An adolescent symptom checklist for juvenile deliquents

Journal of Abnornal Child Psychology, VoL 7, No. 1, 19 79, pp. 15-29

An Adolescent Symptom Checklist for

Juvenile Deliquents 1

Martin Kohn 2 William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology

Mart in B. Koretzky Veterans Administration Hospital, Northport, New York

Maxine S. Haft

Linden Hill School, Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services

A rating instrument was developed to assess the personality functioning o f problem adolescents who have a brief history o f official delinquency. Sub- jects were 186 residents at a short-term diagnostic detention facility. The instrument that emerged from a factor analysis was tested for reliability, validity, and cross-situational generality. Two major orthogonal factors emerged, Apathy- Withdrawal (I) and Anger-Defiance (.11). Each factor was found to be congruent with the corresponding dimension on behavior rating instruments that had previously yielded two orthogonal factors and that had been shown to be relevant to a large number o f psychological and educational issues. Significant correlations between the factors and a series o f global ratings measuring behavior and measures indicative o f the frequency and seriousness o f official delinquency provided further evidence o f construct and discriminant validity as well as evidence o f cross-setting consistency o f personality functioning.

Manuscript received in final form May 17, 1978. 1A part of this paper was presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Associa- tion, Boston, March 1978. The authors are indebted to the staff at Geller House, a division of the Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, for their willingness to assist in this study and for giving generously of their time. We also wish to express our appreciation to Mrs. Vera Kohn for her thoughtful and conscientious work in editing the manuscript.

2 Address all correspondence to Martin Kohn, William Alanson White Institute, 20 West 74th Street, New York, New York 10023.

15

0091-0627 /79 /0300-0015503 .00 /0 �9 1979 Plenum Publishing Corporat ion

16 Kohn, Koretzky, and Haft

While the personality structure of juvenile delinquents has been studied by a number of investigators taking a multivariate statistical approach, the present research is most closely related to that of Quay (1964a, b, 1966), who assessed the behavior of institutionalized delinquent boys. The present study extends this line of research to deviant but less seriously delinquent adolescents in short- term detention and includes girls as well as boys in the sample.

Kohn (1977b) has shown that over the last 50 years, two major clusters have been repeatedly identified in research on emotional disturbance in children. The two clusters basically distinguish between symptoms that indicate the individual is directing hostility against himself and symptoms that indicate the individual is directing hostility against others. The symptom clusters or factors have been variously labeled according to the investigators' personal preferences, but, in fact, the same or at least very similar patterns of behavior have been found in research encompassing a wide variety of subjects, age groups, settings, and research methods.

While the two-factor model of social-emotional functioning has accounted for large amounts of behavior variability, a third major symptom cluster or factor has been found in some studies. In Hewitt and Jenkins's (1946) clinical sample and Quay's (t964a, t966) delinquent population, the third behavior pattern was labeled Socialized Delinquency. Other studies have also isolated an orthogonal dimension reflecting Immaturity, which has been replicated in studies involving clinic referrals (Patterson, 1964), school children (Quay, Morse, & Cutler, 1966; Quay & Quay, I965), and institutionalized delinquent boys (Quay, 1964b, 1966).

Kohn (1977a) has reported on the two-factor model from the point of view of validity, usefulness as predictor of cognitive and social-emotional functioning, and cross-situational consistency. If, as expected, tile two major factors emerged in the present study, the objective was to test the differential relationship of each factor to four sets of other variables, namely: (a) independently developed instruments measuring health as well as disturbed functioning in two settings in a short-term detention facility, (b) global ratings of behavior in the two settfilgs, (c) frequency and seriousness of the delinquent acts committed by the subjects, and (d) demographic data. Findings would further demonstrate the generality of the two-factor model of social emotional functioning, shed light on the issue of stability of personality functioning across settings, and extend the application of the two-factor model not only to a new population (delinquent boys and girls) but also to a new criterion domain (frequency and gravity of law violations).

