testing the reliability and validity of the risk, sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability...

Anne-Marie R. Leistico and Randall T. Salekin, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama. We would like to thank Dr.Michael Caldwell for his assistance and helpful comments on this project.

Correspondence should be addressed to Anne-Marie R. Leistico, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, 348Gordon Palmer Hall, Box 870348, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA 35487-0348 (Email: [email protected]).

Testing the Reliability and Validity of theRisk, Sophistication-Maturity, and

Treatment Amenability Instrument (RST-i):An Assessment Tool for Juvenile Offenders

Anne-Marie R. Leistico and Randall T. Salekin

The current study investigated the reliability and validity of the Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, and Treatment

Amenability Instrument, (RST-i) in a sample of 126 incarcerated adolescent males. Raters completed the

RST-i, the Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version (PCL-YV) and a reactive/proactive aggression form. In

addition, data were gathered on treatment compliance and other relevant treatment variables. Intraclass

correlation coefficients were high and convergent validity analyses yielded moderate coefficients with

theoretically related constructs. Importantly, the RST-i was predictive of transfer to adult court. These results

provide preliminary empirical support of the RST-i in relation to theoretically related clinical constructs and

transfer decisions. Further research examining the interface of psychological and legal criteria considered

in juvenile transfer cases is indicated.

Although juvenile crime is on the decline, thecascade of harsh public and legislative responses tohistorically higher rates of juvenile delinquencyremains. While the need to appropriately manageserious juvenile offenders is imminent, concerns thata young life may be “wasted” necessitate prudentdecisions regarding the legal placement of youth.Indeed, juvenile offenders present one of the greatestchallenges for the legal system. On one hand, theyare young and a certain degree of rebellious behavioris understood to be part of the normal developmentalstage of adolescence (Moffitt, 1993). On the otherhand, a small proportion of these offenders willcontinue their antisocial behaviors well intoadulthood, engendering a conundrum for deter-mining which of these youth will continue theirdelinquency and which will desist. As such,psychologists and legal decision makers arefrequently faced with difficulties identifying youthwhose delinquent/antisocial behaviors are malleableto treatment interventions and thus, may be bestmanaged in rehabilitation focused programmingrather than in crime control focused systems. As aresult, decision makers within the legal system areleft to puzzle over which system, adult or juvenile,

is best suited to address the youth’s delinquentbehaviors.

The underlying principles of each system aredramatically different. The adult system wasdeveloped around an underlying principle thatserious, antisocial behaviors should be treatedpunitively and therefore focuses on retribution andthe deterrence and incapacitation of offenders (Fagan& Deschenes, 1990). As a result, correctiveconfinement and punishment are the primarymethods used by the adult system in addressing thesebehaviors. In contrast, the juvenile justice systemwas founded on societal and legal beliefs that youthlacked maturity and full criminal intent (Grisso,1998) as well as other potential influences.Furthermore, it was believed that behavior andpersonality characteristics evident in childhood andadolescence were malleable, susceptible to sugges-tion, and thus amenable to interventions. As such,the juvenile system tends to focus on the individualand the rehabilitation of his/her antisocial behaviors.

The juvenile system has been challenged due toincreases in violent juvenile crime between the late1980’s and early 1990’s (OJJDP, 2002) and societyhas raised concerns about the effectiveness of the

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health2003, Vol. 2, No. 2, pages 101-117

©2003 International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services

102 Leistico & Salekin

rehabilitative focus of this system. It has beenasserted that increases in violent juvenile crime area result of the juvenile justice system’s failure toprovide swift, successful, and robust treatmentresponses for serious juvenile offenders (e.g., Feld,1981; Sanborn, 1994). Others suggest that effective,comprehensive rehabilitative treatments have neverbeen fully implemented (e.g., Woolard, Fondacaro,& Slobogin, 2001). Consequently, legislativeprovisions within the juvenile justice system havechanged considerably. These changes have pressedjuvenile court judges, prosecuting attorneys, andcorrectional facility administrators to respond tomany youth as adults, implying they have criminalintent, maturity, and a poor prognosis for treatment.

Legal Procedures for Youth Transfer to AdultCourt

For certain legal scholars and legislators, theadult criminal system has been considered a moreappropriate legal option for responding to seriousjuvenile delinquency and legal procedures havechanged accordingly (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, &Slobogin, 1997). Three legal procedures existthrough which youth may be transferred to criminalcourt with specific state statutes mandating one ormore of these options: (a) statutory exclusion, (b)prosecutorial direct file, and (c) judicial waiver. Forstatutory exclusion, each state’s statute delineatesspecific age and offense criteria that once a youth ofthe specified age is charged with an excluded offense,he/she is automatically under criminal courtjurisdiction. In other words, particular casesautomatically under criminal court jurisdiction arepredetermined by the state’s legislature (Guttman,1995). For instance, older youth committing moreviolent offenses (e.g., murder and rape) areconsidered automatically outside juvenile courtjurisdiction and legal proceedings are initiated underadult jurisdiction (Grisso, 1998). Over half of thestate statutes include this legal provision (Griffin,2000).

Under prosecutorial direct file, state prosecutingattorneys decide whether to initiate proceedings injuvenile or adult court. Nearly one-third of the statesinclude this provision in their statutes (Heilbrun,Leheny, Thomas, & Huneycutt, 1997). Some statestatutes (i.e., Wyoming and Nebraska) specify limits

to this provision mandating that prosecutors considera set of criteria paralleling those described in Kent v.

U.S. (1966) when deciding how to charge a youthand, consequently, under which jurisdiction the youthwill be retained. Statutory exclusion and prosecu-torial direct file are more recent additions to the legalprovisions available for youth to be transferred tocriminal court and reflect the overall expansion oflegal routes through which youth may be treated asadults (Grisso, 1998).

It is important to note, however, that even instates where these procedures exist, in some states,there remains the option for judges to remove adultjurisdiction over the youth and transfer him/her backto juvenile court. These mechanisms have been called“reverse transfer”, “decertification”, or “reversewaiver.” To date, 24 state statutes provide for suchmechanisms (Griffin, 2000). It is also interesting tonote that certain state statutes have adopted transferprovisions that permanently retain adult jurisdictionover youth once they are transferred to criminal courtparticularly with regard to subsequent offensescommitted by the youth.

The final legal provision, judicial waiver, allowsthe juvenile court to decide which system will havejurisdiction over the youth and transferring a youthto criminal court occurs only after a formal orderfrom the juvenile court judge. Forty-seven statestatutes currently include this transfer option(Guttman, 1995). Unlike the above-mentionedprovisions, where legal proceedings originate incriminal court, under this transfer mechanism, legalproceedings are initiated in juvenile court.

