Identification of children at risk at the police station and the prevention of delinquency.

Psychiatry Interpersonal and Biological Processes

ISSN: 0033-2747 (Print) 1943-281X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upsy20

Identification of Children at Risk at the Police Station and the Prevention of Delinquency Evert M. Scholte To cite this article: Evert M. Scholte (1992) Identification of Children at Risk at the Police Station and the Prevention of Delinquency, Psychiatry, 55:4, 354-369, DOI: 10.1080/00332747.1992.11024609 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1992.11024609

Published online: 03 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upsy20 Download by: [Australian Catholic University]

Date: 05 August 2017, At: 06:21

Identification of Children at Risk at the Police Station and the Prevention of Delinquency

Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 06:21 05 August 2017

Evert M. Scholte IN 1978 the World Health Organization suggested that the efficient use of health resources in a global context means paying special attention to those in greatest need. The aim of community health services should be, among other activities, to identify those "at risk" as early as possible in their lives and to intervene directly to reduce that risk (Skuse 1987). In the area of behavioral development, problems are frequently reported: In the Netherlands about 26% of all children appear to have some difficulties with behavioral development (Verhulst 1985). Set in the context of the WHO recommendation, these figures stress the point that early intervention with regard to children at risk should receive high priority from community educational health services. The accurate identification in the general youth population of individual children at risk for disorders is quite difficult (Frankenburg et al. 1987; Offord 1987). For example, the multiple gating assessment procedure proposed by Loeber, Dishion, and Patterson (1985) identifies correctly only 56% of the cases of children at risk for delinquency. This seems to put a severe stress on carrying out the recommendation of the WHO. One solution, however, is to perform the early identification not in the general youth population but in subpopulations of children who are more clearly at risk (secondary prevention). We can see juveniles who have come into contact with the police for a first or second offence as such. This article presents the outline and effects of a secondary prevention program for this group of youngsters. OUTLINE OF THE PREVENTION PROGRAM

The secondary prevention program was developed in The Hague at the request of

the juvenile department of the police and mental health agencies dealing with children at risk because of emotional and behavioral difficulties. It was developed and tested in 1984. Figure 1 summarizes the overall design and the various research groups involved. The program comprises two stages. In stage one, identification of children at psychosocial risk is carried out by the detectives of the juvenile police. To carry out effective identification, detectives must know what problems they need to look for in the lives of juveniles. In order to do this a method of identification of children at risk was developed. In stage two children identified as at risk are sent to a treatment program. Here they are helped by mental health professionals, directed toward the specific problems of the individual juveniles and/or their parents. To find out whether this secondary prevention approach is fruitful, the effect of the prevention program is evaluated. This is done by assessing whether the risk conditions in the lives of the juveniles sent

Evert M Scholte, PhD, is Educational Psychologist, Department of Special Education, Institute for Youth Welfare, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52,2333 AK Leiden, The Netherlands.

354

PSYCHIATRY, Vol. 55, November 1992

CHILDREN AT RISK AT THE POLICE STATION total population juveni les with police contacts in The Hague, 1984


secondary matching

Figure 1. Research design.

to the prevention program have lessened after a follow-up period of 6 months, in comparison with the risk conditions of the juveniles in a control group. Because we have to deal with an intact field situation, random construction of the treatment and the control group was not possible, and the research was designed as a quasi-experiment, using a matched control group (Cook and Campbell 1979). The present article first discusses the method of identification at the police station of children at risk. Then the secondary prevention program itself is described, and finally the effect of this program is evaluated. THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHILDREN AT RISK

