Accurate assessment of dating violence (DV) is crucial for evaluation and intervention planning. However, extant self-report measurement tools of DV do not adequately consider age-, generation-, and culture-specific issues, which are essential for its accurate conceptualization. To address these gaps, we developed the Violence in Adolescents' Dating Relationships Inventory (VADRI) and evaluated its psychometric properties. The VADRI was developed based on a qualitative approach for item development through adolescents' individual interviews, focus groups, and experts' judgments, followed by a quantitative approach for tool assessment. Two aspects of DV were addressed: victimization and perpetration. After the necessary cultural and linguistic adaptation of items, the instrument was administered to 466 adolescents from three Spanish-speaking countries: Guatemala, Mexico, and Spain. The items were best represented by a one-factor solution in each country, which suggests that DV is a unidimensional construct combining victimization and perpetration. Analyses of item-level factor weights and differential item functioning were conducted aimed at obtaining information about items that best represented the construct, resulting in a 26-item final version that was cross-culturally equivalent. Convergent validity was supported by positive correlations with the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory, and reliability analyses yielded favorable results (with all Cronbach's α values above .90). We conclude that the VADRI is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of DV in various cultural contexts.
This prospective study investigated the predictive validity of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management–20, Version 3 (HCR-20V3) in a sample of incarcerated males in a Mexico City prison. Data were collected from 114 male adults incarcerated in a medium-security prison in Mexico City. Participants were an average of 36.86 years old ( SD = 9.93 years) and were all born in Mexico. Data collection for HCR-20V3 ratings involved clinical interviews and a review of institutional documents. Aggressive incidents for a 3-month period following each completed risk assessment were collected through document review, self-report follow-up interviews, and guard reports. Participants who engaged in institutional violence during the 3-month follow-up period were given significantly higher summary risk ratings and had higher HCR-20 total scores than the participants who did not engage in violence (area under the curve [AUC] ranged from .71 to .77). The study demonstrated support for the cross-cultural utility of the HCR-20V3 for institutional violence in a Mexican prison.
In this article, we analyze the contributions of neuroscience to the development of the adolescent brain and shed additional light on the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the context of Latin America. In neurobiology, maturity is perceived to be complex because the brain's temporal development process is not uniform across all its regions. This has important consequences for adolescents' behavior; in their search for the acceptance of their peers, they are more vulnerable to pressure and more sensitive to stress than adults. Their affectivity is more unstable, and they show signs of low tolerance to frustration and important emotional reactivity, with a decrease in the capacity to self-regulate. Consequently, risky behavior presents itself more frequently during adolescence, and behaviors that transgress norms and social conventions typically peak between the ages of 17 and 19 years. However, only a small percentage of young offenders escalate their behavior to committing crimes during adulthood. In comparative law, there are considerable differences in Latin American countries' legal dispositions regarding the minimum age of criminal responsibility; Brazil, Costa Rica, and Ecuador regard the age of criminal responsibility to be 12 years, while Argentina accepts this to be 16 years. From a legal viewpoint, however, the debate about the minimum age of criminal responsibility is connected to other circumstances that, because they are still at a developmental stage, are attributed to adolescents' rights in their decisionmaking and understanding of autonomy (e.g., the minimum ages for voting, alcohol consumption, and medical consent). We argue that research on the development of the adolescent brain does not provide definitive answers about the exact age required for different juridical purposes. Nonetheless, the current state of knowledge does allow for reflection on the development and maturation of adolescents and the implications for considering them criminally responsible. It also validates demands for a system that provides adolescents with greater protection and that favors their healthy integral development. In any case, although a specific minimum age is not evident, this study is disposed not to recommend lowering the age of criminal responsibility, but rather increasing it.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.