The discretionary judicial waiver procedurerequires a transfer hearing during which, the courtfirst acknowledges that a threshold standard has beenmet. This standard usually entails a set of facts aboutthe youth’s age and current and prior offenses(Grisso, 1998). Following this determination, thejuvenile court typically focuses on specific standardscited in the U.S. Supreme Court in Kent v. U.S.

(1966). These criteria include: community protec-tion, the seriousness of the current offense, whetherit was an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willfuloffense, if the offense was against person or property,the appeal of prosecuting the youth under onejurisdiction when co-defendants in the crime areadults, the sophistication and maturity of the youthascertained by assessing personal and environmental

Reliability and Validity of the RST-i 103

situations and patterns, and prior contact with legaland mental health institutions (Kent v. U. S., 1966).1

Clearly, Kent criteria are not the only criteriaconsidered in transfer decisions; however, psycho-logists have unique qualifications to assess and offeropinions about the above noted criteria.

In fact, psychologists are frequently called bythe courts to provide psychologically relevantinformation in transfer cases. Grisso, Tomkins, andCasey (1986) were one of the first to examinepsychological phenomena associated with juveniletransfers to adult court. They suggested that transferdecisions are based on decision standards ofdangerousness and amenability to treatment.Furthermore, Grisso et al. (1986) examined factorsof psychological phenomena and summarized thesefactors as including characteristics of the individualyouth, family and peer supports, and the youth’sdelinquency history and behavioral conduct in legaland academic settings.

Later, Ewing (1990) provided psychologists witha set of guidelines for juvenile transfer assessments.Using the information cited in Kent v. U. S. (1966),Ewing’s research rationally identified three corepsychological constructs that are relevant to theassessment of juveniles facing transfer; namely, risk,sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability.According to Ewing (1990), psychologists are in an

auspicious position to evaluate youth characteristicsunderlying sophistication-maturity and treatmentamenability, yet he cautioned against profferingconclusions about a youth’s level of dangerousness.Also noteworthy was his delineation of the specificfactors salient in conducting transfer evaluations andthe appropriate assessment tools to tap thesecharacteristics. For example, he suggested assessingboth cognitive and emotional maturity via traditionalintelligence measures and apperception testsrespectively. The most substantial influence of hisresearch was that it provided the initial shaping of aparadigm for the development of assessmentprotocols for psychologists conducting transferevaluations. It is important to note, however, thatrecent advances in risk assessment research mayfacilitate psychologists’ abilities to address questionsregarding youth’s levels of dangerousness (Borum,1996; Grisso & Appelbaum, 1993; Monahan &Steadman, 1996). Likewise, contemporary measures,particularly relating to intelligence and maturity,allow for more detailed and thorough evaluations ofthe factors posited by Ewing (see Salekin, 2002a).Finally, although his conceptualizations of theseconstructs were well founded and plausible,empirical support from decision makers and forensicevaluators involved in transfer proceedings couldprovide further crucial information regarding theoperationalization of these constructs.

In accord with Ewing (1990), Kruh and Brodsky(1997) suggested that psychologists can provide thecourts with valuable information regarding risk,sophistication maturity, and treatment amenabilityand they reviewed the empirical status of a varietyof assessment tools and psychological constructsused to evaluate these factors. They noted that manyof the clinical and legal applications of transfercriteria are currently underdeveloped and solicitedempirically supported, standardized assessmenttools. While these guidelines have been of clearvalue, many psychologists continue to find it difficultto address questions of dangerousness, sophistica-tion-maturity, and treatment amenability in theabsence of assessment technology designedspecifically for the measurement of these constructs.

To bolster the frameworks developed by Ewing(1990) and Kruh and Brodsky (1997) and usingprocedures similar to Grisso et al. (1986), weconducted two prototypical analyses to glean further

1 Because legal provisions for criminal jurisdiction over juvenileoffenders vary from state to state, the specific statutes for thestate of Wisconsin are relevant to the current study. Wisconsin’sstatutes include judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and reversewaiver. To establish grounds for initiating a judicial waiverhearing in Wisconsin, the youth must be older than the minimumage requirement and must be charged with a statutorily definedoffense type. For instance, a district attorney may apply for awaiver hearing for a youth at least 15 years of age who is chargedwith any criminal law violation. In judicial waiver cases inWisconsin, descriptions of criteria to be considered indetermining whether transfer to adult court is warranted, closelyparallel, and often wholly encompass, those criteria circum-scribed in Kent v. U. S. (1966). Alternatively, statutory exclusioncases adhere to legislatively established offense type guidelines.That is, the transfer statute lists the following as offenses forwhich juvenile jurisdiction is automatically excluded: (a) batteryor assault while detained, incarcerated or while under communitysupervision and (b) first degree intentional, attempted, or recklesshomicide or second degree intentional homicide. Notably, thereare no ancillary Kent related guidelines specified for prosecutingattorneys outside of the above noted age requirements andoffense types.


information regarding these constructs (Salekin,2001). We followed the procedures set forth byAnastasi (1998) and Clark and Watson (1995) forscale development. Specifically, Salekin, Rogers, andUstad (2001) examined clinical child psychologists’prototypical ratings of youth characteristicsassociated with dangerousness, sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability with respect totheir importance in transfer decisions. Highprototypical items for dangerousness included ahistory of extreme and unprovoked aggression;chronically aggressive and antisocial behaviors;absence of guilt, remorse, and empathy; andleadership role in criminal activity. Prototypic itemsfor sophistication-maturity encompassed exhibitingcriminal sophistication and internal locus of control,and being aware of behavioral norms and alternativesolutions. Highly prototypic items associated withtreatment amenability were motivation to engage intreatment and interest in change, cognizance ofproblems and expectations of therapeutic progress,empathic and remorseful expressions of guilt, andfamily support and stability.

In addition, forensic psychologists providedprototypical ratings on similar criteria for youth theyhad evaluated and who were subsequently transferredto adult court. Here, highly prototypic itemssuggested that youth transferred to adult court werelikely characterized by the following items: use of adangerous weapon; involvement in troublesomebehaviors in a variety of settings; awareness ofpotential consequences; severe, unprovokedviolence; planning and premeditation in behaviors;absence of long range aspirations; and non-acceptance of responsibility.

