|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The goal of this article by Swenson and Kennedy was to analyze the relationship between chronic adolescent criminals' perceptions about personal responsibility for their behaviors and treatment outcome.
METHODOLOGY:
A quasi-experimental design was employed for this study. The sample consisted of 307 chronic adolescent offenders who exhibited two general types of behavioral problems: externalizing (e.g., aggression towards others) and internalizing (e.g., learning disabilities). All participants had been committed to a state training school in the Southeast U.S. Criteria for inclusion were the commission of a felony, a previous criminal history, and an expected stay of six months to several years. All subjects were males, ages 14 to 18 years old. The racial breakdown was Caucasian (97), African-American (201), and Hispanic (9).
The authors examined data gathered in a one-year period. They looked at the following documents for each participant. Teachers administered the Child Behavior Checklist that covered 118 adolescent behavior problems and summarized internalizing and externalizing problems. The Multidimensional Measure of Children's Perceptions of Control measured adolescents' perceptions of the degree to which outcomes depend upon the individual's behavior. Similarly, the Perceived Contingency Behavioral Domain Scale addressed perceived sources of control on behavior. The Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale assessed the adolescents' perceptions of competence. Finally, "treatment outcome" was defined as members' of the behavior management program daily write-ups on each offender.
The authors hypothesized that perceived control would effect treatment outcome differently for externalizers versus internalizers. They also believed that externalizers and internalizers would respond differently to various kinds of treatment. Subjects were categorized as externalizers (or severe externalizers) if their scores indicated that their major behavior problem was external. Those with scores indicating major internalizing problems were categorized as internalizers. Interrater reliability for the measure of treatment outcome was found to be only 55%. First, the authors conducted regressions to determine whether the predictor variables for treatment outcome held true for data collected at both time periods: during and after treatment. Then, zero-order correlations were calculated to determine the relationship between externalizing and internalizing scores on the Child Behavior Checklist. Procedures for analyzing predictors of all students' treatment outcomes included a forward stepwise regression, calculation of each variable's F, analysis of residuals, and the distribution was normalized by computing natural logs for each score.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The following six measures were found to be significantly and negatively correlated with adolescent behavior problems: total self-concept, denial of behavior problems, self-assessment of academic skill/intelligence, self-assessment of physical competence, perception of self as relaxed, and perception of self as happy. Analysis revealed a strong positive correlation (.63) indicating an overlap between internalizing and externalizing behaviors in adolescent offenders. Three variables were found to be weak, but significant, predictors of treatment outcome. The base model found that attribution of social failures to unknown facts accounted for 1% of the variance. The next causal models added age, which contributed an additional 3% of the variance, and self-assessment of physical competence that explained an additional 5% of the variance in treatment outcome.
Next, the authors analyzed the predictors of treatment outcome for different behavioral types of offenders. This type of offender was found to have two significant predictors. Variance of treatment outcome was explained in part by perception of self as happy (7%) and attributing overall successful outcomes to self (5%). The subjects whose scores showed their primary behavior problems to be internal were also found to have two significant predictors. The variable self-assessment of physical confidence accounted for 9% of the variance in treatment outcome. Adding the variable attributing overall failure outcomes to self to the causal model explained an additional 7% of the variance. Finally, offenders classified as severe externalizers were found to have one significant predictor of treatment outcome. Assessment of self as worried or anxious explained 63% of the variance.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors suggested that accepting responsibility for one's successes was an important element of treatment programs. They recommended that adaptive belief styles (e.g., assuming responsibility for problems) and the compensatory model (i.e., focusing on problem solving rather than guilt) should be utilized by leaders of juvenile delinquency programs. The authors were dissatisfied with the ability of the Child Behavior Checklist to diagnose internalizing versus externalizing behavior problems.
EVALUATION:
In general, this study provides some useful insights into why individual juvenile offenders have different outcomes from treatment programs. It should be noted that no random sampling was employed, and generalizability is limited. Perhaps more serious, the interrater reliability for the dependent variable, treatment outcome, was so low that all results should be questioned. Further research should employ a random sample in the research design to increase external validity. In conclusion, this study presents a one assessment of the predictive powers of perceived contingency and perceived competency for treatment outcomes of chronic adolescent offenders.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Treatment
KW - Offender Treatment
KW - Juvenile Perceptions
KW - Male Perceptions
KW - Offender Perceptions
KW - Male Offender
KW - Male Crime
KW - Male Delinquency
KW - Delinquency Treatment
KW - Crime Treatment
KW - Juvenile Crime
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Treatment Outcome
KW - Offender Responsibility
KW - Juvenile Responsibility
KW - Treatment Effectiveness |