Ethnic differences in assessment: How self-report and observation converge and diverge among ethnically diverse incarcerated youths.

Abstract

While structured observation and self-report (SR) are of great value for risk assessment in forensic youth psychiatry, a number of conclusory variances should be taken into consideration as it pertains to cultural sensitivities. This study therefore researches data collected by self-report using standardized questionnaires, and by an observation checklist (OC) in an ethnically diverse population of incarcerated youths. Our sample consisted of 228 male incarcerated juveniles, with the identifiable majority (30.2%) of Moroccan origin, 11.2% of Dutch origin, 11.2% of Surinamese origin, 9.1% with a Netherlands Antilles origin, and 8.2% of Turkish origin. Adolescents from other origins or whose ethnicity data was missing, constituted 30.1% of the final sample. First, scores on each self-report subscale and OC concept were analyzed for differences between ethnic origins. Second, OC concepts were matched to relevant self-report scales, for example, proactive aggression of the OC to proactive aggression of the Reactive Proactive Aggression Questionnaire. Finally, convergence and divergence between the two matched concepts was analyzed. Large differences were found for the separate methods, and the divergence and convergence between the two methods. Most prominently was the very different scoring profile between youths of Dutch and Moroccan origin, with the latter self-reporting fewer problems than youths of Dutch origin, while more problems were observed. Possible explanations, such as (racial or ethnic) bias in observing, lack of cross-cultural validation for self-report, or biases such as shame, fear of judicial consequences are discussed.

Special issue on cultural responsiveness in threat assessment.

“…They also suggest that the patterns of risk factors identified among different ancestral groups may differ in subtle ways. Finally, Lampe et al (2023) investigate cultural factors in risk assessment and recommendations for tailored treatment to prevent recidivism among a multicultural sample of incarcerated youth. Their findings underscore the importance of using a multimethod approach in risk assessment and cultural sensitivity when interpreting information.…”