Identification of children at risk for behavioral disorders consists of the early detection of adverse conditions in the social environment of children, which may cause future behavioral problems. To do this adequately a model is needed which makes explicit (1) the causes of problem behavior, which is (2) empirically corroborated and which is (3) applicable in practice for police detectives. Because delin-


quency reflects the main behavioral problem in our target group, externalizing problem behavior was chosen as the first dependent variable in our model. Because externalizing behavioral problems can be attended by emotional problems, like neuroticism or a depressed mood (Wilson and Hernnstein 1985), the area of internalizing behavioral problems (Achenbach and Edelbrock 1986) was chosen as the second main dependent variable in the model. According to the literature, there are multiple causes of socioemotional problem behavior (Elliot et al. 1985; Hawkins and Weiss 1985; Hirschi 1974; Wilson and Hernnstein 1985). This fact can best be accounted for by using a developmental model with multiple risk factors. We assume that socioemotional problem behavior to a great extent results from problematic learning experiences of the child in the family, the school, and the peer group. Figure 2 summarizes the conceptual assumptions of our model. In the following sections the specific risk factors of our model are elaborated and the model is empirically tested in a random sample of juveniles who have come into contact with the juvenile department of the police in The Hague. This

355

EVERT M. SCHOLTE structural factors socio-economic class, education, IQ, biological deficits

/

risk factors at school

,


risk factors in the family

I

"

externalizing: 8gr8sslonl del i nquency

personal risk factors

risk factors in the peer group

=::: behavior ¢::

problems internalizing

/

anxietyl depression

II

I

social environment

person

Figure 2. The integrated risk model.

generates a map of risk factors, which was used as the guide for early detection of at-risk juveniles at the police station in The Hague.

ity" (1983, p. 183). Insecure attachment refers to the complicated affective relationship between the child and the parents. Attachment between parent and child is established in the first years of life, mainly via the basic caretaking activRisk Factors in the Family ities of the parent. Its character is exMajor risk factors in the family with pressed in, among other things, the regard to delinquency are the follow- child's behavior. For example, the child ing (Farrington et al. 1986; Loeber and becomes upset when the parents leave Dishion 1983; Loeber and Stouthamer- and shows happiness when they return. Loeber 1985; Rutter and Giller, 1983; Wil- In periods of stress and fear the child will son and Hernnstein 1985): (1) severe fam- try to stay as close as possible to its parily conflicts, (2) insecure attachment, (3) ents (Bowlby 1979). Attachment between poor supervision, (4) nondemocratic child- parent and child can, however, also be full rearing practices, and (5) antisocial be- of problems. Some children, for example, havior at home. According to Rutter and try to avoid their parents when they apGiller, severe family conflict can take the proach. Other children show ambivalence shape of "frequent and prolonged quarrel- toward their parents. They act as though ling; repeated temporary separation of they want to approach their parents but the parents as a result of discord; divorce at the same time try to avoid them (Ainsor permanent separation of the parents; worth et al. 1978). The quality of attachexpressed hostility and negative feelings ment seems to be directly related to bebetween the family members; rejecting havioral development. Securely attached attitudes toward the children; frequent children explore their surroundings with shouting at and punishment of the chil- more pleasure, greater enthusiasm, and dren; and marked tendency for minor spe- with more eye for detail than do insecific disagreements between two family curely attached children (Riksen-Walravmembers to escalate into prolonged and en 1983). Furthermore, securely attached unproductive hostile interchanges which children show less antisocial and more come to involve everyone else in the vicin- prosocial behavior. They display more ini356



CHILDREN AT RISK AT THE POLICE STATION

tiative and are more cooperative, friendly, and generally more popular than insecurely attached children (Lamb 1985). The next risk factor is lack of supervision. Inadequate supervision is expressed in, among others, the absence of rules and negotiation, for example, about going out and coming home, allowing the child to roam the streets, in not knowing what the child is up to most of the time, and in not doing enough things together with the child (Farrington et al. 1986; Riley and Shaw 1985). In addition, inadequate support during development, particularly behavioral development, has been found to be a risk factors. This can occur when the home environment does not offer a clearcut structure on which the child can base its expectations and behavior. The conditions in the home for a growing child do not add up to a coherent whole and the pattern is characterized by extreme variability (Patterson 1982; Wilson and Herrnstein 1985). Furthermore, the development of behavior problems has been found to be related to undemocratic childrearing practices, like authoritarian, permissive, or negligent rearing (Baumrind 1971; McCord 1991; Maccoby and Martin 1983; Scholte 1988; Wilson and Herrnstein 1985). The best prognosis for behavioral development is an authoritative or democratic rearing style. Here the parents react responsively to reasonable needs and wishes of the child, and communication between parent and child is based on mutual understanding and respect. The adults take the child's ideas into consideration and put forward their own views as a possibility. They maintain clearly defined rules for the child that are open to only one interpretation, and stick to them. Infringement is punished consistently. Children raised like this have a high degree of control over their impulses and aggression, they can take responsibility, and they have a high degree of selfreliance. In addition, they have a positive self-image and have social and cognitive skills. The last risk factor as a major family predictor of delinquency lies in the child itself. When he or she expresses a high level and varied pattern of antiPSYCHIATRY, Vol. 55, November 1992

