Measuring Antisocial Values and Attitudes in Justice-Involved Male Youth

Abstract

The Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) framework for working with offenders has been well validated. Factors that contribute to reoffending within adult and youth forensic populations have been identified, including antisocial attitudes, but less is known about the measurement of this construct in youth. Thus, in the present study, the reliability and validity of criminal attitudes measures were examined in a sample of justice-involved male youth (N = 291). Two measures widely used with adult offenders were included in the present study: the Pride in Delinquency Scale (PID) and the Criminal Sentiments Scale–Modified (CSS-M). Both measures were found to be reliable and valid, and of importance, useful in the prediction of reoffending behavior (area under the curve = .70 and .69 respectively). These findings further support the use of the RNR framework in general with youthful offenders, and more specifically, the use of criminal attitudes measures with youth.

Examination of convergent validity of START: AV ratings among male juveniles on probation

“…Decades of research have found a huge number of factors significant to the origins and maintenance of delinquent behaviour (Skilling & Sorge, 2014), such as antisocial peers or attitudes, personality or misconduct problems, poor parent-child relations, educational difficulties and/or ineffective use of leisure time are the best predictors of delinquency (Campbell, Schmidt, & Wershler, 2016;Cauffman & Steinberg, 2012;Contreras, Molina, & Cano, 2011;Grieger & Hosser, 2014;Heilbrun et al, 2000;Simourd & Andrews, 1994). The domain of behavioural history is the strongest predictor of future delinquency (Casey, 2011;Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001;Farrington, 2005;Frick, 2012;Frick, Ray, Thornton, & Kahn, 2014;Wasserman et al, 2003) meaning that the earlier the onset of behaviour problems, the worse predictions of desistance from antisocial behaviour are in the future (Dishion & Patterson, 2006;Loeber & Farrington, 2000;Moffitt, 1993Moffitt, , 2006.…”

“…Individual characteristics play an important role in manifestation of delinquent behaviour (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Skilling & Sorge, 2014). Antisocial personality pattern refers to extremes of normal dimensions of personality that exist within general population (Grieger & Hosser, 2014;Hare & Neumann, 2010); however, there are some doubts whether any particular type of personality can be labelled for adolescents as there is a threat that some maladaptive features prevailing in adolescence can lead to the positive false assessment of antisocial personality (Hart, Watt, & Vincent, 2002;Seagrave & Grisso, 2002).…”

“…The importance of antisocial attitudes in the prediction of delinquent behaviour has a long history already (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Evans, 2017;Mills, Kroner, & Hemati, 2004;Skilling & Sorge, 2014); however, this importance may vary across different types of offenders and different types of antisocial attitudes (Banse, Koppehele-Gossel, Kistemaker, Werner, & Schmidt, 2013, Mills, Kroner, & Forth, 2002. As the vast majority of studies are conducted within adult offender populations (see Walters, 2012), there is a lack of evidence that attitudes play an important role in juvenile offending.…”

Attitudes, Associates, and Romantic Relationships: Validating the Measure of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA) in a Sample of Male and Female Adolescent Offenders

“…Another study found moderate correlations between PIDS scores and rearrests (r = .32) as well as reincarcerations (r = .31) in nonviolent male adult offenders (Simourd & Van De Ven, 1999). Although these results show the utility of the scale in assessing these kinds of attitudes, little to no work has been done with the PIDS for assessing attitudes in females specifically, although its predictive validity has been recently demonstrated with adolescent male offenders (Skilling & Sorge, 2014).…”

“…correlated with recidivism (r = .36) in a sample of adolescent male offenders(Skilling & Sorge, 2014). Cronbach's alphas with the present adolescent sample are acceptable, with α = .85 for males and α = .87 for females.Youth-Level of Service Inventory (YLS-CMI, 2.0; Hoge & Andrews, 2011).…”