| |
Background
In order to guide juvenile processing decisions (filing, adjudication, detention, commitment), judges, attorneys, case managers, and probation staff
rely on standardized instruments to assess the risks and needs of youth. Using such instruments systematizes decision-making criteria and provides
consistent and objective standards to make the juvenile justice system more efficient and effective.
Because of increased prevalence of girls in the juvenile justice system and heightened public awareness, practitioners and policymakers have questioned
whether the instruments currently in use are appropriate for girls. Gender is an important variable in understanding delinquent behavior and must be
addressed in developing assessment tools. However, no research to date has systematically examined the extent to which instruments used in the juvenile
justice system are valid for girls. The GSG conducted such a review between May 2006 and February 2007.
Review Process
To assess whether gender-responsive risk assessment and treatment-focused instruments exist for delinquent girls, the researchers conducted a
comprehensive examination of relevant instruments. The examination had two primary phases: a preliminary search for instruments and an intensive
examination of instruments that met the inclusion criteria.
The researchers conducted the initial literature searches between May 2006 and February 2007. To ensure consistency of information across instruments
and verify previously collected information, the researchers conducted a comprehensive quality check and Web search for all instruments in January and
February 2008. The findings presented here reflect the information the researchers located on each instrument during the given timeframes.
The researchers primarily examined instruments explicitly intended for use with youth involved in the justice system as well as instruments that address
issues that these youth frequently face (e.g., suicide risk) regardless of whether the instruments were specifically developed for this population. Thus,
instruments developed with community-based samples, but not necessarily intended for youth in the juvenile justice system, were also included. Although
the primary audience of this information is juvenile justice practitioners, the review may also be useful to any practitioner implementing a community-based
delinquency prevention program.
The researchers limited their review to instruments in the following four categories (the last three of which are treatment-focused instruments):
- Risk and risk/needs assessment instruments
- Global needs assessment instruments
- Substance abuse instruments
- Mental health instruments
The researchers identified instruments through literature and Web searches and reference books. Books the researchers consulted included Assessing
the Youthful Offender: Issues and Techniques (Hoge and Andrews, 1996) and Mental Health Screening and Assessment in Juvenile Justice
(Grisso, Vincent, and Seagrave, 2005).
The researchers also solicited practitioner input through three sources. First, the researchers capitalized on knowledge generated from a related GSG
project—a review of programs for girls—and included instruments that program directors of female-targeted programs identified. Second, the researchers
included assessment instruments that local program directors serving juveniles under the Federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative reported.
Finally, the researchers included submissions received from practitioners through the GSG Web site.
The preliminary search yielded an initial set of 327 instruments. Before conducting the intensive examination, 184 instruments were removed from the initial set, for a final total of 143 instruments. Reasons for exclusion included the following:
- Outdated or duplicate instruments (n = 14). This set included instruments replaced by later versions, subscales of existing instruments, and those that
measured against outdated criteria (e.g., the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition [DSM–III] instead of the DSM–IV).
- Inappropriate instruments (n =33). This set included instruments intended for use with boys or adults, those exclusively used and tested on non-U.S.
populations, and those used solely for research or prevalence studies (e.g., surveys).
- Instruments outside the project’s scope (n = 92). This set included instruments too broadly focused for common use with justice-involved youth (i.e.,
they did not fall into one of the four major categories: risk assessment, global needs assessment, substance use, or mental health).
- Instruments that could not be verified (n = 45). This set included instruments for which the researchers could not locate sufficient detail to either
confirm the instrument’s existence or conduct the examination. (These tended to be instruments identified by practitioners and instruments mentioned only
by acronym in article abstracts.)
The researchers cataloged information about each instrument in a spreadsheet. Sources of information included Web sites and documentation from instrument
developers, existing instrument reviews (e.g., the Mental Measurements Yearbook and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s Guide to
Assessing Alcohol Problems), and literature searches (including article abstracts and full-text articles).
The researchers considered an instrument to have favorable gender-based performance if it met at least one of the following criteria:
- Gender-based development—The instrument offers gender-specific norms or scoring, has gender-specific versions, or includes gender-specific items.
- Favorable gender-based analysis—Analysis indicated that the instrument’s validity or reliability did not differ by gender, that its scores were not
correlated with gender, or that gender differences the instrument revealed were consistent with the literature (e.g., girls scored higher on mental health
issues and boys on physical aggression).
For each instrument, the researchers developed the following categories for findings:
- Favorable—The instrument had positive gender-based performance information.
- Unclear—The instrument had mixed or inconsistent gender-based performance information.
- Unfavorable—The instrument had negative gender-based performance information.
- Unknown—The instrument lacked gender-based performance information.
Practitioners attempting to choose between instruments can use this Web tool and Bulletin as key resources. However, users should not consider these
findings recommendations for which instruments should or should not be put into practice with girls. Such a recommendation would involve a number of
considerations that go beyond gender (such considerations are discussed in detail in the OJJDP Bulletin on page 8). An instrument may show favorable
gender performance but be considered inappropriate for other reasons (e.g., because the full norming sample is not representative or because it is not
reliable or valid). Conversely, an instrument with unknown gender performance information may work perfectly well for girls, but the researchers might
not have located evidence that it works appropriately. Or more recent information published after this study’s review period may demonstrate that an
instrument with ”unknown” gender performance has been validated for use with girls.
References
Grisso, T., Vincent, G., and Seagrave, D. 2005. Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hoge, R.D., and Andrews, D.A. 1996. Assessing the youthful offender: Issues and techniques. New York:
Plenum Press.
Insert OJJDP contact information
|