social behavior at home at an early age (7-10 years), there is a heightened risk that problem behavior will appear later (Loeber and Dishion 1983; Olweus 1979, 1980). Risk Factors at School Second to the family, the school makes an important contribution to the development of juveniles. There they can acquire the knowledge and skills they will need to maintain themselves in society. Furthermore, it is in the school that the behavior, value, and norm patterns that regulate social life in general are transferred (Mathijssen 1986). Major risk indicators in the school situation are: (1) poor school motivation, (2) poor school performance, (3) conflict relations with teachers, (4) nondemocratic teaching styles and climates at school, and (5) antisocial behavior (e.g., truancy). Defective motivation is indicated in particular by such pupil reactions as not finding the subjects interesting, feeling that school is not important, not liking school, not doing homework, not spending enough time on homework, and thinking that what is taught is not very useful for later. Problems with school motivation are frequently expressed as poor learning performance and difficult behavior in and outside of the classroom. In addition, involvement in social and recreational activities at school is also very limited among poorly motivated pupils (Junger-Tas 1983; Wilson and Herrnstein 1985). Frequent truancy may indicate that the development, particularly behavioral development, is disturbed, and truancy is often associated with behavior problems outside school, such as delinquency. Compared with the average pupils, problem children are often impulsive and/or aggressive, noisier and more impatient, and more easily distracted, all of which of course have consequences for their social functioning in the classroom. These children have more chance of being punished and are relatively often called troublemakers (Rutter et al. 1979). Disturbing behavior in and outside the class357


EVERT M. SCHOLTE

room has also been found to be related niles who come into contact with the poto a poor teacher-pupil relationship. It is lice have delinquent friends~who have also evident that disruptive behavior of pupils been in contact with the police (Junger· can be corrected most easily when the re- Tas 1983; Scholte 1988). Juvenile delinlationship between the pupil and the quency is often accompanied by a culture teacher is good, since the pupil will be in the peer group of risky behavior in leimuch more inclined to accept the teach- sure time, such as hanging around the er's wishes about his or her behavior streets doing nothing with vaguely (Hendriks and Verstegen 1988). Misun- known friends and annoying people, or derstandings and problems between pupil visiting discos and bars, drinking alcohol, and teacher also seems to be related to and using drugs (Donovan and J essor undemocratic teaching styles. A teacher 1985; Junger-Tas 1983; Wilson and who is capable of combining personal at- Hermstein 1985). The development of antention and warmth with clearly defined tisocial behavior of this kind has been and consistent rules has the most chance found to originate in deviant social learnof achieving good relations in the class- ing processes in the peer group (Elliot et room (Hendriks and Verstegen 1988). al. 1985). In a conformist peer group, preDemocratically run schools seem to vailing social behavior is learned. In a achieve the best results. Such schools nonconformist peer group, there is a high have the least chance of behavior prob- chance that deviant behavior will be solems is the classroom (Anderson 1982; cialized: juveniles observe delinquent and Rutter et al. 1979). Wilson and Herm- other problem behavior there, and imitate stein have given the following concise def- these models. The motivation for this is inition of the democratic teaching style supplied by the approval of delinquent that yields optimal development results: friends. Besides peer influences, however, "A teaching style that emphasizes the juveniles are exposed to learning provalue of schoolwork, rewards good perfor- cesses in the family and at school. These mance, and utilizes fair but firm disci- can strengthen or weaken the deviant pline" (1985, p. 282). learning in the peer group, most probably weaken. The likelihood that learning processes in the family or at school will have Risk Factors in the Peer Group a deviant nature is fairly low, because The friends in the peer group, with "both are quite conventional in their norwhom the child spends his or her spare mative orientations and in their types of time, constitute an important third factor behaviors modelled and reinforced" (Elliot in the development of social behavior. et al. 1985, p. 35). Associations with deviThe peer group offers the opportunity to ant peers may roughly follow one of two learn behavior important for functioning tracks. The first one is association on a in adulthood, for example, interactions more or less accidental basis. In this case with members of the opposite sex. In the juveniles simply happen to have some anpeer group the child encounters a fairly tisocial friends among their peers, who secure environment in which to experi- serve as a model and stimulate the adolesment with social roles, behavior, norms, cent exploration of the borders of society and values without being held responsi- in a delinquent way. This mechanism ble, as would be the case in the adult is described by Wilson and Hernnstein world (Conger 1977). Major risk factors in (1985, p. 194) as "rotten apples spoil the the peer group seem to be: (1) delinquency barrel." There is also the path where juveof friends, (2) risky behavior in leisure niles are repeatedly turned down by nortime, and (3) severe conflicts with peers. mal peers because of persistent antisocial Official statistics show that law breaking behavior. For these youngsters the only by juveniles is often done by groups of way to achieve a relationship with peers juveniles, and most of the Dutch juve- is to associate with other antisocial peers