In a corresponding study, Salekin,Yff, Neumann,Leistico, and Zalot (2002) examined juvenile courtjudges’ prototypic ratings on the characteristics theyviewed as being central to the constructs of risk,sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability.In line with the Salekin et al. (2001) study, juvenilecourt judges generated prototypic ratings on thecharacteristics they deemed salient in youthconsidered for, and consequently transferred to, adultcriminal court. Results from this sample were highlycongruent with prototypic ratings generated by theclinical and forensic psychologist samples in theSalekin et al. (2001) study. These two researchendeavors generated vital information regarding

youth characteristics relevant to juvenile transfersto adult court and augment the empirical foundationin research examining dangerousness, sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment.

Following these procedures, we developed aninterview and rating scale to capture the itemsrelevant to juvenile transfer and the constructs of risk,sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenabilityas put forth by clinicians and juvenile court judges.Distillation of items to specific scales relied heavilyon prototypical items and factor analytic workconducted in the prototypical studies (Salekin et. al.,2001; Salekin et al., 2002) and theory regardingtransfer (Salekin, 2001, 2002a). Items low inprototypicality were not included on the scales eventhough they may have loaded on a factor becausethey may have artificially inflated (or deflated) scalescores. Items were also chosen so as to representfactors within a given construct. For instance,autonomy, cognitive capacity, and emotionalcapacity were yielded from factor analytic work andhighly prototypic items representative of each of thefactors were utilized for the sophistication-maturityscale. Furthermore, one aspect of test developmentthat required special attention was the construct ofsophistication-maturity. On one hand, high levels ofsophistication-maturity can be indicative of goodtreatment prognosis. On the other hand, high maturitycan be indicative of more sophisticated criminalconduct. As such, clinicians were asked to ratewhether youth were using the cognitive skillsprimarily for criminal behavior or prosocial behavior.These responses were utilized in a criminalsophistication subscale. More specifically, youth whoare using sophistication-maturity for criminologicalends are also rated on the criminal sophisticationscale (see Salekin et al., 2001 and Salekin et al., 2002for a detailed review of the item development andselection process).

Following the development of the scalesthemselves, the next evident step in the validationprocess is to test the reliability and validity of theRisk, Sophistication-Maturity, and TreatmentAmenability-instrument (RST-i; Salekin, in press).The goal of this process was twofold: a) to evaluatethe construct validity of the RST-i in relation totheoretically meaningful constructs and b) toexamine the criterion validity of the RST-i withregard to transfer to adult court. These are inherently


overlapping but separate goals. Factors delineatedin legal provisions and transfer criteria (e.g., Kent

factors) would ideally be developmentally meaning-ful and predictive of transfers; however, this is notalways the case. For instance, decisions to transfer ayouth may be based on information beyond factorsincluded in transfer provisions (e.g., countydemographics, political influences) and may not beassociated with psychological phenomena assessedin a clinical tool such as the RST-i. In light of this,one goal of the current study is to assess the utilityof the clinical tool by determining if risk, sophistica-tion-maturity, and treatment amenability are relatedto other psychologically relevant constructs (e.g., IQ,conduct disorder, offenses, psychopathy, aggressiontype, and so forth). A secondary goal of the currentstudy was to determine if the RST-i was related totransfers to adult court. Although these goals overlap,they are necessarily distinct, individual goals. Bothaims are relevant to the RST-i given that the measurewas originally conceptualized in relation to threeconstructs that guide transfer decisions.

To accomplish these aims, we first examined thereliability of the RST-i. Following this we evaluatedthe convergent validity for risk, sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability via theoreticallyrelated constructs. In particular, it was hypothesizedthat risk, sophistication-maturity, and treatmentamenability would be significantly correlated withcriteria related to a) intelligence, b) academicachievement, and c) onset and severity of behavioralproblems. In addition, we hypothesized positiverelations between risk, sophistication-maturity,proactive aggression, and psychopathy. Furthermore,we hypothesized negative correlations betweensophistication-maturity and reactive aggression, andtreatment amenability, proactive aggression, andpsychopathy. We also posited that transferred andnon-transferred youth would differ significantly onthese constructs. Subsequent to this, we evaluatedthe predictive validity of the RST-i. Becauseconstruct validity and instrument fidelity areinextricably tied, both can be examined simul-taneously. Specifically, it was expected that transferto adult court would be best predicted by the RST-i,followed by proactive aggression, and finally,psychopathy. Our rationale for examining aggressiontype and psychopathy as theoretically relatedconstructs is delineated below.

Reactive and Proactive Aggression

For the past several decades, research hasexamined a number of systems for classifyingantisocial youth. Of increasing empirical interest isthe distinction between reactive and proactiveaggression. Reactively aggressive youth arecharacterized as having short tempers, hostileintentions, and a lack of behavioral control (Dodge,Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997). Therefore,their aggression is marked by retaliatory andemotionally labile behaviors. Conversely, pro-actively aggressive youth tend to engage in morecriminally sophisticated, premeditated, and deli-berate crimes in order to accomplish a goal. Thus,their aggression is marked by a drive for reward anda lack of emotion (Cornell et al., 1996). Smithmyer,Hubbard, and Simons (2000) found that proactivelyaggressive youth expect fewer consequences andmore positive outcomes as a result of theiraggression. It has also been theorized that self-concept developed within negative social andenvironmental influences may be related toinvolvement in instrumental, goal-directed crimes(Cornell et al., 1996). Furthermore, proactivelyaggressive youth are viewed by their peers as havingleadership qualities (Dodge & Coie, 1987).

Researchers have found the distinction betweenproactive and reactive aggression to be useful (e.g.,Brown, Atkins, Osborne, & Milnamow, 1996; Dodge& Coie, 1987; Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, &Newman, 1990; Poulin & Boivin, 2000). Neverthe-less, it is important to note that certain youth mayexhibit both reactively and proactively aggressivebehaviors. In fact, individuals who engage inproactive aggression may also engage in reactiveaggression; however, research in this area suggeststhat classifying individuals as proactively aggressivebased on single or multiple incidences of proactiveaggression is an important distinction (Cornell et al.,1996). For example, Vitaro, Gendreau, Tremblay, andOligny (1998) found that proactive aggressionassessed at age 12 predicted disruptive and antisocialbehaviors for the same youth in mid-adolescence.Furthermore, Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, andLavoie (2001) found that proactive and reactiveaggression assessed at age 13 was distinctivelypredictive of the context of aggression at ages 16and 17. Namely, proactive aggression predicted


adolescents’ involvement in subsequent antisocialaggression (e.g., engaged in gang fights) where asreactive aggression predicted later interpersonalaggression in romantic relationships (e.g., pushedor threatened a partner). Interestingly, reactivelyaggressive youth were no more violent than controlswhen antisocial aggression was examined. Thesefindings are consistent with the notion that reactiveaggression encompasses a wider range of generalaggressive behaviors, while proactive aggressioncovers a smaller subgroup of predatory aggressivebehaviors (Cornell et al., 1996).