The factor designations chosen by Kohn and Rosman (1972)will be used in the present article: Apathy-Withdrawal for symptoms indicating shy, timid, and recessive behavior (Factor I) and Anger-Defiance for symptoms indicating acting-out, dominating, and aggressive behavior (Factor II). This is not intended

An Adolescent Symptom Checklist 17

to imply the superiority of these terms over those invented by others but is being done in the interest of continuity with our previous work.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTRUMENT

Research Setting

The setting for this study was a short-term residential diagnostic facility established as an alternative to traditional "lock-up" methods of detention for adolescents. Most of the youths were remanded either for juvenile "status offenses" (behavior that is not a crime if engaged in by an adult) or for "delinquent offenses" (acts that are considered a crime if committed by an adult). Some youths were remanded because of parental neglect or other family crises.

Procedures

Subiects

The sample consisted of 186 youths who were admitted between July 1975 and January 1976 and remained for a minimum of 1 week (less than 10% were excluded for this reason). Age at referral ranged from 12 years 1 month to 16 years 6 months, with a mean age of 14 years 7 months. Slightly more than half (56%) of the subjects were boys. The children came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds: 42% were black, 36% white, and 22% Puerto Rican. Many came from severely disrupted family backgrounds, with only 25% living with both natural parents at time of intake. Thirty-eight percent of the families were either partly or wholly dependent on welfare for income. Two-thirds of the youths were admitted on remand from the Family Court of New York City; the remainder (33%) were referred through the Bureau of Child Welfare. The subjects had 1.5 court petitions, on average, before entering.

Design and Administration of the Instrument

A review was conducted of previous studies in which parent or teacher questionnaires or problem checklists had been utilized to investigate childhood and adolescent deviant behavior; 89 items were selected. All were (a) relevant to the population, (b) descriptive of clearly observable behaviors so as to require little subjective inference on the part of the raters, and (c) stated as concisely


and concretely as possible. An effort was made to cover a broad sample of behavior. Of the items selected, 31 had been classified in previous research with different populations as indicative of neurotic behavior or personality problems; 30 items had been classified in previous research as reflecting antisocial behavior or conduct problems. The rest of the items were chosen because they dealt with important symptoms that children might show in this type of setting. The items were then listed in random order to form the rating instrument. We decided not to include items tapping such factors as Immaturity and Socialized Delinquency for two reasons: (a) They have been found to account for smaller portions of the incremental variance, and (b) we wanted the final version of the instrument to be as brief as possible.

Approximately 1 week before discharge, each youthwas rated independently by the two child care workers who had special responsibility for him during his period of residence. The raters were asked to indicate for each item on the list whether the symptoms "did not apply," "somewhat applied," or "certainly applied." Raters were instructed not to confer with one another and to base their responses only on their own experience with the youngster during the preceding week. The staff had no knowledge of the youth's previous offense history.

Factor Analysis

A principal component factor analysis was carried out, based on item scores pooled across raters. Factors were rotated by means of the varimax method. Several rotations with up to six factors were carried out, since, as indicated above, Quay had reported meaningful third and fourth factors for the juvenile delinquent population. None of the factors beyond the second, however, accounted for substantial portions of the variance or was conceptually meaningful. It was decided to utilize the two-factor solution because there was a large "break" in the size of the roots at this point; 3 the two-factor solution accounted for 57% of the communal variance for the two-factor rotation.

In order to have a highly reliable instrument and to achieve maximum discrimination between the two dimensions, only items that had (a) factor loadings above .50 and (b) loadings on the second factor of .34 or below (28 of 33 were +.20 or below) were retained for subsequent analysis. This screening procedure yielded the Adolescent Symptom Checklist (ASCL) consisting of 33 items, 13 dealing with Factor I behavior and 20 denoting Factor II behavior. The items and their factor loadings are presented in Table I.

3The values obtained for the first eight roots were 16.24, 8.81, 4.12, 3.14, 2.83, 2.61, 2.39, and 2.12.


Inspection of the Factor I items suggests that they measure a behavior cluster conceptually similar to the syndrome that we have previously labeled Apathy-Withdrawal (Kohn & Rosman, 1972). Inspection of the Factor II items reveals that they cover a behavior pattern strongly suggestive of the syndrome that we have previously designated as Anger-Defiance.

Psychometric Characteristics of the Instrument

Interrater Reliability

For each subject, scores were obtained by summing the ratings of the 13 Factor I items and the 20 Factor II items. Interrater correlations were then computed between pairs of child care workers; as corrected by the Spearman- Brown formula, the interrater correlations were r = .48 and r = .74 (N= 133) for Factors I and II, respectively. These reliability coefficients were deemed sufficiently high for group research purposes. The scores from the two raters were then pooled for each factor to enhance the clarity of the presentation.