358



(Dishion 1989), a mechanism described by Wilson and Hernnstein (1985) as "birds of a feather flock together."


Risk Factors in the Personality of the Child

ment (environmental controls), and internally by the reward expectations the child has made in his or her mind (ego-control). From the social leaning point of view, the risk factors in the family, at school, and in the peer group can be interpreted as external impulses which heighten the risk that the child will develop emotional or behavioral problems. The risk factors related to the child itself express the internal impulses which heighten the risk that the child's development will end up being problematical. Figure 3 shows our model with risk factors given in full. According to this model, externalizing and internalizing behavior problems among children arise as a result of a family or family-substituting environment showing functional failure where rearing is concerned, in combination with a problematic school situation and a problematic peer group. A malfunctioning of the primary rearing situation is present when there are serious family confficts and insecure attachment as well as poor communication, deficient supervision, nondemocratic rearing practices, and/or problem behavior of the child at home. A problematic school situation is to be expected when a child has insufficient school motivation, is a frequent truant, has problems with teachers, and is taught nondemocratically. A peer group can be considered problematic if antisocial and other types of problem behavior are literally and ideologically supported by that group.

There are also a number of personality traits which heighten the risk of emotional and behavioral disorders developing. Most of the personality traits mentioned in the literature, however, are reducible to defects in two cognitive-emotional skills, namely: low ego-resilience and poor ego-control (Block and Block 1980). Ego-resilience refers to the ability to react flexibly but also persistently in problem situations. This behavior quality is needed to satisfactorily complete the various developmental tasks a child has to resolve during the course of development, such as finishing school and dealing with parents, teachers, and authorities. Children with low ego-resilience tend to react in a stereotyped manner when unusual demands are made by the environment, and tend to give up new tasks easily. Ego-control refers to the ability to regulate impulses and feelings adequately. Children with a high level of egocontrol are rigid and inflexible, and they usually feel anxious in new situations. On the other hand, children with low egocontrol often react impulsively and often want to have their needs satisfied immediately. Low ego-resilience and poor egocontrol are highly correlated with low self-esteem; internal locus of control, and Evaluation of the Etiology ineffective coping behavior (Mey 1986). of Delinquency The model may now be used to analyze The Integrated Risk Model the risk factors associated with the develAccording to cognitive-social learning opment of delinquency-related problem theory (Bandura 1977), human behavior behavior in our target population of atis shaped by processes of negative and risk children in The Hague. The relation positive reinforcement, whereby posi- between the major risk areas included in tively reinforced behavior has a greater the model can be charted on the basis of a likelihood of becoming a behavior pattern path analysis, and the magnitude of the than negative or nonreinforced behavior. effects can be estimated on the basis of The shaping of behavior is externally con- regression analysis (Davis 1985; Heise trolled by the punishment and reward 1975; Kenny 1979). Regression analysis responses from the child's social environ- on cross-sectional data does not, however,


