircumstanCes and Parenting, Substance Abuse. and Attitudes and Orientation.
Although these factors were eliminated from the empirical short form, they did not
affect the reliability and validity of the empirical short form as compared to the
mixed method short form.

45

9. Show that each factor in the short form has validity on an independent sample
It Is essential that short forms are further tested In order to further examine
the level of predictive validity across short form. Due to the inability to
demonstrate that neither short form Is valid across an Independent sample, this
was discussed in limitation section. Future direction Is to further validate measure

to meet this ﬁnal methodological principle.

Limitations

This studied utilized the same sample to validate both long and short
forms within a ﬁrst time offender juvenile population. This is unique because
criminal history is the least relevant domain In predicting recidivism although It Is
a conceptual area of Interest among many theoretically based risk assessments.
Research suggests that In order to fully establish how well a short form performs
as it compares to its original long form, the short form should be administered on
an independent sample. This provides a greater understanding of overlapping
variances across both short and long forms (convergent validity) and further
establishes Independent true scores as produced by each form. Such
Independent administratiOn help reduces any biases that may be reﬂected in
level of validity.

Given the promising effects of short forms, future research should further
examine the empirical short form on an independent sample. This will allow for
further validation concerning the level of overlapping variance across the original
long YLSICMI form. It is expected that given the level of attention given to the

construction of the original long form as It relates to reliability and validity, it is
46

hypothesized that since the original long YLSICMI meets the standard of a
quality juvenile risk assessment Instrument, that the empirical short form will
consistently provide the same predictive power, even after independent
sampling.
Conclusion

Which short form Is best? Given that both mixed method and empirical
short forms both yield the same level of reliability and validity, it is Important to
consider the costs and beneﬁts for each form. Among the greatest beneﬁts of the
mixed method form Is that It reﬂects the multi-dimensional construct of
criminogenic risk, which match services and programming provided by the court.
This Is important because It provides court ofﬁcers with a more comprehensive
understanding of thejuveniles’ needs and better match juveniles with programs
who are maintained at the intake division for informal probation or temporary
supervision. However, this same form comes at the cost of having more Items
and the inclusion of factors which do not signiﬁcantly predict crime within a two
year period.

On the other hand, the empirical short form excludes all non-signiﬁcant
items regardless of its positive relationship with recidivism. This provides for a
form that Is reduced to the fewest number of items, which means a shorter
Interview and more resources saved. Given that one of the goals for screeners to
be reduced to the fewest numbers of test items, the empirical short form does
this and provides Information on dynamic factors with predict those who will

commit ﬁrture crime. However, this is done at the cost of excluding variables that

47

courts are interested such as substance abuse. Since there are costs and
beneﬁts for both short forms, selecting the appropriate measure should be
Identiﬁed as it relates to the needs and current concerns of juvenile courts. In
general, given the empirical short form focuses on factors that are most easy to
Change (provide intervention for) and retained the fewest number of items It
seems to be the better short form. Yet, both short forms have the ability to meet
the needs of the court so regardless on decision, they both serve as promising
screeners for an intake division.

The need for risk assessment short forms is essential for many purposes.
First, short forms show promising effects to mduce case load by more than half,
reducing court cost by a signiﬁcant amount. Additionally, short forms have
Increased utility considering the reduction of time It takes to administer risk
assessments, the ability to easily Identify risk for recidivism, the level of error that
may occur during administration and or scoring Is reduced. Such forms provide
great Implications concerning level of accuracy In prediction. While long forms
risk assessments provide essential Information concerning case management
and intervention Information, short forms suggest that there are still 4 prime
areas consistent across mixed method and empirical short forms (education and
employment, mar relationships, leisure and recreation, and personality and
behavior) which are signiﬁcantly related to future crime. This Is important
because short forms will continue to provide some level of information
concerning intervention recommendation even at the intakefrnfom'ral level. This

becomes beneﬁcial for those who receive some level of services at

48

intakefrnfonnal stages. Given that there are many promising effects for short form
screeners, these instruments may be useful in addressing the needs of
Intake/Informal court divisions within the juvenile justice setting.

While some believe the adoption and implementation of short forms, like
the YLSICMI short form, has the potential to help minimize court biases, others
suggest that such instruments have the potential to be bias across various
groups (Onifade et al., 2008). This is because many bias factors like race, age,
gender, socio-economic status, and various neighborhood characteristics (i.e.
policing) are evident when examining juveniles who come in contact with the
court and those who receive additional criminal petitions for recidivism. This Is
Important to recognize, because further research should not only focus improving
the utility of risk assessments but also understanding the extent to which biases
such as these are minimized. Given the need for courts to adopt more fair and
systematic ways to inform decision making, replication of studies that accounts
for some of the major biases that occur are essential to move courts towards
best practice. If indeed short forms, can be used to deter low risks Individuals
from going forward in the juvenile court process, it is essential to see what
groups or types of juveniles may beneﬁt from such screening processes the
most. It Is the Identiﬁcation of these short comings that will allow courts to

improve its ability to be both just and fair.

49

APPENDIX A.
The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLSICMI) Interview
Guide and Scoring Form
*This Interview guide has been adopted from Hoge & Andrews

YLSICMI RISK ASSESSMENT SCORING PROFILE-8: CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTORY
FORM

 

 

 

z 5
g... § § E r.-
a s a r 3 a .-..-
”Mitt ii iii
or "I .
g; 9 it it 8 :2 8 Eur ‘31"
a I
a. at E E
<
mgr. (3.5) (445) (2.3) (4) (3.5) (5-6) (445) (5-7) (:2;

 

Moderate (1-2) (1 -3) (1 ) (2-3) (1 —2) (3-4) (1 —3) (1 -4) (9-22)

 

 

LOW (0) (0) (0) (0-1) (0) (0-2) (0) (0) (0-3)
Strength Total;
Risk
Score

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

--Io<¢ gor- eﬂnwonog sin-'3: :a-': <~o<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scum
P MA Y E ' SEQQNDARY Rl§ﬂﬂ§§9 AREA;
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.

