2020
DOI: 10.1080/13552600.2020.1842922
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Criminal recidivism and psychosocial adversity in offense-related subtypes of sexually abusive adolescents

Abstract: Criminal behaviours vary significantly among juveniles who have sexually offended (JSOs). Offense-related subtypes may differ in criminal persistence and inform clinical practice. In the present study, Latent Class Analysis empirically derived four distinct JSO subtypes based on 10 offense/victim characteristics in a comprehensive sample of 670 JSOs (M age = 14.49, SD age = 1.94): a severe peer/adult-offender subtype (22.4%), a child-offender subtype (30.1%), a touch-offender subtype (27.9%), and a verbal/onli… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

3
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In recent years, research has tried to take the co-occurrence of ACEs among high-risk youth samples into account not only by creating cumulative ACE scores, but also by implementing person-centered approaches such as Latent Class Analysis (LCA) (e.g., [4,33]). Others have investigated patterns of criminal behaviors by LCA or profiles of psychiatric disturbances among delinquent youth by Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) and examined their relations to cumulative ACEs [34,35]. Moreover, a growing number of studies has analyzed specific personality profiles using LPA in samples of justice-involved youth based on rather general personality traits [36] or psychopathy [37].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent years, research has tried to take the co-occurrence of ACEs among high-risk youth samples into account not only by creating cumulative ACE scores, but also by implementing person-centered approaches such as Latent Class Analysis (LCA) (e.g., [4,33]). Others have investigated patterns of criminal behaviors by LCA or profiles of psychiatric disturbances among delinquent youth by Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) and examined their relations to cumulative ACEs [34,35]. Moreover, a growing number of studies has analyzed specific personality profiles using LPA in samples of justice-involved youth based on rather general personality traits [36] or psychopathy [37].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notably, despite only including JSO for whom a forensic expert assessment was available, the sample appears representative regarding the proportion of foreign nationality among JSO in Switzerland (Barra et al, 2021 ). However, the current sample showed higher mean J-SOAP-II total scores (20.0 vs. 14.9) and higher rates of sexual, non-sexual violent and general recidivism compared to a population sample of Swiss JSO (Barra et al, 2018 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With regard to the abovementioned aims of the project, only the evaluations of those offenders who had (1) completed self-reports using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ, [ 40 , 41 ]) and the Aggression Questionnaire (AG-G, [ 42 ]), and (2) who had AQ-G inconsistency scores below 5 (see below) were considered. Starting from May 2020, the psychological/psychiatric evaluation reports of these offenders were analyzed using a specifically developed coding system based on a similar instrument that had already been successfully implemented in previous research in the context of forensic file analyses (e.g., [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]). The 44-page coding system consisted of a large number of forensically relevant variables from the following domains: (1) administrative data, (2) demographic information, (3) current/index delinquency, (4) offense analysis, (5) previous delinquency, (6) biographic/family information, (7) general and sexual development, (8) adverse childhood experiences, (9) the content of forensic evaluation, and (10) risk assessment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%