359

EVERT M. SCHOLTE problematic school situation 1) 2) 3) 4)

/

poor motivation probl, relations poor school cui ture probl, teaching style

,

problematic family situation


1) 2) 3) 4)

B

E H

problematic self 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

family conflict probl, attachment poor supervision probl rearing

~

ex ternaI izing agression! delinquent

II

I

0 R

p R

0 B L

/

problematic peer situation 1) delinquent peers 2) risky behaviour 3) peer conflict

ex ternal controls

f=¢ low self-esteem external locus poor coping style low ego-resilience =;:0 low ego-control

A V

E M

S

internalizing anx iety! depression

internal controls

L-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

II

behavior

Figure 3. Risk factors of the integrated risk model.

really inform us about causal effects. It only makes the multivariate association between the dependent and various independent factors. We gain a slightly better understanding of the causal relationships when the independent factors precede the dependent factors in time (Patterson and Dishion 1983). For this reason the measurements were taken on two occasions with a follow-up interval of 6 months, as is shown in the design of the program in Figure 1. The impact of the risk factors measured can now be analyzed by regressing the delinquency level at time2 on the risk factor levels of time l • Because delinquency at time 2 will be related to delinquency at time h we have to control in the analysis for this variable.

The Research Method, the Instruments, and the Sample The data on the psychosocial problem situations were collected by interviews with the juveniles. The interviewing was performed by a staff of 15 trained inter-

360

viewers; the juveniles were randomly assigned. At various parts of the interview, multiple questions were asked about the factors mentioned in the risk model presented in the preceding section. The answers to these questions were employed to construct 12 scales. Five scales were used as the indicators of an at-risk situation at home. The risk factors measured in the family area were the following: family conflict (scale 1), insecure attachment (scale 2), poor supervision (scale 3), nondemocratic rearing practices (scale 4), and problem behavior of the child at home (scale 5). Three scales were used as the indicators of an at-risk situation at school. These included poor school motivation (scale 6), repeated conflicts with teachers (scale 7), and nondemocratic teaching practices (scale 8). The two scales employed as indicators of an atrisk situation with regard to the peer group were deviant or delinquent peers (scale 9) and risky behavior during leisure time (scale 10). The presence of an at-risk personality of the child was assessed by employing the Dutch version of the Rot-




ter Scale for Locus of Control (scale 11Rotter 1966). The constructed scale scores range from 1 to 3. A scale score of 1 means that no risk was indicated; a scale score of 3 means that a high risk was indicated. The externalizing problem behavior was assessed by administering a self-report questionnaire with inquiries concerning aggression, vandalism, shoplifting, stealing from public places, and stealing of bikes (scale 12). As Carmines and Zeller (1983, p. 49) have pointed out, the reliability of the constructs can be established by determining the internal consistency of the scales according to the Cronbach alpha procedure. Earlier (Scholte 1988) we reported on the operationalization, the validity, and the reliability of the scales mentioned before. Table 1 summarizes the content validity of the scales, as well as the degree of reliability to be found in the measurements. All computations were made by the statistical program SPSSx (Nie et al. 1988). The demographic data and the information concerning the officially registered problematic behavior were obtained from the files of the police in The Hague by a standardized questionnaire. The research group on which the evaluation of the etiology of delinquency is based was a random sample of juveniles with a Dutch ethnic background who had been in contact with the juvenile section of the police department of The Hague, in 1984. There were also juveniles in the program from ethnic minorities. However, no report is given here of this subpopulation, because there are reasons to believe that the etiology of problem behavior is quite different in these groups, on account of cultural differences. The sample studied comprised 150 juveniles, three quarters of whom were boys; the mean age was 14.6 years. In about two thirds of the cases the reason for police contact was delinquent behavior, the other third had to do with severe parentchild difficulties. Most of the criminal law cases have to do with property offenses: shoplifting (25%), car theft (11%), bike