 

 

VE RIDE FACTOR :
1.
2.

 

§TEENGTH§1£RQTECTIVE EACTQRS: R§§PQNSIVITY FAQTQBS.

 

51

 

 

1.
A- CI
8 CI
C [3 Prior Probation
D [3 Prior Custody
E CI

Risk Level:

D (0) 3 W

C] (1-2) 3 Moderate

CI (Ni = High

Prior 8. Current Oﬂ'enselelspositions:
Three or More Prior Convictions

Two or More Failures to Comply

Three or More Current Convictions

 

 

TOTAL:

 

 

Strengths/Comments:

 

NOTE: This domain area covers the youth's entire childhood history, regardless of

whomerﬂtisisamdayorMSdayassessmnt.

1A Have you ever come to the Court before for a delinquency charge or a crime? If yes, how
many times? What happened each time? (e.g., charges dropped, diverted, placed on
informal probation, placed on probation, etc.). What, if any, services did you or your
family receive as a result of your Court involvement?

Have you ever been wasted before or in trouble with the police? How old were you
when you were ﬁrst arrested? Have you ever been in trouble in another county or state?
How many times haveyou been convicted or found guilty of committing a crime? Can
you list them for me?

1A- W
FYI: ifseveral offensesoccurredatonce, count onlyas1offense.

®®®®R

Do m1 count the current offense(s).

52

Check this item if the youth has 3 or more prior We (convictions).

Do not count offenses that were kept informal, or diverted by intake Division.
Do not count minor trafﬁc offenses or civil ordinance violations.

Do [193 count violations of probation or status offenses.

 

18.

1B.

‘ 1C.

10.

10.

After being found guilty or placed on probation, have you ever been charged “or show-
caused for violating probation or a court order? Tell me about it. How many times were
you charged with violating probation or a court order? Did you ever run away from a
court-ordered placement, like a group home, foster home, or residential facility?

Check this item if the youth has been charged, on 2 or more occasions, with
violation of probation, violation of court order, or show-caused for noncompliance
with court-ordered programming.

Check this item if the youth ran away or escaped from a court-ordered placement
on 2 or more occasions.

Check this item if the youth had charges ﬁled, on 2 or more occasions, during the
time helshe was on probation.

Check this item if the youth had only one violation in 2 or more of the categories
listed above.

Have you been on probation before? Tell me about the times you have been on probation.

W

5!
®

Check this item if the youth has ever been on W probation, prior to hisiher
current adjudication.

Check this item if the youth’s prior [gm probation cases have been closed.
Do _n_gt count Truancy Probation.

Has the Court ever placed you out of your home during the time you were on prior
probation? Were you ever placed in the County Jail or the lngham County Youth Center
during the time you were on probation? Please tell me about it.

53

10- W

a

®®®®®

Check this item for any out of home placement that was the‘resuit of any
delinquency adjudication (e.g., lngham County Youth Center, Foster Care, or
Residential Placement).

Do m3 count In-Home Detention.
Do 9g count pre-trial arrest or detoxiﬁcation.

Do _n_o_t_ count juvenile placement made for the youth's welfare (eg, Foster Care due.
to neglect/abuse, Child Protective Services Placement, Protective Custody, etc.)

Do n_o_t count pre-trial confinement or detention as custody.
Do 991 count detention for status offenses.

1E. Tell me about your current charges (crimes, convictions). Have you been convicted
(adjudicated) of any of these charges? Can you recall how many charges you pleaded

1E.

guilty to?
W
FYI: Count only the number of offenses that the youth pleaded guilty to.
FYl' Count the number of offenses, for which the youth is currently under formal
' probation.
FYl' Count a group of offenses as one if they were part of the same incident and
‘ occurred at the same time.
g Check this item if the youth received 3 or more convictions for the current
disposition. Note: this only refers to Wu; (convictions). not charges.
Q Do 391 check pending, dropped, or diverted charges.

54

 

 

2.

.T'F'PPP’

Education: I Strengthleomments:

[J Low Achievement

[:1 Problems with Teachers
Problems with Peers

Cl
C] Disruptive Classroom Behavior
[:1 Disruptive Behavior on School Property
D

E] l0l=Low
D (1.3): Moderate
[j r4-s)= High TOTAL:

 

 

 

 

 

2A What school are you attending right new (grade, etc. )? What grades are you getting

28.

now? What grades did you get on your last report card (improving or deteriorating)? Are
you in any special education classes? Have you ever been evaluated by a school
psychologist (if yes, please explain)?

W

d Check this item if the youth is currently failing subjects or if grades have signiﬁcantly
fallen compared to previous grading periods.

Q Do not check this item if the youth is performing at his/her expected ability level, but
is getting low grades.

Describe your relationship with teachers. How do you get along with them? How are you
treated by your teachers?

55

 

28.

2C.

20.

20.

2E.

W

5f Check this item if there are signiﬁcant and continuing problems or conflicts between
the youth and his/her teacher(s).

g Check this item if the youth hates his/her teacher(s), or is hostile towards them.

Describe your relationship with peers/classmates. How are you treated by your
peers/classmates?

W

5’ Check this item if the youth is disliked, isolated, withdrawn, or there is other
evidence of poor relations with peers in the school setting.

is) Do 991 check this item if the youth has one isolated negative incident with peer(s).

Have you ever been in serious trouble (e.g., detention, suspended, expelled, etc.) while
in class? When? Can you tell me what happened?

 

5! Check this item if the youth is displaying acting out, attention seeking, deﬁant, or
other disruptive behaviors within the classroom, and teachers/staff consider him/her
to be a problem during class.

