Validating the Ohio Scales in a Juvenile Justice Sample of Youth with Behavioral Health Issues

Abstract

Between 65 and 75 % of juvenile-justice involved (JJI) youth present with at least one behavioral health disorder. Many communities have developed diversion programs that provide behavioral health services to JJI youth, often in lieu of detention. A key component of successful diversion programming is accurate screening and assessment. The Ohio Scales, a validated instrument designed to track service effectiveness in clinical samples of youth, are now being used with juvenile justice populations. The purpose of this study is to validate the Ohio Scales in a JJI youth population (N = 2246). The population (ages 12-18) is derived from Ohio's Behavioral Health Juvenile Justice Initiative, a diversion program for JJI youth with behavioral health issues. We conducted Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) on all forms of the Ohio Scales (parent, youth and worker) to measure fit for one factor, four factor and four factor second order solutions. We also conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the Problem Severity factor in the youth form to determine the number of appropriate sub-factors. The EFA indicated that the Problem Severity factor should be broken into three hypothesized sub-factors: Externalizing, Internalizing and Delinquency. The CFA confirmed this solution. CFA results indicated the four factor second order solution fits superior to the other two solutions. Using the Ohio Scales Problem Severity measure as a three subfactor measure may increase clinical applicability by allowing a clinician to specifically measure and target externalizing or internalizing issues during treatment.

A Psychometric Investigation of the Ohio Scales, Short Form, Problem Severity Domain, Youth- and Caregiver-Report Versions

“…Factor structure research on the Short Form, Problem Severity domain is mixed, such that some investigators have found evidence for a three-factor model (Baize [as cited in Ogles et al, 2004]; Cox, 2007;D. Jackson, personal communication, August 23, 2017;Tossone, Kretschmar, Butcher, & Harris, 2016), while others have found evidence for a fourfactor model (Bonadio & Tompsett, 2016;Moore, 2008).…”

“…The four lines of evidence in support of a three-factor model are a conference poster (Baize [as cited in Ogles et al, 2004]), an unpublished dissertation (Cox, 2007), a peer-reviewed research paper (Tossone et al, 2016), and exploratory work done by researchers at the Hawaiʻi State CAMHD system (D. Jackson, personal communication, August 23, 2017). A research conference poster by Baize (which could not be obtained for the current study) used factor analytic strategies with youth and caregiver Problem Severity domain scores, and found evidence for a three-factor model (as cited in Ogles et al, 2004).…”

“…Regarding the one peer-reviewed research publication supporting a three-factor model for the Short Form, Problem Severity domain, Tossone et al (2016) conducted both confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses with a sample of juvenile justice-involved youth (N = 2,246), caregivers, and workers participating in a diversion program in Ohio. The sample consisted of both males (58.4%) and females (41.6%), with the majority identified as Caucasian (52.3%) or African American (39.3%), ranging in age from 12 to 18 years.…”

“…Initially, the authors ran confirmatory factor analyses to test the model fit of the Short Form, Problem Severity, Functioning, Hopefulness, and Satisfaction domains as a single-factor (all 48 items across Problem Severity, Functioning, Hopefulness, and Satisfaction domains) and four-factor (Problem Severity, Functioning, Hopefulness, and Satisfaction domains) model using youth-, caregiver-, and worker-report separately. After determining that the four-factor structure solution best fit the data, Tossone et al (2016) ran an EFA to compare a two-versus three-factor structure solution for the Short Form, Problem Severity domain using youth scores only. Results were more favorable for a three-factor compared to a two-factor model.…”

“…Results were more favorable for a three-factor compared to a two-factor model. Subsequent to these confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, Tossone et al (2016) conducted three additional CFAs to compare the model fit of the Short Form, Problem Severity, Functioning, Hopefulness, and Satisfaction domains as a single-factor (previously described above), four-factor (previously described above), and four-factor second-order (Problem Severity [broken down into three subcomponent scales], Functioning, Hopefulness, and Satisfaction domains) model using youth-, caregiver-, and worker-report separately. Of particular interest is the four-factor second-order solution, which broke down the Problem Severity domain into the same three factors (i.e., Externalizing, Delinquency, and Internalizing) originally identified by Baize (as cited in Ogles et al, 2004).…”