Independence of Factors

To determine to what extent the two factors were empirically independent, the scores were correlated. The resultant coefficient of .13 is impressive evidence of the independence of the two factors.

TESTS OF VALIDITY AND CROSS-SETTING GENERALITY

Method

Subjects

In order to have a substantial set of validity data, additional measures were collected on the last 110 subjects. There were no significant differences between these 110 subjects and the original sample with respect to factor scores, sex, age, and race-ethnicity.

Criterion Measures

Three types of criterion validity measures were obtained: (a) assessments of behavior in the same setting (residence) by the same raters (child care workers),


Table I. The Adolescent Symptom Checklist

Items

Factor loadings

I II

Part A: Factor I (Apathy-Withdrawal) Too much daydreaming Feelings of inferiority, has low

opinion of him/herself Sluggishness, lethargy, slow-moving Often depressed, sad, or feels low Often worried, worries about many

things Shyness, bashfulness Tends to be fearful or afraid of new

things or new situations Preoccupation, "in world of his/her

o w n ~ '

Easily flustered and confused Hypersensitivity, feelings easily

hurt Anxiety, always nervous or afraid Self-conscious, easily embarrassed Lack of interest in things around

him/her, generally "bored" attitude

Part B: Factor II (Anger-Defiance) Disruptiveness, interferes with ac-

tivity of others Uses obscene and abusive language

with adults Boisterousness, rowdiness, makes a

nuisance of him/herself Impertinence, often fresh to adults Defiant, does not do what he/she is

told by adults Attention-seeking, "show-off"

behavior Temper tantrums Irritability, hot-tempered, easily gets

angry Uncooperativeness in group situations,

has to have his/her own way in group

Provocative, incites or goads others into fighting

Tends to say no or do the opposite of what is asked

Hyperactivity, "always on the go" Bullies other children, likes to boss

them around Disobedience, does not follow estab-

fished procedures or rules Restless, fidgets, squirms, unable to

sit still

.70 - .08

.69 .09

.65 .17

.65 - .05

.64 .06

.62 - .25

.62 .04

,61 ,60

,59 .59 ,57

,52

- . 02

.04

- .01 .18

.12

- .03 .08

.12

- .03

- .03

.22

.004

- .20

.09

.34

- .03 .26

.20

.09 - .13

.14

.86

.84

.82

.81

.77

.76

.75

.73

.72

.72

.70

.70

.68

.68

.63


Table I. Continued

Factor loadings

Item I II

Does things without thinking .33 .63 Often tells lies -.03 .60 Physically violent with staff members .02 .55 Gets involved in physical fights with

peers -.09 .54 Often destroys his/her own and/or

others' property .01 .51

using two instruments other than the Adolescent Symptom Checklist; (b) assessments of behavior in a different setting (school) by different raters (teachers), using instruments appropriate to that setting; (c) court records of juvenile offenses and ratings of the seriousness of the alleged offense(s).

Residence Measures. Two rating instruments were used. First, each subject was rated by his two child care workers on the Residence Behavior Inventory, which is a version of the Schaefer Classroom Behavior Inventory (Schaefer, Note 1), adapted and reworded for use in the residential setting. This instrument measures the degree to which the rater feels that each of 18 statements describes the behavior of the subject. Responses are on a 4-point scale. The instrument assesses behavior according to the two factors mentioned previously; 4 since both desirable and undesirable behavior are assessed, the dimensions are bipolar.

Second, each subject was rated by the child care workers on four global ratings of behavior. Three of the ratings - level o f functioning, verbal fluency, and ability to get along with others - were unipolar, ranging on a 5-point scale from "well functioning" to "poorly functioning." The fourth global measure was a bipolar rating of activity level, ranging on a 5-point scale from "overactive" to "lethargic," with "average" as the midpoint.

School Measures. Two rating instruments were used. First, each subject was rated by three teachers (academic, arts and crafts, and shop) on the origin~ short form of the Schaefer Classroom Behavior Inventory. Second, all six teachers filled out 17 global ratings of each child's classroom behavior, including, among others, level of functioning, verbal fluency, motivation, dependability, response to supervision, ability to work with others, task persistence, peer relations, attendance, self-image, and hostility-passivity. The last two were bipolar; all others were unidimensional, ranging on a 5-point scale from "well functioning" to "poorly functioning."