Many of the previous characteristics are, asmentioned, theoretically related to the assessmentof risk, sophistication-maturity, and treatmentamenability. Specifically, youth considered high ondangerousness tend to have a leadership role in crimeand have engaged in unprovoked aggressivebehaviors. Criminally sophisticated youth are morelikely to have an internal locus of control, plan theircrimes, and expect positive outcomes from theirdelinquent behaviors. Such characteristics are alsotheoretically related to stable, negatively influencedmaturity. These behaviors and personality character-istics are analogous to proactively aggressive youth.On the other hand, reactively aggressive youthdemonstrate less emotionally stable and internallyintegrated behaviors, engage in less antisocialaggression, and exhibit less leadership and planningcharacteristics, suggesting that these youth wouldscore low on dangerousness2 and sophistication-maturity, including both criminal sophistication andmaturity. Finally, clinical theory (Loeber, 1991)suggests that as the severity and chronicity ofantisocial and aggressive behaviors increase,amenability to treatment decreases. It is likely thatthis also relates to both reactively and proactivelyaggressive youth. Although the constructs of reactiveand proactive aggression are theoretically relevantto risk, sophistication-maturity, and amenability totreatment, to date, these relations have not beenexamined empirically.

Psychopathy

For several decades, psychopathy has beenexamined in adults and recently this construct hasbeen extended to youth. This downward extensionof psychopathy from adults to children is currentlyunder debate (Hart, Watt, & Vincent, 2002; Frick,2002; Lynam, 2002; Salekin, Rogers, & Machin,2001; Seagrave & Grisso, 2002); however, manyresearchers suggest that the manifestation and factorstructure of psychopathy in adults may be similar tothat in youth (Brandt, Kennedy, Patrick, & Curtain,1997; Frick, O’Brien, Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994;Forth & Burke, 1998; Forth, Hart, & Hare, 1990).Psychopathy has been typified by personalitycharacteristics such as callousness, lack of remorseor guilt, dominance, and grandiosity (Cleckley, 1981;Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003). In addition,psychopathic youth have a history of a number ofdifferent serious and coercive antisocial behaviors(Forth et al., 1990). Given that psychopathy has beenshown to have a relation with both general andviolent recidivism at the adult level (Salekin, Rogers,& Sewell, 1996), it is likely that it would be relatedto risk in juvenile offenders. Some preliminaryevidence is emerging on this issue (Salekin, Ziegler,Larrea, Anthony, & Bennett, 2003). Furthermore,clinical theory (Cleckley, 1981) would suggest thatsome psychopathic youth are criminally sophisti-cated.

Although currently under debate (see Salekin,2002b), it has been posited that youth with high levelsof psychopathy may be more recalcitrant totraditional forms of treatment. O’Neill, Lidz, andHeilbrun (2003) suggested that youth manifestinghigher levels of psychopathy were more likely tohave problems in treatment and were less likely toexhibit treatment gains than youth low on psych-opathy. In addition, psychopathy was significantlyassociated with one-year recidivism rates. These datasuggest another construct theoretically related to risk,sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability.Specifically, youth with higher levels of psychopathywill likely be more dangerous, more criminallysophisticated and mature, and less amenable totreatment. Although clinical conceptualizations linkthese constructs, to date, these relations have not beenexamined.

2 It is important to note that these youth may be considereddangerous using a general conceptualization of dangerousness,but not with regard to the type of risk for dangerousness that theRST-i assesses.


METHOD

Participants

A review was conducted on 126 clinical files ofresidents of Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center(MJTC) in Wisconsin. This facility maintains richclinical and research information and file informationon each youth. These files are notably comprehensiveincluding information from intake assessments,psychosocial and criminal histories, school reports,psychological evaluations, and prior treatmentinvolvement. Youth at MJTC are transferred fromthe state correctional boys schools because ofbehavior management or mental health issues.Typical charges for this sample included, but are notlimited to battery, disorderly conduct, burglary,carrying concealed weapon, operating motor vehiclewithout owner’s consent, possession of drugs,robbery, and sexual assault. These charges representoffenses that lead to the youths’ incarceration. Dueto the nature of these youths’ behaviors andpersonality characteristics, a large portion of youthat MJTC commit serious offenses within the juvenilesystem and are subsequently charged and retainedin adult court. That is, these youth are being held ina juvenile facility on a variety of charges noted above.During their stay at the facility, a portion of theseyouth commit offenses within the facility and aresubsequently charged and retained in adult court.

From the current sample, 30 (24%) youth weretransferred to adult court while 96 (76%) remainedin juvenile court. Twenty-six (87%) were charged inadult court for battery by a prisoner, which is anexcluded offense by Wisconsin statutes. Theremaining 4 youth (13%) were charged as adults forcommitting offenses that fall under the judicialwaiver statute in Wisconsin (e.g., manufacture anddeliver cocaine). It is important to note that althoughthe majority of this sample was transferred to adultcourt via statutory exclusion, when deciding if andhow to charge a youth with an excluded offensefacility administrators and prosecuting attorneyslikely consider a number of criteria including risk,sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability.

Participants’ age at initial assessment rangedfrom 12 to 17 years (M = 15.28, SD = 1.19). Thesample consisted of 58 African-Americans (46%),52 Caucasians (41%), 6 Hispanics (5%), and 10

individuals of other ethnicities (8%). The mean gradelevel of this sample was 6.91 years (SD = 3.07) andthe mean intelligence score was 86.40 (SD = 14.20).Participant’s mean age of onset for behavioralproblems and age at first arrest were 7.25 years (SD

= 2.70), and 11.23 years (SD = 2.42), respectively.Data on participant’s number of violent, non-violent,and total conduct disorder symptoms had cor-responding means of 4.14 (SD = 1.69; Range = 0-7),5.60 (SD = 1.81; Range = 0-8), 9.58 (SD = 2.74;Range = 0-15). The mean number of total offensescommitted was 17.55 (SD = 13.53). When separatedinto violent and non-violent offenses the cor-responding means were 5.85 (SD = 5.51) and 11.70(SD = 11.63).

