Self‐Regulatory Profiles and Conduct Problems in Youth Referred to Juvenile Diversion

Abstract

The current study utilized a person-centered approach to explore how self-regulatory profiles relate to conduct problems in an ethnically diverse sample of 197 adolescents referred to juvenile diversion programming. Utilizing a multidomain, multimethod battery of self-regulation indicators, three common profiles emerged in a latent profile analysis. The profiles represented an Adaptive group, a Cognitively Inflexible group, and an Emotionally Dysregulated group. Group membership was associated with severity and type of conduct problems as well as callous and unemotional traits. The Adaptive group demonstrated lower severity conduct problems when compared to the other groups. The Emotionally Dysregulated group was more likely to commit violent offenses and demonstrated higher levels of some callous and unemotional traits than youth characterized by cognitive inflexibility.While a number of theoretical models of subdomains of self-regulation have been proposed, dualsystems models have been widely adopted for their intuitiveness and practicality, particularly in the area of adolescent development (Steinberg, 2010).

Conduct problems among children in low-income, urban neighborhoods: A developmental psychopathology- and RDoC-informed approach

“…Continued research that takes into account the equifinality associated with conduct problems, as well as the multifinality from processes such as ANS reactivity, could address the extent to which processes are specific to conduct problems vs. transdiagnostic. Given heterogeneity in conduct problems, identifying more homogeneous subgroups of youth could inform etiological models, assessment approaches, identification of youth at risk, and targets and methods of interventions for conduct problems (Graziano et al, 2019;Piehler et al, 2019;Propp et al, 2020). Accounting for context along with the reciprocal and transactional interactions among children and their environments could bolster these aims.…”

“…Given the significant influence of environmental factors on youth conduct problems, understanding the context-sensitivity of RDoC units of analysis is crucial (De Los Reyes et al, 2020). Taken together, it is critical to consider patterns of processes among youth at risk for conduct problems to better understand these different developmental pathways, as well as risk and resilience, which can inform identification, assessment, and intervention efforts (Graziano et al, 2019;Piehler et al, 2019;Propp et al, 2020).…”

“…Youth conduct problems (i.e., oppositional defiant disorder [ODD] and conduct disorder [CD]) represent a significant public health concern. They are associated with numerous negative correlates and long-term psychosocial sequelae, such as difficulties with interpersonal relationships, academic achievement, and economic security; co-occurring psychological disorders; and they are among the most frequent referrals for children's mental health services (Colman et al, 2009;Piehler et al, 2019;Propp, Bedard, & Andrade, 2020;Rivenbark et al, 2018). Youth residing in low-income, urban communities are at increased risk for conduct problems (Goodnight et al, 2012;Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003;Romero, Richards, Harrison, Garbarino, & Mozley, 2015).…”

“…Nevertheless, not all youth from low-income, urban communities develop conduct problems, suggesting heterogeneity in risk and resilience processes, developmental pathways, and outcomes (Drabick, Bubier, Chen, Price, & Lanza, 2011;Propp et al, 2020). Identifying more homogeneous subgroups of youth could inform etiological models, assessment approaches, identification of youth at risk, and targets and approaches for interventions for conduct problems (Graziano et al, 2019;Piehler et al, 2019;Propp et al, 2020).…”