4 Schaefer also found a third factor, Task Orientation, which is not relevant to the present discussion.


Offense Measures. The records of the family court were examined to determine the number and severity of petitions (or charges) lodged against each subject prior to admission to the detention facility. There are two types of petitions: (a) A PINS (Person in Need of Supervision) petition is brought against a juvenile for an offense that is not considered a crime if committed by an adult (e.g., running away from home, being excessively disobedient, truancy). (b) A DC (Delinquency Charge) petition alleges an illegal act that is a crime if done by an adult. PINS offenders seem to be involved in family crises, whereas DC offenders are in conflict with the community (see Kohn & Sugarman, 1978).

In addition, the descriptive "allegation" part of each petition was rated according to "seriousness," using the scale developed by Sellin and Wolfgang (1964). Average seriousness ratings for PINS petitions, DC petitions, and all petitions were computed and included as criterion measures in the study.

Demographic Variables

The symptom clusters were related to three demographic variables: sex, age, and race-ethnicity.

Psychometric Characteristics of the Criterion Measures

Residence Measures

Interrater reliabilities were obtained by correlating the two child care workers' ratings for each subject. On the Residence Behavior Inventory coefficients were r = .54 and r = .64 (Spearman-Brown corrected;N = 83) for Factors I and II, respectively.

The reliability coefficients of the global ratings were deemed sufficiently high to warrant use of the scales (median r = .54, Spearman-Brown corrected; N = 79).

The scores from the two raters were pooled on each measure. For clarity of analysis and presentation, the signs on the Residence Behavior Inventory and global ratings were adjusted so that on all measures a high score indicated disturbance.

School Measures

Interrater reliability coefficients were calculated for the Classroom Behavior Inventory between all possible pairs of the three teachers who rated the subjects. Reliability coefficients (Spearman-Brown corrected; N = 90) ranged from .51 to .75 on Factor I and from .50 to .70 for Factor II.


For the 17 global ratings, interrater retiabilities were obtained between the average ratings of teachers 1, 3, and 6 and the average ratings of teachers 2, 4, and 5 for each subject. Correlations ranged from .53 to .85, with a median r of .69 (Spearman-Brown corrected; N = 79).

The scores on each of the variables were then pooled across raters to simplify the presentation. The signs on the Classroom Behavior Inventory and on the global ratings were adjusted so that a high score indicated impairment on all measures.

Results s

Residence Measures

Correlations between the Adolescent Symptom Checklist and the Resi- dence Behavior Inventory are reported in Table II for all subjects and separately by sex. Correlations between corresponding factors are substantial (above .6 in all six instances) and highly significant (/9 ~< .001). Correlations between noncorresponding factors are considerably lower, and none are significant. The pattern of strong correlations between corresponding dimensions and low correlations between noncorresponding dimensions is evidence of the discriminant validity of the factor dimensions.

There are moderate to strong correlations between the two symptom clusters and the global ratings of behavior, as may be seen in Table III. tn other words, in line with expectations, the higher the youth's score on Apathy-Withdrawal or Anger-Defiance, the more severely impaired he is in the eyes of the child care workers. In general, the correlations between Anger-Defiance and global impairment are higher than the values between Apathy-Withdrawal and global impairment, indicating that children who are aggressive and hostile are seen as more disturbed than children who show recessive symptoms.

The magnitude of the correlations indicates the degree of validity of the syndrome measures. Nevertheless, the data must be viewed with some caution since both ratings were carried out by the same staff members. More solid evidence on validity can be obtained by correlating the residence syndrome scores with the teachers' ratings of impairment, to be discussed presently.

SResults were calculated for three groups: all subjects, boys only, and girls only. Our major interest was in the "all subjects" group. Statistical analysis of differences between boys and girls was not done. Combined (all subjects) correlations are presented even where large (probably significant) differences between boys and girls are apparent. We felt that showing the data for the three categories would allow the reader to view the results from several vantage points rather than only one.