Measures

The Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, Treatment

Amenability-instrument (RST-i)

The RST-i (Salekin, in press) consists of 45 itemsassessing youths’ personality factors, antisocialbehaviors, attitudes about legal difficulties, andenvironmental influences. The RST-i is composedof three subscales measuring items specific to risk(15 items but only 14 items were used in the currentstudy), sophistication-maturity (15 items), andtreatment amenability (15 items). Clinical ratersscore items using detailed criteria provided in itemdescriptors and each item score is based on a 3-pointscale, with 0 denoting a complete absence of thecharacteristic/ability, 1 suggesting subclinical/moderate characteristic/ability, and 2 denotingcomplete presence of the characteristic/ability.Because of the complexity of the sophistication-maturity construct, item scores can be differentiallytabulated allowing for the generation of the criminalsophistication scale. For example, with regard to thecriterion autonomy, clinicians first rate whether ornot a given youth is autonomous and then on a secondrelated scale they have the option to rate whetherthe autonomy is primarily prosocial or antisocial.Importantly, Sternberg (2000) has provided theoryto suggest that sophistication accrues whetherindividuals choose antisocial or prosocial lifestyles.Example items from each subscale are as follows:“unprovoked violent behavior” (risk), “autonomy”(sophistication-maturity), and “motivated to engagein treatment” (treatment amenability). Preliminary


analyses of the RST-i have yielded intraclasscorrelation coefficients of .92, .83, .88 for risk,sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenabilityrespectively, suggesting excellent reliability. Itemratings for the current study were completed basedon a thorough review of clinical file information.

Reactive and Proactive Aggression Checklist

Following the procedures of Dodge et al. (1997),a proactive/reactive aggression checklist wascompleted on each youth. This checklist consists of10 proactively aggressive and 9 reactively aggressivebehaviors. An example of a proactively aggressivebehavior is “bullying” or “teasing” displayed in thecontext of instrumental gain. An example of a reactivelyaggressive behavior is “easily angered and irritable”within a context of interpersonal conflict. The frequencyand severity of these specific behaviors were rated ontwo analogous 4-point scales ranging from 1 (never/no injury) to 4 (frequently/fatal). Using this informa-tion, raters gave an overall classification of whetherthe youth exhibited reactive (scored as 1) or proactive(scored as 2) aggression based on definitions givento them. If the youth had evidence of both reactiveand proactive aggression, the rater indicated whichof the two was most predominant. Statistical analysesof this method yielded 78% agreement between raterswhen classifying youth as reactively or proactivelyaggressive (Dodge et al., 1997). Moreover, previousresearch using a dichotomous classification ofreactive versus proactive aggression yielded an inter-rater kappa coefficient of .85 (Cornell et al., 1996).In the current study, for the dichotomous classifica-tions of aggression class (reactive or proactive) thekappa statistic was .88.

The Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version

The PCL-YV (Forth et al., 2003) is a 20-itemrating system based on a semi-structured interviewthat assesses the youth’s family background, pastrelationships/friendships, employment history,alcohol/drug use, and school and delinquentbehaviors. Information gathered from an interviewand collateral sources are used to rate the youth’sbehaviors and personality characteristics across eachof the twenty items. Item scores are rated on a 3-point scale of 0 (no) to 2 (yes) based on the degreeto which the youth’s behaviors or personalitycharacteristics meet specific item descriptors.

Statistical analyses of the PCL-YV withincarcerated youth, have yielded inter-rater reliabilitycoefficients ranging from .90-.98, coefficient alphasranging from .75-.90, and interitem reliabilitycoefficients ranging from .17-.29 (Forth & Burke,1998). A recent study by Kosson, Cyterski,Steuerwald, Neumann, and Walker-Matthews (2002)examined the reliability and validity of the PCL-YVwith adolescent males on probation. In particular,analyses of the PCL-YV produced high internalconsistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha = .80) andgood to excellent inter-rater agreement coefficients(intraclass coefficient = .80, kappa = .61).

Youth Characteristics Form

The youth’s race, education level, intelligencescores, and age were also collected. In addition,information on the onset of behavioral problems, ageat first crime and first arrest, number of violent andnon-violent conduct disorder symptoms, and numberof violent and non-violent crimes was noted.Information regarding each youth’s level of treatmentcompliance and behaviors within the institution wasalso obtained. In particular, frontline staff membersprovide daily ratings of each youth’s behaviors withregard to three items (i.e., peer interactions, adultinteractions, and boundaries) at three shiftsthroughout the day for the youth’s entire stay at thefacility. Scores for these items range from 0-10 withhigh scores denoting excellent behaviors. For eachitem, the percentage of shifts rated as excellent wasanalyzed. Teachers and therapists provide singleratings with regard to school and group participation,respectively. Scores for these items range from 0-6with high scores denoting excellent behaviors. Foreach item, the percentage of shifts rated as excellentwas analyzed.

Transfer Status

Transfer status information was gathered viaWisconsin’s circuit court internet access program.This system provides information on an individual’sdate(s) of offense(s), charge(s), dispositions, andsentencing within the adult system. Youth withcharges and sentencing in this system were coded astransferred to adult court while youth whose nameswere not retrieved by this system were coded as nottransferred to adult court.


Procedure

As part of the standard research protocol of thisfacility, the PCL-YV interview and rating system arecompleted with each youth during their stay. A seniorstaff psychologist and an advanced undergraduateresearch assistant completed all PCL-YV protocols.Both individuals were trained in the administrationand scoring of psychopathy measures (i.e., PsychopathyChecklist-Revised, Psychopathy Checklist-ScreeningVersion). These researchers also discussed adminis-tration and scoring of the PCL-YV with thedevelopers of the instrument. A trained rater, maskedto information regarding youth’s treatment com-pliance, transfer status, and psychopathy scores,completed file ratings of the RST-i, proactive/reactive aggression checklist, and youth character-istics form. Sixteen of the RST-i, proactive/reactiveaggression rating sheet, and youth characteristicsforms were randomly selected and independentlyscored by a second trained rater to obtain inter-raterreliability. Once all file reviews were completed,treatment compliance and transfer status informationwere gathered.

RESULTS

To examine inter-rater reliability, intraclasscorrelation coefficients were calculated for the RST-i and PCL-YV using a two-way random effectsmodel with consistency agreement. This analysisproduced coefficients of .94, .74, .91, and .84 forrisk, sophistication-maturity, amenability totreatment, and psychopathy, correspondingly. Theintraclass coefficient for the criminal sophisticationsubscale was .60. These intraclass reliabilitycoefficients are qualitatively categorized as good toexcellent by guidelines set forth by Cicchetti andSparrow (1981). Last, for the dichotomous classifica-tions of aggression class (reactive or proactive) andpsychopathy (psychopath or non-psychopath) kappastatistics were .88 and .61, respectively, and werewithin the good to excellent range.

