Citation for published item:wrseeD wFeF nd frryD gFF nd ghildsD uFuF nd prikD FtF nd uimonisD iFF nd gentifnti @n¡ ee wu£ nozAD vFgF nd euoinD uFtF nd pssnhtD qFwF nd uunimtsuD wFwF nd vuD uFF @PHIIA 9essessing the forms nd funtions of ggression using selfEreport X ftor struture nd invrine of the peer on)it sle in youthsF9D syhologil ssessmentFD PQ @QAF ppF UWPEVHRF Further information on publisher's website: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

No abstract

Theories and prior research have outlined a constellation of adolescent risk behaviors that tend to co-occur, reflecting a general pattern. Although their generality has largely been supported, there is some question about how to best study and portray the relationship among these behaviors. This study used data from a survey administered to high school youth (n = 2549, 38 schools). The general population sample comprised an even split between boys and girls, averaged roughly 16 years of age, and was 59% White and 10% Hispanic/Latino. Using latent class analysis, four subgroups, comprised of varying types and degrees of risky behavior, were identified. Specifically, there were two groups that "abstained" and "experimented" with risky behaviors and two others that had higher, but somewhat distinct, patterns of such activities. These groups were then examined in relation to youth characteristics (e.g., mental and physical health, school performance) and socio-environmental factors (e.g., social support, parental monitoring) that may be useful for better understanding "problem behavior syndrome" and development of prevention strategy.

The current study investigated bullying behaviors in 284 school children in the fourth through seventh grades at the time of the initial assessment. Peer ratings of bullying behavior were obtained at the end of the spring semester of one school year and at the end of the fall semester of the next school year. Importantly, peer ratings were obtained by assessing not only the level at which participants actually bully other students but also whether participants help bullies to hurt the victim (assister), encourage bullies (reinforce), or help the victim of bullying (defender). Our results did not support the utility of differentiating between bullies, assisters, or reinforcers. Specifically, these bullying roles were highly intercorrelated, both concurrently and across school years, and they showed similar correlations with aggression and several characteristics often associated with aggression (i.e., conduct problems, callous-unemotional traits, and positive expectancies about aggression). In contrast, ratings of defending designated a particularly prosocial group of students. Finally, whereas bullying appeared to be very similar in boys and girls, it was somewhat more stable across school years and was related to lower levels of prosocial behavior in boys, both of which could suggest that bullying may be somewhat more related to social group dynamics in girls.

Background-Adolescent offenders may be at high risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). With previous research and interventions focused on incarcerated adolescents, data are needed on STD prevalence and risk factors among newly arrested youth released to the community, a far larger subgroup.