Table II. Consistency of Factor Dimensions Within and Across Settings Using Different Instruments a

Residence (Adolescent Symptom

Checklist)

Residence (Residence Behavior Inventory)

AH su~ects Boys Girls (N= 100) (N = 55) (N= 45)

I II I II I II

I (Apathy-Withdrawal) .62 b II (Anger-Defiance) -.03

-.22 .62 b -.24 .62 b -.17 .85 b -.21 .86 b -.22 .87 b

School (Classroom Behavior Inventory)

All subjects (N = 110)

Boys (N= 62)

Girls (N = 48)

I II I II I II

I (Apathy-Withdrawal) .23 d -.30 e .16 -.25 .42 c -.34 d II (Anger-Defiance) -.05 .55 b .16 .64b -.19 .52 b

a High score indicates disturbance. bp <~ .001. Cp ~< .01. dp <~ .05.

School Measures

Correlations between the Adolescent Symptom Checklist and the Class- room Behavior Inventory are presented in Table II for all subjects and separately by sex. There are strong and highly significant (p ~< .001) correlations across settings on Factor II; r values on Factor I are lower than expected for all subjects and for boys, but of respectable magnitude (r = .42, p ~< .01) for girls. Correla- tions between noncorresponding factors are low to modest. The results support the hypotheses o f discriminant validity and cross-situational consistency of personality functioning, particularly of acting-out behavior. The sizes of the cross-setting correlations (especially for Factor II) are in line with those reported in Koretzky, Kohn, and Jeger (1978) and furnish further support for the position of the authors that cross-situational consistency of behavior can be demonstrated when behavior is conceived and measured in terms of broad dimensions and when instruments are appropriately worded for different settings.

The correlations between the teachers' global ratings of functioning and the ASCL scores show the same trends as the correlations between the child care staff's judgment o f global impairment and symptoms (see Table III), providing further evidence of both construct and discriminant validity. For example, low dependability is strongly linked to Factor II (Anger-Defiance) but not to Factor I (Apathy-Withdrawal). On the other hand, poor peer relations is strongly associated with Apathy-Withdrawal but not with Anger-Defiance.


Table Ill. Correlations Between Adolescent Symptom Checklist and Global Ratings Within and Across Settings a

Residence Adolescent Symptom Checklist)

AH subjects Boys Girls

Global Ratings I II I II I II

Part A: Residence .3(7&; = 100) 7 b Level of functioning Verbal fluency .40 b .13 Ability to get along with

others .13 .74 b Lethargic-overactive A 1 b - .42 b

Part B: School (N = 83) Variability of functioning .11 - .39 b Level of functioning .19 .34 c Verbal fluency .06 - .02 Potential .22 d ,23 d Work output .19 .24 d Initiative . t 8 .26 d Motivation ,12 .23 d Ability to learn .12 .24 d Dependability .14 ,50 b Response to supervision ,12 .30 c Ability to work with

others .36 b .32 c Task persistence .20 .25 d Peer relations .52 b .08 Attendance - .09 .38 b Quality compared to na-

tional norms .17 .24 d Hostility-pa ssivity - . 14 .58 b Self-image .29 c -.05

(N = 55) (N= 45) .50 b .58 b .26 .57 b .48 b .43 c .48 b ---.08

,26 ,78 b .04 ,74 b .37 c - .20 .40 r - ,67 b

(N = 46) (N = 37) .26 - ,50 b - .02 -.29 .35 d A1 e ,13 .38 d .18 .09 ,16 .08 .38 c A0 c .18 .t8 .3l d .20 .06 .28 .33 d .23 .01 .31 .22 .13 - .02 .35 d .33 .46 e .00 .11 .24 .64 b .23 .44 c .21 ,45 e .02 ,14

,38 c .50 b .36 d .13 .30 d .35 d .16 .20 .36 d .14 .68 b .00 ,07 ,35 d - .30 .39 d

.38 c .46 c .07 ,10 - .04 .69 b - .20 .57 b

.30 d .12 .30 - .23

aHigh score indicates disturbance; I = Apathy-Withdrawal; II = Anger-Defiance. bp < .001. Cp < ,01. dp < .os.

Anger-Defiance is again more strongly related to the global ratings than is

Apathy-Withdrawal . It is l ikely that the child care workers and teachers b o t h

consider act ing-out behavior as more indicative o f emot iona l dis turbance because

they have a harder t ime coping wi th disruptive than wi th wi thdrawn youngsters .