V Check this item ggiy if the youth has been involved in W disruptive
classroom incidents within the assessment period.

Have you ever been in serious trouble (e.g., detention, suspended, expelled, etc.)
outside of class, but while still in school or on school property? Have you ever been in
serious trouble for your behavior on a school bus? When? Can you tell me what
happened?

56

FYI:

sass

“School Property” applies to outside the classroom (e.g., in the hallways, on
campus, at school bus stop, during walk home, etc.)

Check this item if the youth is aggressive/violent, engaging in misconduct while on
school property.

Check this item if the youth engages in theft, vandalism, or drug/alcohol use on
school property.

Check this item if there is disruptive behavior while the youth is on the school bus
or at the school bus stop.

Check this item if disruptive behavior occurs just before or after school, while youth
is en mute to or from school.

2F. Have you ever skipped class or school without a legitimate excuse? Did you get caught?
Have you ever been in Truancy Court? When?

1 Check this item if the youth is missing school days or skipping classes without a

legitimate excuse.

ﬂ Check this item if the youth has been 'involved'with'Truancy Court duringthe

assessment period.

57

 

 

3. Leisure 5 Recreation: Strengths/Comments:
A. E] Lack of Organized Activities
B. E] Could Make Better Use of Time
C. C] No Personal interests

Risk Level:

(:1 (0) ' LOW

C] (1) 8 Moderate

I: (2-3) 8 High TOTAL:

 

 

 

 

 

3A Are you a member of any sports teams, organizations, bands, clubs, volunteering, etc.,
after school or on the weekends? Are you involved in any church group activities, youth
group, etc?

“W

V Check this item if there is W that the youth participates in sports, clubs, or
other types of organized positive activities.

8! Check this item if helshe only attends self-help groups that are mandatory and the
youth does 991 ﬁnd it enjoyable or helpful.

8 Do & check this item if helshe attends self-help groups willingly and receives social
rewards and help from this.

38. What else do you like to do with your free time?

 

up Check this item if the youth spends excessive time in passivebnconstructive activities
(i.e., watching TV, DVD’s, playing video games, listening to the radio, partying,
hanging around).

58

 

3C.

Check this item if the youth has no leisure activities and is bored during most of

his/her free time.

Check this item if the youth is involved in 1-2 recreational activities, but his/her
involvement is inconsistent, limited to one season, or not rewarding.

Check this item if the youth needs help from someone to plan positive leisure

activities or structure their fee time.

Tell me about any other interests or hobbies that you participate in that we haven’t talked
about already.

No

if Check this item if the youth has no personal interests of a positive nature.

Q Do ggt check this item if the youth participates in his/her interests (of a positive

nature).

 

 

9.05”?"

Peer Relations:

Cl
C]
E]
E]

Lack of Positive Peer Acquaintances
Lack of Positive Friends
Some Delinquent Peer Acquaintances

Some Delinquent Friends

Risk Level:

D
E]
[:1

(0-1) = Low
(2-3) I Moderate

 

(4) a High [ TOTAL:

 

 

StrengthsIComments:

 

59

 

 

4N8. Who are your friends? What are their names (ﬁrst names only if youth is uncomfortable
Idefensive)? What do they do to occupy their time? Do you have any acquaintances
and/or friends that get good grades, are in clubs, organizations, band, sports, student
government, etc?

“W

FYI:

FYI:

FYI:

I!

An acquaintance is deﬁned as a casual and largely superﬁcial peer contact

A positive acquaintance has not been involved in criminal activity for one year or
longer.

A positive acquaintance is involved in pro-social activities and makes positive and
constructive use of free time.

Check this item if the youth has no positive peer acquaintances.

43W

Afﬁendisdeﬁnedasmindividuaiwiﬂiwhommeyouthhasadoseemotional
attachmentwhoseopinimsarevaiuedmhoprwidessuppontomeyouthwhen
helsheneedshelp,etc.

Chedrmisnemiftheymnhhasnoﬁewdosefrlendswhoareposiﬂverdemodels.

Donotchedrﬁisitemiftheyouhspendsﬁmewithposiﬁveroiemodels, respects
‘theiropinion, anddoesnotengageinmtisccialbehaviorwhenwithm.

4CID. Do you have any acquaintances and/or friends who get in trouble with the lav/.7 Have
any been arrested? Do you know of any gangs in your school or neighborhood? Are any
of your acquaintances and/or friends involved in a gang? Are you associated with, or a
member of, a gang? How many of your acquaintances and/or friends use
drugs/alcohol?

40W

FYI:
a!

I?

An acquaintance is deﬁned as a casual and largely superﬁcial peer contact

Check this item if some of the youth’s peers/friends are known offenders, gang
members, or exhibit antisocial attitudes/behaviors.

Check this item if the youth has ongoing contact or past associations with
individuals who have criminal records or engage in criminal activity, but are not

60

close friends (e.g., fellow students, co-workers, people in the neighborhood,
teammates, etc).

4D- W
FYI: if this item is checked, then item 40 must also be checked.

FYI: A friend is deﬁned as an individual with whom the youth has a close emotional

attachment, whose opinions are valued, who provides support to the youth when
helshe needs help, etc.

5? Check this item if some of the youth’s friends are known offenders, gang members,

or exhibit antisocial attitudes/behaviors.

W Check this item if the youth displays friendship with individuals who have criminal

records or engage in criminal activity.

 

 

5. Substance Abuse: StrengthsIComments:

[I

when?
DUDE]

Risk Level:

E]
El
I3

Occasional Drug Use

Chronic Drug Use

Chronic Alcohol Use

Substance Abuse interferes with Life

Substance Use Linked to Offense(s)

(0) - Low
(1.2) . Moderate
(345) = High TOTAL:

 

 

 

 

 

5N3.

