2002
DOI: 10.1300/j007v19n03_04
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outcomes of Residential Treatment of Antisocial Youth: Development of or Cessation from Adult Antisocial Behavior

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The researchers pointed out that only 28.6% of the youth persisted in antisocial behaviors into adulthood. According to Frankfort-Howard and Romm (2002) their findings are favorable compared to an epidemiological study by Robins (1966) that presented a national average that the antisocial behaviors of 40-50% of adolescents persisted into adulthood. Frankfort-Howard and Romm (2002) identified that in their research treatment completion was a significant factor for youth who did not continue antisocial behaviors into adulthood.…”
Section: Wilmshurstmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The researchers pointed out that only 28.6% of the youth persisted in antisocial behaviors into adulthood. According to Frankfort-Howard and Romm (2002) their findings are favorable compared to an epidemiological study by Robins (1966) that presented a national average that the antisocial behaviors of 40-50% of adolescents persisted into adulthood. Frankfort-Howard and Romm (2002) identified that in their research treatment completion was a significant factor for youth who did not continue antisocial behaviors into adulthood.…”
Section: Wilmshurstmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…According to Frankfort-Howard and Romm (2002) their findings are favorable compared to an epidemiological study by Robins (1966) that presented a national average that the antisocial behaviors of 40-50% of adolescents persisted into adulthood. Frankfort-Howard and Romm (2002) identified that in their research treatment completion was a significant factor for youth who did not continue antisocial behaviors into adulthood. Although the archival data presented a number of limitations, Franfort-Howard and Romm propose that residential treatment appeared to have a positive impact on the lives of those youth with antisocial behaviors who completed the program.…”
Section: Wilmshurstmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…Although both groups' percent school attendance significantly worsened, the difference between groups was not significant over this time frame. Overall, the full treatment response findings provide more evidence for the notion that not only is residential treatment effective in treating youths with behavior problems (Blackman et al 1991;Frankfort-Howard and Romm 2002;Larzelere et al 2001;Leichtman et al 2001;Moore and O'Connor 1991) but it is most beneficial to those youths with behavior problems (Lyons and Schaefer 2000). Having a diagnosis of CD was associated with a greater likelihood of being discharged into the department of corrections and a greater tendency towards ''negative'' discharges.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Several studies have found residential treatment to be successful in reducing antisocial (Frankfort-Howard and Romm 2002) and violent (Lyons and Schaefer 2000) behaviors that are associated with CD. In fact, Lyons and Schaefer (2000) suggest that extremely violent, dangerous cases may receive the greatest benefit within residential treatment.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary focus of our study was to further assess whether antisocial youth entering a large, residential facility would demonstrate negative peer influence during care as a result of placement. While the overwhelming majority of the youth in this facility are delinquent, antisocial, oppositional, and defiant, we adopted the approach of previous researchers (Frankfort-Howard and Romm 2002;Frick 2001) that examined those youth who met specific criteria for DSM disorders associated with frequent, intense violations of societal norms (i.e., conduct disorder). This allowed us to investigate negative peer influence at the J Child Fam Stud (2009) 18:719-730 721 population level as well as within the potentially highly susceptible group of youth who were exhibiting conduct problems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%