There are some interest ing sex differences. F o r example , five i tems (vari-

abi l i ty o f funct ioning, p o o r response to supervision, l ow task persis tence, low

abil i ty to learn, and p o o r qual i ty as compared to nat ional norms) are significantly

associated wi th Anger-Defiance for all subjects and for boys, but no t for girls.

In general, the corre la t ions be tween the global ratings and the A S C L

scores are impressive because (a) the fac tor scores are based on behavior in

ano ther sett ing and (b) the two sources o f i n fo rma t ion are independen t o f each other .


Offense Measures

Data in Table 1V show a significant link between Anger-Defiance (Factor II) and number of DC petitions and of total petitions; there is a significant inverse relationship between Apathy-Withdrawal (Factor I) and number of total petitions. This pattern holds true for all subjects and for boys and indicates clearly that the higher the frequency of the offenses the youths had committed, the more aggressive and less inhibited was their behavior in the institution.

Apathy-Withdrawal is also inversely related to the average seriousness rating of both DC petitions and total petitions when all subjects are considered together. Surprisingly, none of the correlations between Anger-Defiance and the average seriousness ratings reached significance.

Multiple correlations between Factors I and II and the frequency of DC and all petitions were calculated for the sample as a whole. The multiple Rs were .29 and .34 for number of DC and total petitions, respectively. The results indicate that combining the two dimensions yields significantly stronger coefficients with previous offense history than when either factor is taken alone (F values are 4.50 and 6.75 with 1 and 103 degrees of freedom; p < .05 for both offense measures).

Demographic Variables

As may be seen in Table V, girls are rated significantly higher than boys o n Apathy-Withdrawal. In previous studies, the same trend has been observed:

Table IV. Correlations Between Factor Scores and Offense Measures a

All subjects Boys (N = 106) (N = 59)

Offense measures I b II c I II

Girls (N= 47)

I I1

PINS petitions Number - .04 .07 - .21 .07 .06 .05 Average seriousness rating - .02 - .04 - .04 .03 .07 - .13

DC petitions Number - ,18 .21 d - ,17 .27 d - .12 .22 Average seriousness rating - .21 d .09 - .21 .11 - .12 .16

All petitions Number - .20 d .24 d - .27 d .31 d - .03 .18 Average seriousness rating - .23 d .05 - .24 .10 - .10 .06

aHigh score indicates disturbance, bI = Apathy-Withdrawal. ClI = Anger-Defiance, dp < .05.

An Adolescent Symptom Checklist

Table V. Correlations Between Factor Scores and Demographic Variables a

27

AH subjects Boys Girls (N= 110) (N= 62) (N= 48)

Demographic variables b I II I II I II

Sex .28 c .17 Age .02 -.14 .19 -.19 -.06 -.06 Race-ethnicity -.20 d .10 -.04 .02 -.27 .24

a High score indicates disturbance. bDemographic variables were scored as follows: Sex: 1 = male, 2 = female;

race-ethnicity: 1 = white, 2 = black or Puerto Rican. I = Apathy-Withdrawal; II = Anger-Defiance.

c < ~p< .01. .05.

Inhibited functioning was either more prevalent among girls than among boys or was found to occur to an equal extent in boys and girls. However, whereas there usually is a sizable sex difference on Anger-Defiance (with boys showing more acting-out behavior than gifts), in the present study the difference between the sexes on Anger-Defiance is nonsignificant. Compared to the population at large, the girls appear to be particularly aggressive. (For a review of research studies on sex differences in social-emotional functioning, see Kohn, 1977b).

No significant difference was found with respect to age at referral even though the youths varied in age from 12 to 16�89 years. This finding is in line with a considerable number of previous investigations in which the two major dimensions were found to be relatively independent o f age.

Only one of six correlations between the factor scores and race-ethnicity was significant, with minority children significantly less apathetic-withdrawn than white children.

Discussion

The findings extend the two-factor model o f social emotional functioning to a new population - adolescent boys and girls who have had a few brushes with the court. The two factors were found to be orthogonal and reliable (especially Factor II). It is quite likely that had items specifically relevant to the Immaturity and Socialized Delinquency dimensions been included, these would have emerged as separate third and fourth factors.