theft (9%), and burglary (8%). About a fifth of the cases have to do with aggression: 13% property vandalism and 5% aggression against persons. The majority of the civil law cases are related to running away from home (25%). Nearly a third of the juveniles are multiple offenders, and about a fifth are second offenders. These figures imply that for a little over half of the juveniles, the contact with the police was the first time. The delinquency rate was measured as the self-reported number of offenses in the half year period preceding the interview. The delinquent behaviors measured are given in Table 1, scale 12. At timel, 51 % of the juveniles in the sample with Dutch juveniles reported no offenses, 42% reported 1-5 offenses, and 8 % reported more than 5 offenses during the preceding half year. Testing of the Integrated Risk Model First, we investigated whether the scales measuring the risk levels in the family, at school, and in the peer group were related for each area. According to Kim and Mueller (1986), Bentler and Kano (1990), and Widaman (1990), principal axis factoring can be used to answer this question. The result of the analysis is given in Table 2. According to the pattern matrix, the five scales in the family area all were related, indeed rather strongly related. The same was true for the three scales in the school area and for the two peer group scales. This picture suggested that risk level in the family situation could be expressed as the sum (Kim and Mueller 1986) of the scores of scales 1-5. Analogously, the risk level in the peer group situation could be expressed as the sum of the scales 6-8, and the risk level in the peer group could be expressed as the sum of the scales 9 and 10. The relations between the various constructs in our model could then be charted on the basis of a path analysis (Davis 1985), using (1) the risk level in the family at time l, (2) the risk level at school at time!> (3) the risk level in the peer group at timel, and (4)

361

EVERT M. SCHOLTE

Table 1 OPERATIONALIZATION AND RELIABILITY OF FAMILY,-SCHOOL, AND PEER GROUP PERSONALITY AND PROBLEM BEHAVIOR DATA (ALL DATA GATHERED BY SEMISTRUCTURED INTERVIEWING OF THE CHILD)


Scale 1 Family conflict

2 Insecure Attachment

3 Poor Supervision 4 Nondemocratic Childrearing

5 Behavior Problem at Home 6 Poor School Motivation 7. Child-Teacher Conflicts 8 Undemocratic Teaching Style 9 Deviant Peers 10 Risky Leisure Time Activities

11 Internal Locus of Control 12 Self-reported Externalizing Behavior Problems

362

Item content of scale Father-child prohlems Mother-child problems Father-child quarrels Mother-child quarrels Father-mother quarrels Disliking being at home Impersonal relation mother-child Impersonal relation father-child Negative attitude toward father Negative attitude toward mother Lack of father-child communications Lack of mother-child communications Away from home without parents' knowledge No rules/behavior instructions at home Nonobedience of child Severe punishment measures father Severe punishment measures mother N onpositive reinforcement measures by father Nonpositive reinforcement measures by mother Social isolation of child induced by father Social isolation of child induced by mother Reported by mother, according to the child Reported by father, according to the child Reported by the child Child's dislike of school Perceived unimportance of school results School leaving as soon as possible Dislike of teacher Frequently punished by teacher Teacher-child conflicts Severe punishment measures No possibilities for discussion No class communication Friends with police records Positive attitudes to law breaking Friends hanging around downtown Alcohol consumption by friends Soft drug consumption by friends Visiting cafes, bars, and playing halls To see oneself as a victim of circumstances To see oneself as without grip on life To attribute self-failure on misfortune Vandalism Aggression Theft Shoplifting Stealing bikes

Corrected item- Coefficient scale correlations alpha .62 .84 .61 .54 .60 .68 .79 .59 .74 .41 .50 .48 .54 .61 .77 .81 .73 .57 .37 .71 .27 .50 .58 .45 .47 .61 .55 .47 .69 .40 .47 .61 .49 .67 .21 .50 .34 .56 .53 .61 .51 .33 .70 .46 .39 .35 .47 .43 .37 .37 .50

.72 .76 .76 .66 .73 .74 .60 .67



Table 2


PRINCIPAL AXIS FACTOR ANALYSIS OF FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND PEER GROUP SCALES

Scale 1 Family Conflict 2 Insecure Attachment 3 Poor Supervision 4 Nondemocratic Rearing 5 Behavior Problems 6 Poor School Motivation 7 Conflict Relations 8 Nondemocratic Teaching 9 Deviant Peers 10 Risky Behavior Eigenvalues Cum. % explained variance