Many kids your age have at least tried marijuana. Have any of your friends tried it?
Have you tried it yet? How old were you when you tried it? How many times have you
used marijuana in the past 90 days? in the past year (e.g., 1x month, weekly, several
times a week)? Where do you use and with whom (at parties, with friends, alone, etc)?

What other drugs have you used (e.g., cocaine, crack, heroin, ecstasy, skittles, crystal —
meth, etc)? When did you begin and how much do you typically use? When was the
last time you used?

61

 

Have you ever used pills or prescription drugs that were not prescribed to you? When
was the last time you used these?

if i dropped you right now, would it come back dirty? For what dmgs?

MW

5CIF .

Occasional drug use is deﬁned as 1 use or more within the assessment period but

FY" short of 2x per week.
w Checkthisitem lithe youth isanoccasionai substanceuser.
ﬂ Check this item even if the youth’s dnig use is not perceived to be a problem
currently (i.e., the youth is a controlled and infrequent drug user).
8 Doggcheckthis item iftheyouthhasstoppedhislhersubstanceuseforlonger
then the assessment period.
thgjc Dmg Ugo;
FYI: If this item is checked, then 5A must also be checked.
FYl' Consider checking this item if the youth openly expresses worries about relapse or
' returning to drug usage.
it Check this item if the youth has been using illegal drugs 2x per week or more

and/or has a drug-related problem in at least one major life area (e.g., drug-related
arrests, school/employment problems, contacts with medical facilities for drug
problems, withdrawal symptoms, personality changes, family- social problems,
etc).

Most kids your age have at least tried alcohol. Have you tried it yet? How old were you
when you ﬁrst tried it?

How often do you drink? Do you ever get drunk when you drink? Do you drink just to get
drunk?

62

50.

5E.

How many times did you drink over the past 90 days? Over the past year?

Wallis;
i; if this item is checked, then item 5F (Experimental item) must also be checked.

Check this item if the youth has been drinking 2x per week or more, and has alcohol-
related problems in more than 1 major life area (e.g., passing-out, alcohol related
arrests, schooifemployment problems, or recent diagnosis of alcohol dependency).

y Consider checking this item for a youth who is worried about hislher drinking or
relapse.

Q

Do you think your drinking or drug usage could be affecting your schoolwork, family life,
or friendships? Have you been involved in any accidents that involved drinking or dnig
usage?

 

up Check this item if dniglalcohol use affects the youth’s physical-social functioning
and/or is associated with antisocial activity (e.g., problems with schoolwork, job,
parental relationships, loss of friends, accidents, etc).

Do you think your drinking or drug usage is causing your problems with the Court (law)?
Was your charge (offense! truancy) related to alcohol or drug use in any way? Were you
drunk/high at the time you committed your offense/truancy?

 

FYI: it is. abuse of illegal drugs leading to law violations that is important.
g Check this item if the youth’s criminal activity reﬂects his/her drug or alcohol use.

63

9' Check this item if the youth‘s use of alcohol or drugs is contributing, has
contributed, or might contribute (use your professional judgment) to violations or
the law of the youth’s probation. include drug trafficking to support a drug habit,
theft to support a drug habit, etc.

 

 

Family 8. Parenting: Strengths/Comments:
Inadequate Supervision
Difﬁculty in Controlling Behavior
inappropriate Discipline

inconsistent Parenting

DECIDE]

6.

A.

B

C.

D.

E. Poor Relations (Father-Youth)
F C] Poor Relations (Mother-Youth)
Risk Level:

D (0-2)= Low

El (34) = Moderate

C] (5—6) I High TOTAL:

 

 

 

 

 

6A With whom are you living? How many brothers and sisters do you have (biological, step,
foster)?

What does you mom do for work? What does your dad do for work? What kind of hours
(schedule, shift) do they work?

Who watches (supervises) you? Who watches you when your mom/dad is at work? Are
there any times when you are not supervised or when your parents don’t know where
you’re at? Tell me about those times. How often do these times occur?

MW

5: Check this item if the parent(s)lguardians(s) leave the youth unattended, and are not
aware of his/her activities.

 

GB.

9‘ Check this item if the parent(s)lguardians(s) leave the youth unsupenrised without
knowing how to contact him/her.

g Check this item if there are any additional situations of inadequate supervision per
your best judgment.

51 Check this item if the youth is living independently (without supervision).

Do you have daily or weekly chores to do in your home? Do you have rules that are
supposed to follow? Can you give me some examples of your family rules? Do you
respect Ifollow the household rules? (if no) How do your

parents react when you don’t mind them?

 

6C.

up Check this item if the parent(s)lguardians(s) have problems controllinglmanaging the
youth’s behavior (e.g., youth disobeys miss, instructions, leaves without permission,
runs away, etc).

,1 Check this item if the youth states or boasts about not following any rules or parents
not having any control over them.

5? Check this item if the youth has little or no respect for parental rules or authority.
5? Check this item if parents are unwilling or unable to enforce the household mles.

What are the consequences (punishments) for doing something wrong in your family?

Do you receive punishment for misbehaving? How often and what kind of punishment is
it?

summon

g Check this item if there is excessive corporal punishment, frequent use of yelling and
threats, overly harsh or strict miss, or other poor disciplinary practices.

g Check this item if the parent is overly permissive, with little or no effort at providing
direction, guidance, or discipline.

d Check this item if parent(s) unable/incapable of disciplining inappropriate behavior.

65

60. Do your parent(s) apply the rules fairly in your family? Do your parent(s) follow through
with consequences? Are they consistent in applying consequences or can you get out of
your punishment? is one parent more fair or consistent than the other? Can you split
(manipulate, divide) your parents to get your way or to get out of your punishment?

Do your parents get along? if no, do you think that it affects the way they discipline you?

all warm

Check this item if the parent(s)lguardians(s) are inconsistent in applying the rules and
use of punishment/rewards.