To test if there were differences in transfer basedon ethnicity, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasconducted. No significant differences were found,F (3,122) = 2.01, p = .12; thus, the sample wascollapsed across ethnicity for all subsequent

analyses. To establish and evaluate convergentvalidity, bivariate correlation analyses wereconducted on participant characteristics, risk,sophistication-maturity, amenability to treatment,aggression type, and psychopathy. In order to controlfor type-one errors, only correlations at the .01 levelwere considered significant.

The relations among risk, sophistication-maturity, treatment amenability, and demographiccharacteristics related to the chronicity of problembehaviors were examined. Risk was associated witha younger age of onset (r = -.36), violent offenses (r= .28), and conduct disorder symptoms includingboth violent and nonviolent symptoms (r’s from .33to .59). Sophistication-maturity and the criminalsophistication subscale correlated with nonviolentoffenses, r = .28 and r = .30 respectively. Amena-bility to treatment was associated with an older ageof onset (r = .26) and significantly correlated in theexpected direction from r = -.32 to -.51 with conductdisorder symptoms. Table 1 illustrates these relations.Because of some overlap between items on the RST-i and external criteria, the potential circularity ofthese results was examined. To accomplish this, threeitems from the risk scale and two items from thetreatment amenability scale were removed andrelevant correlations were reanalyzed using thesemodified scales.3 Although slightly attenuated all ofthese relations remained statistically significant.

Additional criteria related to treatment com-pliance within the institution were examined tofurther explicate the convergent validity of the RST-i. Several meaningful relations were evident. Riskwas negatively associated with maintainingappropriate boundaries (r = -.31), maturity wassignificantly related to excellent classroom behaviors(r = .37) and treatment amenability was associatedwith positive interactions with staff members (r =.29) and maintaining appropriate boundaries (r =.31).

To evaluate relations between constructs, and tofurther establish construct validity, bivariatecorrelation analyses were conducted between risk,sophistication-maturity, treatment amenability,

3 The three risk items removed for these analyses were violenthistory, high frequency of past criminal acts, and early onset.The two treatment amenability items were limited police/court/probation involvement, and intellectual maturity.


aggression type, and psychopathy. As illustrated inTable 2, risk was significantly correlated from r =-.74 to .50 with treatment amenability, psychopathy,type of aggression (positive scores indicate proactiveaggression), and transfer to adult court. Although riskwas not significantly related to sophistication-maturity, when examining the criminal sophisticationcomponent of this construct, it was significantlyrelated (r = .52). Sophistication-maturity was notsignificantly related to aggression type, psychopathy,or transfer to adult court; however, examination ofthe criminal sophistication subscale significantlycorrelated with these criteria from r = .24 to .32.Treatment amenability was significantly related tosophistication-maturity (r = .36). Further examina-tion of the criminal sophistication subscale yieldeda significant relation to treatment amenability (r =

-.36). Treatment amenability significantly correlatedfrom r = -.26 to -.58 with aggression type, psycho-

pathy, and transfer to adult court. Finally, the RST-itotal score correlated from r = .34 to .54 with aggres-sion type, psychopathy, and transfer to adult court.

To evaluate specific differences between thetransferred and non-transferred groups, a multivariateanalysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted.4

Level of risk, sophistication-maturity, treatmentamenability, aggression type, and psychopathy wereentered as dependent variables, while transfer to adultcourt was the independent variable. Table 3 presentsthe mean scores and standard deviations for thetransferred and non-transferred groups and reflectsstatistically significant omnibus F’s for the main

Table 1Correlation Matrix for Intelligence, Academic Achievement, Chronicity and Severity of Behavioral Problems,

Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment

Risk Sophistication- TreatmentMaturity Amenability

Grade Level -.19 .24 (-.03) .34*

Total IQ -.43* .28 (-.09) .49*

Onset -.36* .11 (-.08) .26*

Arrest -.16 .07 (.03) .03

Nonviolent offenses .10 .28* (.30*) .00

Violent offenses .28* -.23 (.00) -.25*

Total offenses .20 .14 (.26*) -.10

Nonviolent CD .33* -.16 (.19) -.32*

Violent CD .59* -.12 (.25) -.49*

Total CD .57* -.18 (.21) -.51*

Note. Criminal sophistication correlations are within parentheses; CD = conduct disorder symptoms;* p< .01

4 Because intelligence was significantly correlated with risk andamenability to treatment, we conducted a MANOVA using IQas a covariate. The relations between transfer and risk,sophistication-maturity, criminal sophistication, and amenabilityto treatment remained significant after IQ was covaried out.


Table 2Construct Validity Correlation Matrix for Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, Amenability to Treatment, Aggression

Type, Psychopathy, and Transfer to Adult Court

RST-i Risk S-M ATX Aggression Psycho- TransferTotal Class pathy Status

RST-i Total [.86] .90* .02 -.87* .45* .54* .34*(.72*)

Risk [.73] -.07 -.74* .40* .50* .29*(.52*)

S-M [.62] .36* -.08 -.11 .20(-.36*) (.28*) (.24*) (.32*)

ATX [.83] -.41* -.58* -.26*

Aggression Class — .18 .07

Psychopathy [.80] .15

Note. S-M = sophistication-maturity, ATX = amenability to treatment, Criminal sophistication correlationsare within parentheses, Aggression Class = proactive aggression is scored in the positive direction, Cronbach’salpha coefficients are within brackets, — = alpha could not be calculated, * = p< .01

Table 3MANOVA Results and Effect Sizes for the Transferred Versus Non-Transferred Samples

Constructs Transferred Non-Transferred F-value p Partial Eta2 da

n = 30 n = 94

Risk 22.63(2.93) 20.27(3.48) 11.31 .001 .085 .71

Sophistication-Maturity 10.03(3.50) 8.56(2.74) 5.68 .019 .045 .50

Criminal Sophistication 8.50(4.07) 5.84(3.04) 14.64 .001 .107 .80

Amenability to Treatment 5.93(4.39) 8.62(4.43) 8.39 .001 .064 -.61

Aggression Class 1.47(0.51) 1.39(0.49) 0.50 .483 .004 .16

Psychopathy 32.67(4.48) 30.82(5.31) 2.96 .088 .024 .36

Note. Aggression Class = proactive aggression is scored in the positive direction; a = Cohen’s d


effects of risk, sophistication-maturity, and amena-bility to treatment.

