The psychometric properties of the risk and resiliency checkup (RRC) were examined in a sample of 2,835 youth offenders. Solid evidence for internal consistency and convergent validity were demonstrated by correlations between the RRC subscales and the total scores. Three hypothetical factor models for the RRC were explored: a second-order factor model, a first-order 2-factor model without covariance, and a first-order 2-factor model with covariance. The first-order 2-factor model with covariance of the RRC was selected for further analyses. Recognizing that measurement invariance was rarely tested with risk assessments, this study examined the measurement invariance of the RRC model across three ethnic groups. The data supported configural invariance as well as partial metric invariance. This study presents substantial empirical evidence for the construct validity of the RRC across three ethnic groups. However, the first-order 2-factor model for the RRC indicates that risk and protective factors appear to be different dimensions.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 5, 7–27.
2.
AndrewsD. A.GuzzoL.RaynorP.RoweR. C.RettingerL. J.BrewsA.WormithJ. S. (2012). Are the major risk/need factors predictive of both female and male reoffending? A test with the eight domains of the Level of Service/Case Management inventory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 113–133.
ArthurM. W.HawkinsJ. D.PollardJ. A.CatalanoR. F.BaglioniA. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The communities that care youth survey. Evaluation Review, 26, 575–601.
5.
BairdC. (2009). A question of evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in the justice system. Madison, WI: Special Report of National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
6.
ByrneB. M.ShavelsonR. J.MuthenB. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.
7.
CatchpoleR. E. H.GrettonH. M. (2003). The predictive validity of risk assessment with violent young offenders: A 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 688–708.
8.
CernkovichS. A.GiordanoP. G. (1979). A comparable analysis of male and female delinquency. Sociological Quarterly, 20, 131–145.
9.
ChenF. F.SousaK. H.WestS. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, 471–492.
10.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
11.
DavisN. J. (1999). Resilience: Status of the research and research-based programs. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, Division of Program Development, Special Populations and Projects, Special Programs Development Branch.
12.
EddyD. M. (1998). Performance measurement: Problems and solutions. Health Affairs, 17, 7–25.
13.
EmekaT. Q.SorensenJ. R. (2009). Female juvenile risk: Is there a need for gendered assessment instruments?Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 313–330.
14.
FarringtonD. P. (1997). Early prediction of violent and non-violent youthful offending. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 5, 51–66.
15.
FougereA.DaffernM. (2011). Resilience in young offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10, 244–253.
16.
FrenchS. E.KimT. E.PilladoO. (2006). Ethnic identity, social group membership, and youth violence, In GuerraN. G.SmithE. P. (Eds.), Preventing youth violence in a multicultural society (pp. 47–73). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17.
FunkS. J. (1999). Risk assessment for juveniles on probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 44–68.
18.
GuerraN. G. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Gaps in knowledge and research priorities. In LoeberR.FarringtonD. P. (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 389–404). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
HawkinsJ. D.LaubJ. H.LauritsenJ. L. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64–105.
20.
HeggelerS. W. (1991). Multidimentional causal models of delinquent behavior and their implications for treatment. In CohenR.SiegelA. (Eds), Context and development (pp. 211–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
HogeR. D. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 380–396.
22.
HornJ. L.McArdleJ. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.
23.
JessorR. J.Van Den BosJ.VanderrynJ.CostaF. M.TurbinM. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923–933.
24.
JohansonP.Kempf-LeonardK. (2009). A gender-specific pathway to serious, violent, and chronic offending? Exploring Howell’s risk factors for serious delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 55, 216–240.
25.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
26.
LaGrangeR. L.WhiteH. R. (1985). Age differences in delinquency: A test of theory. Criminology, 23, 19–45.
27.
LipseyM. W.DerzonJ. H. (1998). Predictors of violent and serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In LoeberR.FarringtonD. P. (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
LodewijksH. P. B.RuiterC.DoreleijersT. A. H. (2010). The impact of protective factors in desistance from violent reoffending: A study in three samples of adolescent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 568–587.
29.
LoehlinJ. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
MarczykG. R.HeilbrunK.LanderT.DeMatteoD. (2003). Predicting juvenile recidivism with the PCL: YV, MAYSI, and YLS/CMI. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2, 7–18.
31.
MargisonF. R.BarkhamM.EvansC.McGrathG.ClarkJ. M.AudinK. (2000). Measurement and psychotherapy: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 123–130.
32.