Check this item if the youth frequently manipulates one parent against the other.
Check this item if the parent(s)lguardian(s) cannot develop clear household rules
Check this item if there is no conventional household routine or structure.

assist a

Consider checking this item if one or more parents/guardians espouse antisocial
attitudes, beliefs or practices when around the youth.

6E. How do you get along with your father? What are some of the positive things you can
say about your relationship with him? What are some of the problem areas? if i asked
your father about your relationship with him, what do you think he would say?

Fle The youth does not need to be living with the father for this item to be checked.

FYI“ if there is a father/stepfather situation, base your answer on the most important
relationship over the assessment period.

66

FYI:

Rate this item with reference to the parental father ﬁgure with whom the youth
primarily resides.

Check this item if the father is absent, including absence due to military, out of
state residence, incarceration, etc

Check this item if the youth and the father have a poor relationship (i.e., hostile,
alienated, uncaring, etc).

Check this item if the youth rarely chooses to see/communicate with father,
argues when they are together, relationship ranges from dislike to hatred, or the
youth does not care what the father thinks, feels, or expects.

Check this item if there is signiﬁcant conﬂict, dissatisfaction, disappointment, or
indifference in the youth’s relationship with the father.

6F. How do you get along with your mother? What are some of the positive things you can
say about your relationship with her? What are some of the problem areas? if i asked
your mother about your relationship with her, what do you think her would say?

6F- W

FYI:
FYI:

FYI:

The youth does not need to be living with the mother for this item to be checked.

if there is a mother/stepmother situation, base your answer on the most important
relationship over the assessment period.

Rate this item with reference to the parental mother ﬁgure with whom the youth
primarily resides.

Check this item if the mother is absent, including absence due to military, out of
state residence, incarceration, etc.

Check this item if the youth and the mother have a poor relationship (i.e., hostile,
alienated, uncaring, etc).

Check this item if the youth rarely chooses to see/communicate with mother,
argues when they are together, relationship ranges from dislike to hatred, or the
youth does not care what the mother thinks, feels, or expects.

Check this item if there is signiﬁcant conﬂict, dissatisfaction, disappointment, or
indifference in the youth’s relationship with the mother.

67

 

 

Attitudes & Orientation:

[:1 Not Seeking Help
Actively Rejecting Help
Deﬁes Authority

7.
A.
B
C.
D Antisocial/Pro-criminal Attitudes
E.

DDDD

Callous, Little Concern for Others
Risk Level:

C] (O) = Low

C] (1-3) = Moderate

 

[:I (4-5) = High TOTAL:

 

 

 

Strengths/Comments:

 

7N8. How do you feel about your current offense lcharge I truancy, etc? Do you think you
could be helped from counseling, therapy, anger management, educational classes,
etc? Do you see the need for help in other areas of your life?

( if the youth is already receiving treatment/help, continue with this question) if you are
already receiving help (therapy, counseling, etc), do you see it as being of helpful to
you or your family/.7 Who set you up with getting this help? Do you feel forced into it?
Would you still be attending this help if authority (parents, court, etc.) were not making

you go?

68

 

7A.

7.8.

70.

W

g Check this item if the youth is not seeking help, or is reluctant to seek the necessary
interventions. ‘

g Check this item if the youth lacks insight as to the need for help andlor does not
recognize the value of help.

g Check this item if the youth actively rejects or refuses to participate in the
interventions of professionals or agencies.

d Check this item if the youth deﬁantly rejects help or passive aggressively rejects help.

g Check this item if the youth displays very poor attendance fer appointments designed
to help himRTer.

What do you think of the police? How do you feel you were treated by the police on your
charge?

What do you think of the Court system? How do you feel you have been treated by the
Court so far? How have you been treated at your hearing(s)?

How do you feel about people in authority telling you what to do (parents, family,
teachers, police, court, etc)? Do you think you should have to listen to (mind) them?

69

73- W

7D/E.

g Youth is hostile to the juvenile justice system AND refuses to follow directions from

parents. teachers. or other authority ﬁgures * W
W *

Why do you think people commit crimes (skip school)? Why do you think you
committed your crime (skipped school)? Looking back on what you did, how do you
feel about it?

Do you have any family [extended family members (including parents, siblings) who
have been in trouble with the law? Have any family members been to jail or prison?
For what? How do you feel about them given their criminal behavior?

Do you think it is okay to have friends who commit crimes? How do you feel about
friends who commit crimes? What would you do if you knew your friend was
committing crimes?

Why do you think we have laws? Do you think the laws are fair? Are there any laws
that you think are unfair that should be eliminated? Do you think that any of the laws
are unfair and should not apply to you?

Were there any victim(s) of your crime? How do you feel about the victim(s)? Note:
You may have to give insight into apparent victimless crimes, 9.9., how stealing CD’s
from Meijer increases costs which affects customers and how customers are viewed by
security, etc.

70- W

V Check this item if the youth’s attitudes are supportive of a criminal or anti-social

lifestyle.

70

78.

g Check this item if the youth’s attitudes, values, beliefs, and rationalizations about the

a;

W
5?

crime and victim show that helshe does not think social rules and laws apply to
him/her.

Check this item if the youth feels crime is useful, and helshe is better served by
crime.

Check this item if the youth denies responsibility for his/her actions and their
consequences, and fails to empathize with the welfare of others who were
victimized.

Check this item if the youth accepts criminal others, values antisocial activities, gag
expresses hostility toward the juvenile justice system.

Check this item if the youth expresses some guilt or remorse for the victim(s), but
there is a mixed expression of self-concem (e.g., l was in the wrong place at the
wrong time; I wish i hadn't been caught; l'm only guilty because i got caught, etc.)

Check this item if the youth has a mixed attitude toward criminal behavior, but still is
willing to bend/break the laws when convenient, or when it serves them.