The two symptom clusters were demonstrated to be congruent with corresponding dimensions on independently developed instruments and to have validity across a variety o f raters, criterion measures, and settings. Stability of personality functioning was found not only between two subenvironments of the detention facility but also between behavior there and behavior in the community, as measured by frequency and gravity o f illegal activities. High scores on


Anger-Defiance were related to frequency of several offense criteria, while Apathy-Withdrawal was found to be inversely related to several offense criteria.

The results of the present study have pragmatic value for administrators, clinicians, social workers, and educators at diagnostic or detention facilities for adolescent delinquents because the two-factor model provides a parsimonious yet psychologically meaningful way of describing the population with whom these professionals deal. While they are free to think in terms of specific symptoms that may be descriptive in individual cases, they can summarize their im- pressions in terms of two major dimensions that identify youngsters who exhibit their problems in markedly different ways. This has practical implications for the development of administrative procedures, treatment approaches, teaching styles, etc., in order to provide maximum help to the youths in rehabilitation before they return to their families and neighborhoods.

The concept of the two-factor model is also useful to researchers interested in risk research with a delinquent population. As early as 1951, Witmer hypo- thesized that "extroverted" behavior was more prognostic of delinquency than "introverted" behavior (Powers & Witmer, 1951/1972, p. 354). These clinical hunches were substantiated by Robins (1966), who followed up a group of deviant children 30 years after they were seen at a psychiatric clinic. She found that aggressive behavior predicted to a generally high level of criminality in adulthood. Garmezy's (1974) review also suggests that youths high on Anger- Defiance are particularly prone to serious emotional disturbance and social pathology at a later age. There is a paucity of empirical data relating the two symptom clusters to later outcome and recidivism.

REFERENCE NOTE

1. Schaefer, E. S. Major replicated dimensions of adjustment and achievement: Cross- cultural, cross-sectional, and longitudinal research. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., April 1975.

REFERENCES

Garmezy, N. Children at risk: The search for the antecedents of schizophrenia. Part I. Conceptual models and research methods. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1974, 8, 14-90.

Hewitt, L. E., & Jenkins, R. L. Fundamental patterns of maladjustment: The dynamics of their origin. Springfield, Illinois: D. H. Green, 1946.

Kohn, M. The Kohn Social Competence Scale and Kohn Symptom Checklist for the preschool child: A follow-up report. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, I977, 5, 249- 263. (a)

Kohn, M. Social competence, symptoms and underachievement in childhood: A longitudinal perspective. Washington, D.C.: Winston-Wiley, 1977. (b)

Kohn, M., & Rosman, B. L. A Social Competence Scale and Symptom Checklist for the preschool child: Factor dimensions, their cross-instrument generality, and longitudinal persistence. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 430-444.


Kohn, M., & Sugarman, N. Characteristics of families coming to the family court on PINS petitions. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1978, 50, 37-43.

Koretzky, M. B., Kohn, M., & Jeger, A. M. Cross-situational consistency among problem adolescents: An application of the two-factor model. Journal o f Personality and SocialPsychology, 1978,36, 1054-1059.

Patterson, G. R. An empirical approach to the classification of disturbed children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1964, 20, 326-337.

Powers, E., & Witmer, H. An experiment in the prevention o f delinquency: The Cambridge- Somerville Youth Study. Montclair, New Jersey: Patterson Smith, 1972. (Originally published, 1951.)

Quay, H. C. Dimensions of personality in delinquent boys as inferred from the factor analysis of case history data. Child Development, 1964, 35, 477-484. (a)

Quay, H. C. Personality dimensions in delinquent males as inferred from the factor analysis of behavior ratings. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1964, 1, 33-37. (b)

Quay, H. C. Personality patterns in preadolescent delinquent boys. Educational and Psy. chological Measurement, 1966, 16, 99-110.

Quay, H. C., Morse, W. C., & Cutler, R. L. Personality patterns of pupils in special classes for the emotionally disturbed. Exceptional Children, 1966, 32, 297-301.

Quay, H. C., & Quay, L. C. Behavior problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 1965, 36, 215-220.

Robins, L. N. Deviant children grown up. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1966. Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. E. The measurement o f delinquency. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Documents

An adolescent symptom checklist for juvenile deliquents