NewcombM. D. (1995). Identifying high-risk youth: Prevalence and patterns of adolescent drug abuse. In RahdertE.CzechowiczD.AmselI. (Eds.), Adolescent drug abuse: Clinical assessment and therapeutic intervention (pp. 7–38). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
33.
Office of the Surgeon General (US); National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (US); National Institute of Mental Health (US); Center for Mental Health Services (US). (2001). Youth violence: A report of the surgeon general.Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General (US).Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44294/
34.
OnifadeE.DavidsonW.CampbellC.TurkeG.MalinowskiJ.TurnerK. (2008). Predicting recidivism in probationers with the youth level of service case management inventory (YLS/CMI). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 474–483.
35.
PiqueroN. L.GoverA. R.MacDonaldJ. M.PiqueroA. R. (2005). The influence of delinquent peers on delinquency: Does gender matter?Youth & Society, 36, 251–275.
36.
PiqueroN. L.SealockM. (2004). Gender and general strain theory: A preliminary test of Broidy and Agnew’s gender/GST hypotheses. Justice Quarterly, 21, 125–158.
37.
PloyhartR. E.OswaldF. L. (2004). Applications of mean and covariance structure analysis: Integrating correlational and experimental approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 27–65.
38.
PollardJ. A.HawkinsJ. D.ArthurM. W. (1999). Risk and protection: Are both necessary to understand diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence?Social Work Research, 23, 131–158.
39.
RosayA. B.GottfredsonD. C.ArmstrongT. A.HarmonM. A. (2000). Invariance of measures of prevention program effectiveness. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 341–367.
40.
RyanJ.HerzD.HernandezP. M.MarshallJ. M. (2007). Maltreatment and delinquency: Investigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1035–1050.
41.
SalisburyE. J.VoorhisP. V.SpiropoulosG. V. (2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime and Delinquency, 55, 550–585.
42.
SameroffA. J.SeiferR.BaldwinC. (1998). Stability of intelligence from pre-school to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors. Child Development, 64, 80–97.
43.
SchmidtF.CampbellM. A.HouldingC. (2011). Comparative analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL: YV in adolescent offenders: A 10-year follow-up into adulthood. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9, 23–42.
44.
StattinH.MagnussonD. (1996). Antisocial development: A holistic approach. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 617–645.
45.
SwitzerG. E.WisniewskiS. R.BelleS. H.DewM. A.SchultzR. (1999). Selecting, developing, and evaluating research instruments. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 34, 399–409.
46.
TaylorL. S.LovettM. D.CaronaA. (2007). Substance abuse, aggressive behaviors, and cultural identity among Jamaican adolescents. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 5, 79–92.
47.
ThornberryT. P.HuizingaD.LoeberR. (1995). The prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications form the program of research on the causes and correlates of delinquency. In HowellJ. C.KrisbergB.HawkinsJ. D.WilsonJ. J. (Eds.), A sourcebook: Serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders (pp. 213–237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
TracyP. E.Kempf-LeonardK.Abramoske-JamesS. (2009). Gender differences in delinquency and juvenile justice processing. Crime and Delinquency, 55, 171–215.
49.
TurnerS.FainT. (2006). Validation of the risk and resiliency assessment tool for juveniles in the Los Angeles County Probation System. Federal Probation, 70, 49–81.
50.
VincentG. M.ChapmanJ.CookN. E. (2011). Risk-needs assessment in juvenile justice: Predictive validity of the SAVRY, racial differences, and the contribution of needs factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 42–62.
51.
VincentG. M.TerryA. M.ManeyS. M. (2009). Risk/needs tools for antisocial behavior and violence among youthful populations. In AndradeJ. T. (Ed.). Handbook of violence risk assessment and treatment: New approaches for mental health professionals (pp. 377–424). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company LLC.
52.
VitaccoM. J.NeumannC. S.CaldwellM. F.LeisticoA.-M.Van RybroekG. J. (2006). Testing factor models of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version and their association with instrumental aggression. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 74–83.
53.
WaltersG. D. (2011). Predicting recidivism with the psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles and level of services inventory-revised: Screening version. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 211–220.
54.
WassermanG. A.MillerL. S. (1998). The prevention of serious and violent juvenile offending. In LoeberR.FarringtonD. P. (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp.197–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
WilliamsJ. H.AyersC. D.AbbottR. D.HawkinsJ. D.CatalanoR. F. (1999). Racial differences in risk factors for delinquency and substance use among adolescents. Social Work Research, 23, 241–256.