Check this item if the youth has general disregard for non-criminal alternatives.

Check this item if the youth has weak ties to home, school, or work; and is negative,
hostile, and rejecting of non-criminal others.

to f

Check this item if the youth shows little ccncem for the feelings or welfare of others.

Check this box if the youth engages in self-serving behavior to the neglect of others’
welfare.

g Check this box if youth engages in antisocial, exploitive, predatory behavior.

 

 

s.
A.
a
c.
p
E
F
6

Personality 8. Behavior. Strengths/Comments:

DDDDDDD

Risk Level:

Short Attention Span

Poor Frustration Tolerance

Verbally AggressiveNerbally lntimidating
Explosive Episodes

Physically Aggressive

inadequate Guilt Feelings

inﬂated SelfeEsteem

 

 

 

71

 

 

[j to): Low
Cl (14):- Moderate
E] (5&7) . High TOTAL:

 

 

 

 

 

8A Do you have trouble concentrating or paying attention? Do other people think that you
have trouble concentrating or paying attention? Have you ever been told by others (e.g.,
teacher, counselor, psychologist, etc.) that you have a problem staying focused? Have
you ever been evaluated for ADDIADHD?

BAW

FYI: This refers to Attention Deﬁcit Disorder (ADD) related symptoms only, including:
short-attention span, distractibility, and impulsivity.

5? Check this item if the youth has signiﬁcant and consistent difficulty paying attention
and/or concentrating on tasks.

d Check this item if the youth has difficulty completing tasks or following sequential
directions.

g Check this item if the youth is hyperactive for his/her age or developmental level.

BB. What kinds of things ﬁustrate you? Do you lose your patience easily? Describe what
happens when you get frustrated? Do other people think that you get frustrated easily?

83- WW

g Check this item if the youth deals poorly with frustration, loses patience easily,
cverreacts to minor setbacks or frustrations.-

g Check this item if theyouth acts out distractively or violently when experiencing
frustration or failure.

g Check this item if the youth has signiﬁcant trouble delaying or postponing gratiﬁcation.
g Check this item if the youth gives up easily when tasks becomes more difﬁcult.

BC. What kinds of things make you angry? Do you yell, scream, or curse at other people when
you get frustrated or angry? Can you describe what happens? Does this help you get your

way?

72

 

w-W

if Check this item if the youth is often verbally abusive in dealing with others. '

5: Check this item if the youth often uses language in a hostile, threatening, or
lntimidating manner.

at Check this item if the youth uses verbal aggression to manipulate others.

BD/E. What kinds of things make you so angry that you physically lose control? How angry do

you get? What do you do when you get that angry? Do you break things, throw or punch
things, destroy property? Do you get into physical ﬁghts with other people? Can you
describe what happens (how bad do these ﬁghts get)?

 

g Check this item if the youth loses control physically of his/her temper when frustrated
or angry.

51 Check this item only if the youth‘s tantrums are. limited to destruction of property or
objects.

SEW

8F.

OF.

E! Check this item if the youth initiates physical aggression against others, starts ﬁghts,
or has engaged in violent actions.

99 Check this item if the youth believes physical aggression is an appropriate way of
expressing oneself and'deaiing withothers.

® Doggtcheck this item ifthe youth hashad oneminor, isolated aggressive incident
with peer(s).

How do you feel after you have lost control, exploded, or acted out angrily? How do you
think others feel after you have lost control? What do you think you could do to make
amends for what you have done?

mm

73

This item refers to the youth’s feelings about his! her actions and should not be

FY" confused with item 7E.

V Check this item if the youth feels no remorse for causing harm or threatening the
welfare of others.

g Check this item if the youth does not accept responsibility for hislher actions, or
offers excuses.

ﬂ Youth displays little anxiety and/or guilt in manipulating and/or exploiting others

BG. How do those that know you well describe you as a person? What do you like about
yourself (what are you good at)? Are there some things about yourself that you don’t like?
Do you sometimes think you are better or more talented than others? How do you know
this?

tie-MW

g Check this item if the youth thinks/demonstrates a need to express superiority over
others, brags constantly, and has feelings of self-worth that seem to exceed his/her

accomplishments.

74

 

 

YLSICMI interview Guide Scoring Summary

 

 

1. Prior 8. Current OffensesIDisposltions:

StrengthsIComments:

 

1"

Three or More Prior Convictions

 

Two or More Failures to Comply

 

Prior Probation

 

Prior Custody

 

r1990
DDDDD

Three or More Current Convictions

 

Risk Level:

 

D (UPI-0W

 

B (1-2) 8 Moderate

 

1:] (3-5) -- High

 

TOTAL:

 

 

Education:

StrengthsIComments:

 

U Low Achievement

 

U Problems with Teachers

 

 

El Disruptive Classroom Behavior

 

E] Disruptive Behavior on School Property

 

[j Truancy

2.
A.
B.
C. E] Problems with Peers
D.
E.
F.

 

Risk Level:

 

El (Oi-Low

 

[:1 (1-3) 8 Moderate

 

D l“) ' Hltlh

 

TOTAL:

 

 

Leisure & Recreation:

StrengthsiComrnents:

 

CI Lack of Organized Activities

 

[j Could Make Better Use of Time

 

99?."

Cl No Personal interests

 

 

Risk Level:

 

75

 

 

 

 

D

(0) = Low

 

D

(1)=Moderate

 

 

D

(2'3) 3 High TOTAL:

 

 

 

4. Peer Relations:

Strengths/Comments:

 

D

Lack of Positive Peer Acquaintances

 

D

Lack of Positive Friends

 

D

Some Delinquent Peer Acquaintances

 

9.0.“?