As predicted, the mean risk and sophistication-maturity scores for the transferred sample weresignificantly higher than the mean risk andsophistication-maturity scores for the non-transferredgroup (p< .05). In addition, mean scores for treatmentamenability were significantly lower for thetransferred group compared to the non-transferredgroup, F(1,122) = 8.39, p< .01. Supplementaryanalyses of the criminal sophistication subscale ofsophistication-maturity also produced a significanteffect. These results yielded moderate effect sizes(Cohen’s d) ranging from -.61 to .80. Differencesbetween the transferred and non-transferred groupson mean psychopathy scores approached signifi-cance, F(1,122) = 2.96, p = .09.

To further examine how well risk, sophistication-maturity, amenability to treatment, aggression type,and psychopathy predicted transfer to adult court,we performed a receiver operator characteristicanalysis for each construct. Results were interpreted

by evaluating the total area under the curve (AUC).This method provides a graphic depiction of thedifferences between false-alarms and true-positiveswith larger discrepancies indicating greatereffectiveness in predicting transfer to adult court. AnAUC of 1.0 indicates perfect accuracy in predictingtransfer to adult court. The diagonal reference linerepresents an AUC of .5 or an estimated accuracy of50% in discriminating between transferred and non-transferred youth. Results above and below this linereflect greater than chance accuracy. The estimatedprediction accuracy of risk, sophistication-maturity,and treatment amenability were significant (p’s <.05)and are illustrated in Figure 1. Supplementaryanalyses of criminal sophistication produced an AUCof .70 (p<.01). The total RST-i score yielded anestimated prediction accuracy of .75 (p<.01). Theprediction accuracy of psychopathy was weak,producing an AUC of .60 (p = .10), while aggressiontype yielded an AUC of .54 (p = .50) suggesting aprediction accuracy estimate slightly above chance.

Figure 1. Receiver Operator Characteristic Analysis of Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, and Treatment

Amenability

Note. ATX = treatment amenability, S-M = sophistication-maturity

1-Specificity

1.00.75.50.250.00

Sens

itivi

ty

1.00

.75

.50

.25

0.00

Source of the Curve

Reference Line

ATX

S-M

Risk


DISCUSSION

In response to historically higher rates of juveniledelinquency and keen pessimism regarding theeffectiveness of the rehabilitative nature of thejuvenile system, legal provisions for juvenile transferto adult court have changed and provide potentiallymore avenues for youth to be charged and retainedin the adult criminal system. Using criteria cited inthe landmark case Kent v. U. S. (1966) research hasdistilled salient domains about which psychologistshave particular expertise. These include theconstructs of dangerousness, sophistication-maturity,and treatment amenability. As forensic professionalsare frequently called upon to proffer expert opinionsabout transfer, the empirical explication andrefinement of the psychological constructs andconsequent assessment tools that may guide transferdecisions is vital.

Central to the current study, we examined thereliability and construct validity of the RST-i vis-à-vis theoretically related clinical constructs andcriteria. Subsequent to this, we investigated groupdifferences between transferred and non-transferredyouth based on their RST-i, psychopathy, andreactive/proactive aggression scores. And, as a finalpoint of examination, we assessed the criterionvalidity of each construct in predicting transfers toadult court. It is noteworthy to mention that thesegoals of evaluating the construct validity of the RST-i in relation to theoretically meaningful constructsand examining the criterion validity of the RST-i withregard to transfers to adult court are inherentlyoverlapping yet distinct goals.

The current investigation provides support forthe reliability of the RST-i with results yielding highinternal consistency and inter-rater reliabilitycoefficients. Furthermore, the RST-i correlated withparticipant characteristics of intelligence, academicachievement, and chronicity and severity ofbehavioral problems. Results were consistent withnotions that treatment amenability entails a degreeof academic and intellectual skills to be able tounderstand and maximally benefit from therapy. Aswell, heightened risk scores were found to beassociated with lower intelligence. This result is likelybecause this criterion was assessed by traditionalmeasures of intelligence, suggesting that these youthmay be limited in their abilities to engage in effective

analytic problem solving; however, measures tappingother types of intelligence (e.g., emotional, practical)may have produced different results. It is noteworthythat sophistication-maturity was not significantlyrelated to traditional measures of intelligence oracademic achievement, signifying that it may involveother practical, “street-smart” abilities not tradi-tionally assessed by standard intelligence oracademic measures (see Salekin, 2002a).

It has been asserted that antisocial behaviorevolves along a step-like progression of less seriousdisruptive behaviors preceding more seriousantisocial behaviors (Loeber, 1991). The progressioninto more serious antisocial behaviors has beenassociated with early onset disruptive behaviors aswell as other factors (Loeber, 1991). In accord withthis theory, results from the current study suggestthat risk and treatment amenability are indeedmeaningfully related to the chronicity and severityof problem behaviors. That is, as the chronicity andseverity of delinquent behaviors increases, youths’engagement in dangerous, violent behaviors alsoincreases. Furthermore, early onset and chronicbehavioral problems were hypothesized to benegatively related to the malleability of youths’behaviors and current results are consistent with thisnotion. Similar results suggest that as youth engagein both violent and non-violent behaviors, their levelof dangerousness increases. Likewise, youths’involvement in both violent and non-violentbehaviors would likely attenuate the youths’ abilityto change in treatment and results are consistent withthis proposition. The unique relations betweensophistication-maturity, criminal sophistication,violent, and non-violent offenses suggest that morecomplex interactions may exist. It is possible thatdistinctions related to other types of violent and non-violent behaviors (e.g., covert and overt delinquentbehaviors) may be important to more fully under-stand these relations.

A more detailed examination of related criteriarevealed a number of relations between risk,sophistication-maturity, treatment amenability, andtreatment compliance measures. These resultsprovide some preliminary support for the validity ofthe RST-i in relation to treatment compliance criteria;however, future investigations of the relationsbetween the RST-i and youths’ involvement andparticipation in treatment programming is indicated.


Moreover, because not all expected relations werefound, treatment compliance measures used in thecurrent sample are likely not definitive indicators ofa youth’s receptivity to therapy. Treatment success/failure indicators, in addition to facility official’sratings, are needed.

Associations between risk, sophistication-maturity, treatment amenability, aggression type, andpsychopathy suggest that the intended constructs arebeing sufficiently measured. Increasingly delinquentbehaviors and personality traits were associated withheightened criminal skills and diminished receptivityto treatment. In addition, as youth were more awareof societal, personal standards, and the importanceof prosocial behavior their responsiveness totreatment increased. In contrast, the presence ofsophisticated delinquent attitudes and behaviors wasrelated to decreased amenability to treatment.Furthermore, these results offer preliminary supportfor the differential rating of maturity items suggestingthat maturity can operate to a) augment criminalbehavior or, alternately, b) help youth develop inprosocial ways.