1 Factor 1 2 Factor 2 3 Factor 3

the child's locus of control at time! as independent variables; and (5) the delinquency-related externalizing problem behaviors at time 2 as the dependent variables, while controlling the dependent variable for the delinquency level at time!. Based on the approaches of Heise (1975) and Kenny (1979), the magnitudes of the relations between the independent and dependent variables were estimated using an ordinary least square regression analysis. The relations were expressed as the standardized beta regression coefficients (Davis 1985). The regression assumptions were tested in an analysis of residuals (Nie et al. 1988) and proved to be sufficiently met. Figure 4 gives the results of the path analysis for the total model in the perspective of delinquency at time2 (theft, vandalism, aggression). The statistically significant paths (t test, p < .05) are printed in bold and marked with asterisks. As Figure 4 shows, about 30% of the variance in the delinquency-related externalizing problem behavior at time2 could be explained by the integrated risk model,


Pattern Matrix, Rotation: Oblimin Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 -.01 .19 .68 .01 .05 .68 .18 -.03 .55 -.04 -.17 .78 -.07 .15 .61 .21 .02 .57 .02 .68 -.05 -.08 .07 .85 -.01 .04 .86 .06 .70 .09 3.2 31.6

1.5 46.1

0.9 53.9

Factor Correlation Matrix Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1.0 0.22 1.0 0.32 0.39 1.0

including the correction for delinquency at time!. Delinquency at time! proved to be the most important direct factor in the etiology of the delinquency-related problem behavior at time2 (.36), directly followed by educational problems at home (.34). Also a risky peer group situation at time! (.30) and a higher risk level at school (.22) at time! both contributed to the variance in the delinquency-related externalizing problem behavior at time2' Further it must be mentioned that delinquency at time! was associated with a risky peer group situation at time! (r = .51, P < .01, t test). The figure also shows the important indirect role of the educational factors in the primary rearing environment with regard to the development of behavioral problems. Both joining a problematic peer group at time! (.41) and an increase in problems at school at time! (.32) proved empirically to be rather strongly associated with educational problems at home at time!. Lastly, it should be mentioned that the delinquency-related externalizing problem behavior at time2 in our re-

363

EVERT M. SCHOLTE 'at risk' school situation at T1

i

construct measured as the sum of the scales 6) poor motivation prob!. relations 8 non democr. teaching

7l

.08

construct measured as the sum of the scales 1) family conflict 2) Insec. attachment 3) poor supervision 4) non demo cr. rearing 5) behavior problems


30'

34'

~

36-

121'

'at risk' family situation at T1

.\

T2 externalizing problem behavior: R2032. F-11. p

The foot at risk: identification and prevention of skin breakdown.

Early identification of developmentally disabled and at-risk preschool children.

The nurse and the early identification of young children at risk.

Neonatal at risk screening and the identification of deafness.

Regulating BETs at central station.

Children at risk.

Music and biology at the Naples Zoological Station.

Children at risk.

The effectiveness of the Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) program for boys at risk for violence and delinquency.

Identification of caregivers at greatest risk of major depression in two prevention studies.

Towards prevention of acute syndromes: electronic identification of at-risk patients during hospital admission.

Ethnobotanical Research at the Kutukú Scientific Station, Morona-Santiago, Ecuador.

Enhancing violence prevention in at-risk youth.

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE AT A MILITARY STATION.

Maternal cradling bias and early communicative interactions: Implications for early identification of children at risk.

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE AT A MILITARY STATION: REPLY.

Immunization Coverage at a Military Station.

Identification and Evaluation of Abused Children at Imam Hossein Hospital.

Obesity prevention at the point of purchase.

Marriages with children at medical risk: the transition to parenthood.

The importance of early identification and intervention for children with or at risk for autism spectrum disorders.

Children at risk: II. Risk factors and clinic utilization.

Risk of diabetic retinopathy at first screen in children at 12 and 13 years of age.

The Angle of Progression at Station 0 and in Magnetic Resonance and Transperineal Ultrasound Assessment.