D

Some Delinquent Friends

 

Risk Level:

 

D

(0-1) = Low

 

D

(2-3) = Moderate

 

Substance Abuse:

Strengths/Comments:

 

D

Occasional Drug Use

 

Chronic Drug Use

 

Chronic Alcohol Use

 

Substance Abuse interferes with Life

 

5.
A.
B.
C
D
E

DDDD

Substance Use Linked to Offense(s)

 

Risk Level:

 

D

(0) 8 Low

 

[3 (1-2) - Moderate

 

 

D

(3'5) 3 High TOTAL:

 

 

 

 

76

 

 

Family 8: Parenting:

StrengthaIComments:

 

inadequate Supervision

 

Difﬁculty in Controlling Behavior

 

Inappropriate Discipline

 

inconsistent Parenting

 

Poor Relations (Father-Youth)

 

s.
A.
"e.
c.
o.
E.
F.

DDDDDD

Poor Relations (Mother-Youth)

 

Risk Level:

 

D

(0-2) = Low

 

D

(34) 8 Moderate

 

D

(5-6) . High TOTAL:

 

 

 

7. Attitudes at Orientation:

StrengthsIComments:

 

Not Seeking Help

 

Actively Rejecting Help

 

Deﬁes Authority

 

Antisocial/Pro—criminal Attitudes

 

rapper
DDDDD

Callous, Little Concern for Others

 

Risk Level:

 

D

(0) 8 Low

 

D

(1-3) :- Moderate

 

D

(4-5l ' High TOTAL:

 

 

 

Personality s Behavior:

Strengths/Comments:

 

Short Attention Span

 

Poor Frustration Tolerance

 

Verbally AggressiveNerbally lntimidating

 

Explosive Episodes

 

Physically Aggressive

 

inadequate Guilt Feelings

 

 

PF‘WPPPPP
DDDDEIDEI

Inﬂated Self-Esteem

 

 

77

 

 

Risk Level:

 

D (0l= LOW

 

C} (1-4) = Moderate

 

 

C] (5-7) = High

 

TOTAL:

 

 

78

 

 

APPENDIX 8.

Check List of Guiding Principles of Short Form Development

Table 1

Short Form Guiding Methodological Principles across Mixed Method and

Empirical Short Form

 

Methodological Principles Mixed Empirical
Method

1. Develop a short form of an sufﬁciently validated measure Yes Yes

2. Show'thatciassification ratesremainhigh with-theshort Yes Yes

form

3. Show that short form preserves the content coverage of Yes No

each factor in the measure

4. Show that short form offers meaningful time or resource Yes Yes

savings for the loss in validity

5. Show that short form measures each factor scale reliability Yes No

6. Show empiricallythat’short formreproduces the factor Yes No

structure of a multicultural instrument

7. Show that short form has adequate overlapping variance No No

with the full form, using independent administration

8. Short form omits sub-factors and preserves only overall No Yes

factors, then fall to show that the short form preserves the

content domains represented by the sub—factors

9.8how that each factor in the'short fonnhas validity on an No No

independent sample

 

Note. Check List of Guiding Principles Adopted from Smith, McCarthy, &

Anderson (2000) "On Sins of Short-Form Development” across Mixed Method

and Empirical Short Forms

79

APPENDIX C.

Result Tables of Mixed Method Short Form, Empirical Short Form, and Original

Table 2

YLSICMI Long Form

Mixed Method Short Form as Determined by Bivariate Correlations across Two-

Year Recidivism

 

Domain

Prior Offenses and
Disposition

Family Circumstances and
Parenting

Family Circumstances and
Parenting

Education and Employment

Education and Employment
Peer Relationships

Peer Relationships

Substance Abuse
Substance Abuse
Leisure and Recreation
Leisure and Recreation

Personality and Behavior
Personality and Behavior
Attitudes and Orientation
Attitudes and Orientation

items
Failure to Comply
inconsistent Parenting

Poor Relationship with
Father

Disruptive Behavior in
Classroom

Problems with Teachers
Some Delinquent Friends

Some Positive
Acquaintances
Occasional Drug Use
Chronic Drug Use

Limited Organized Activities
Could Make Better Use of
Time

inﬂated Self-Esteem
Physically Aggressive
Procriminal Attitudes
Deﬁes Authority

1'

.07
-09
.10

.17

.14
.15
.10

.05
.10
.15

.13
.13
.05
.07

p value

p>.05
p<.05*
p<.05*

p<.05*

p<.05*
p<.05*
p<.05*

p>.05
p>.05
p<.05*
p<.05*

p<.05*
p<.05*

p>.05
p>.05

 

Note. Fcorrelation coefﬁcient; p<.05“'= signiﬁcant two tailed test

Table 3

Empirical Short Form Table of item Signiﬁcance by AUC Scores across Two-

 

Year Recidivism
items AUC Score p value Conﬁdence
interval

Disruptive Behavior in the Classroom .59 p<.05* .54-.64
Disruptive Behavior on School Grounds -55 p<.05* .50-.60
Low Achievement .56 p<.05* .51 -.61
Problems with Peers in School .55 p<.05* .50—.60
Problems with Teachers .56 p<.05* .51-.62
Some Delinquent Acquaintances .55 p<.05* .50-.60
Some Delinquent Friends .57 p<.05* .50-.60
Limited Organized Activities .55 p<.05* .53—.63
Could Make Better Use of Time .58 p<.05* .50-.61
Physically Aggressive .56 p<.05* .50-.61
Short Attention Span .55 p<.05* .50—.61

 

Note. None of the remaining 31 items of the YLSICMI produced signiﬁcant AUC
statistics; AUC score= Area Under the Curve Statistic/Receiver Operating

Characteristic, which identiﬁes probability of true positives/correct classiﬁcation of
juveniles who recidivated; p<.05*= identiﬁes signiﬁcant two tailed AUC test;

Conﬁdence interval=specifies range of AUC statistic

81

Table 4
Comparative Reliability Outcomes of the Mixed Method, Empirical, and Original
YLSICMI Forms

 

Form Type Number of items Reliability
Mixed Method 15 .74
Empirical 1 1 .74
Original 42 .87

 

Note. Reliability=inter-item reliability coefﬁcient

82

Table 5

Comparative AUC Outcomes of Mixed Method, Empirical and Original

 

YLSICMI

Form Type AUC Score Conﬁdence interval
Mixed Method .64 .60-.69
Empirical .64 .59-.69

Original .63 .58-.68

 

Note. AUC Score= Area Under the Curve Statistic/Receiver Operating
Characteristic, which identiﬁes probability of true positives/correct
classiﬁcation rate of juveniles who recidivated; Conﬁdence
lntervai=speciﬁes range of AUC statistic

83

Table 6

Crosstabulations of Recidivism Rates of Mixed Method Short Form

 

Score Range Sample Sample 2- yr

Size Percentage Recidivism

Rate
Low 0-3 319 57% 25%
Moderate 4-7 185 33% 40%
High 8-15 53 10% 47%

 

Table 7

Crosstabulations of Recidivism Rates of Empirical Short Form

 

Score Range Sample Sample 2— yr

Size Percentage Recidivism

Rate
Low 0-4 341 61% 24%
Moderate 5-7 148 26% 41%
High 8-11 68 13% 51%

 

85

Table 8
Crosstabulations of Recidivism Rates of Original YLSI CMi Form

 

Score Range Sample Sample 2— yr

Size Percentage Recidivism
Rate
Low 0-8 355 64% 26%
Moderate 9-22 183 33% 43%
High 23-42 20 3% 40%

 

86

References

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classiﬁcation for effective
rehabilitation, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Bechtel, K, Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E. (2007). Assessing the risk of re-
offending for juvenile offenders using the Youth Level of ServicelCase
Management inventory. Joumal of Oﬁ‘ender Rehabilitation, 45, 85-108.

Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use.
Criminal Justice and Behavion 29, 355-379.

Brofenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
design and nature. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohen, MA. (1998). The monetary value of saving high-risk youth. Joumal of
Quantitative Criminology, 14(1), 5-33.

Cottle, C.C., Lee, R.J., & Heilbum, K (2001). The prediction of criminal
recidivism in juveniles. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 367-394.
Dembo, R. 8. Schmeidler, J. (2003). A classiﬁcation of high-risk youths. Crime &

Delinquency, 49, 201 -230.

Denning, R. 8 Homel, R. (2008). Predicting recidivism in juvenile offenders on
community-based orders: The impact of risk factors and services delivery.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46, 189-21 5.

Flores, A.W., Travis, L.F., & Latessa, E.J. (2004). Case classiﬁcation for juvenile
conoctions: An assessment of the Youth Level of Service/Case
Management inventory (Y LSICMl), executive summary (98-JB-VX-0108).
Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice.

Funk, ’8. (1999). Risk assessment for juveniles on probation: A focus on gender.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 44-68.

Gorman-Smith, D., Toian, P.H., Zelii, A., & Huesmann, LR. (1996). The relation
of family functioning to violence among inner-city minority youths. Journal
of Family Psycholon 10, 1‘15 129.

Grove, W. & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efﬁciency of informal (subjective,
impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction
procedures: The clinical- statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 2, 293-323.

Hoge, R. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in
youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 380-396.

87

Hoge, R.D., Andrews, D. A., 8 Leschied, AW. (1996). An Investigation of risk
and protective factors in a sample of youth offender. Joumal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 419-424.

Hoge, R. D., Andrews, D. A., & Leschied, A. w. (1995). Investigation of variables
associated with probation and custody dispositions in a sample of
juveniles. Joumal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 279-286.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, l, H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw Hill.

McHomey, C. & Ware, J.E. (1995). Construction and validation of an alternate
form general mental health scale for the medical outcomes study short
form 36-‘rtem health survey. Medical Care, 33, 15-28.

Onifade, E., Davidson, W., Campbell, C., Turke, G., and Malinowski, J. (2008).
Predicting the who, what, and when of delinquency with the Youth Level of
Service/Case Management Inventory. Criminal Justice Behavior.

Robertson, A A., Grimes, P. W., & ROgers, K E. (2001). A short-run cost
beneﬁts analysis of community-based interventions for juvenile offenders.
Crime & Delinquency, 47, 265—284.

Schmidt, F ., Hoge. R. D., & Gomes, L. (2005). Reliability and validity analyses of
the youth level of service/case management inventory. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 32, 329-344.

Schumacher. M., & Kurz, G. A. (2000). The 8% solution: preventing serious,
repeat juvenile crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Schwalbe, C. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis.
Law Human Behavior, 31, 449-462.

Schwalbe, C.S., Day, S. H., Arnold, E. M. (2004). North Carolina assessment of
risk (NCAR), reliability and predictive validity with juvenile offenders.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 4, 1-22.

Schwalbe, C. 8., Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., Cooley, V. (2006). Classifying
juvenile offenders according to risk of recidivism predictive validity,
race/ethnicity, and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 305-324.

Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., Anderson, KG. (2000). On the sins of short-fomi
development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 1, 102-111.

88

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006
National Report. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, Ofﬁce of
Justice Programs, Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(NCJ212906).

Turner, S. & Fain, T. (2006). Validation of the risk and resiliency assessment tool
juveniles in the Los Angeles county probation system. Federal Probation,
70, 49-57.

Watson, D. W. (2004). Juvenile offender comprehensive reentry substance
abuse treatment. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55 (3), 211-224.

Winfree, L. T., Backstrom, T. V., & Mays, G. L. (1994). Social learning theory,

self-report delinquency, and youth gangs. Youth and Society, 26, 147-
177.

89