The examination of theoretically relevantconstructs yielded meaningful relations as well. Thatis, youth engaging in more serious, unprovoked,proactively aggressive behaviors were likely to behigher on risk and criminal sophistication, andresultantly less receptive to treatment interventions.It is interesting that although sophistication-maturitywas not significantly related to other factors it wasstill related to transfer to adult court. This suggeststhat sophistication-maturity may be an independentfactor considered on its own when making transferdecisions. In addition, it is likely that sophistication-maturity is comprised of an independent sub-factor,namely criminal sophistication, which is dif-ferentially related to transfer to adult court andrelevant criteria. It follows then that although notsignificantly related to other constructs it appearsthat sophistication-maturity is a relevant concept injuvenile transfers to adult court and may not havebeen fully assessed by the current constructs.

Despite a restricted sample range, statisticallysignificant differences were detected betweentransferred and non-transferred youths based on theirRST-i scores. In particular, youth transferred to adultcourt scored significantly higher on risk andsophistication-maturity, and significantly lower on

amenability to treatment than youth remaining injuvenile court. Surprisingly, transferred and non-transferred youth did not differ significantly onaggression type and psychopathy. Further researchon these relations is indicated and will be crucial tofully understanding the array of factors necessaryfor distinguishing transferred and non-transferredyouth. Moreover, it is important to note that asignificant proportion of transferred youth are non-violent offenders and the use of aggression type andpsychopathy as indicators of validity may limit thegenerality of these results.

In the current study, the predictive validity ofthe RST-i, psychopathy, and reactive/proactiveaggression was also estimated. Results indicate thatthe RST-i was predictive of transfer to adult court.The estimated predictive ability of psychopathy andtype of aggression was considerably lower thanexpected and further research is warranted regardingtheir relation to transfers to adult court. Althoughthere is preliminary support for the predictive abilityof the RST-i, the rate of misclassification, in relationto transfer remains, an important caveat.

Although legal criteria are necessary and centralcomponents of validating constructs such as risk,sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment,they are imperfect. Namely, a multitude of factorsare likely to play into facility administrators’, districtattorneys’ and judges’ decisions to charge andtransfer, or not transfer, youth to adult court. Factorsspecific to particular county demographics orpolitical influences were not addressed in this study;however, they, in addition to other factors, likelyinfluence decisions leading to transfer to adult court.For instance, in the current study, a variety of factorslikely influenced facility administrators’ decisionsto report incidences of misconduct, district attorneys’decisions to charge a youth with an adult offense,and judges’ decisions on how to sentence a youth.As such, the use of transfer as a criterion forestimating the predictive validity of the RST-i couldbe limited as such factors may be measured quitewell but not predict transfer decisions that well. Forexample, although the RST-i assesses a variety oftreatment amenability indicators, research is stillexamining if the measure is directly linked totreatment receptivity. Nonetheless, the moderateresults of this investigation are encouraging. Ifpsychologists are equipped to provide facility


administrators, prosecuting attorneys, and judgeswith more specific information about what consti-tutes risk, sophistication-maturity, and amenabilityto treatment, future research in this area may havemore favorable results.

In addition to evaluating personality andbehavioral characteristics of youth transferred andnot transferred to adult court, it is imperative toconsider the type of transfer mechanism throughwhich youth are ultimately retained in adult court.Particular to this study, the majority of youth weretransferred to adult court subsequent being chargedwith an excluded offense by Wisconsin statutes.Although risk, sophistication-maturity, and amena-bility to treatment are more explicitly considered injudicial transfer proceedings, the current studysuggests that there are distinctions based on thesecriteria in youth transferred to adult court via otherlegal provisions. This has important legal implica-tions in that having facility administrators andprosecutors explicitly consider criteria related to risk,sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatmentmay optimize the accuracy of transfer decisions,particularly in regard to statutory exclusion cases.Despite the fact that legal criteria and decision-making are delineated as objectively as possible,there is still appreciable subjectivity surroundingtransfer decisions. Developing and implementingexpectations that Kent criteria be considered instatutory exclusion and direct file provisions mayhelp to ensure optimal decisions when choosing howto charge a youth and consequently which systemwill handle the case. Wyoming and Nebraskacurrently have such provisions for direct file cases.It is our opinion that optimal transfer decisions areengendered by a balance of ensuring the welfare andsafety of youth and the public and providing thegreatest likelihood of improving youth competenciesvia developmentally appropriate opportunities andinterventions. Such decisions are clearly dependentupon the vicissitudes of the youth’s individual,family, and environmental situations as well asexternal, macro-level systemic influences.

Although risk, sophistication-maturity, andtreatment amenability have most commonly been thefocal point of juvenile waiver evaluations we felt itwas necessary to examine these constructs withserious, chronic offenders. However, the constructsof risk, sophistication-maturity, and treatment

amenability are clearly psychological in nature andthus are relevant to the assessment of juveniles ingeneral. We also stress here that the measure isintended to aid clinicians with practice in juvenilejustice settings and that it is not intended to answerlegal questions per se. That said, we believe thataccurate assessments of risk, sophistication-maturity,and treatment amenability could assist clinicians andconsequently, juvenile court judges in making verydifficult decisions about youth. Without such input,we are left with arbitrary guides such as automatictransfers and the like.

Although these preliminary results are moder-ately promising for the RST-i, this instrument andmanual are in the initial stages of validation andfuture work is essential to determine if it willeffectively and accurately assess risk, sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment. It is importantto note, however, that the current study andsubsequent research on the validity of the RST-i isfaced with the lack of a “gold standard” against whichto compare the measure. Decisions to transfer youthto adult court are based on the weighing andapplication of a variety of factors with significantinfluence of expert opinions. Therefore, there is nosingle construct, or single linear method, forassessing the validity of a measure guiding transferdecisions. Nonetheless, the current results providepreliminary support for the reliability and validityof the RST-i and the constructs of risk, sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment and researchusing psychological measures in combination withlegal criteria will be of importance in future studies.These investigations will be crucial to providingyouth, as well as the public, with equitabledispositions. Finally, it is hoped that risk, sophistica-tion-maturity, and treatment amenability might beconstructs that are utilized for all juveniles, injuvenile justice settings, to determine what level ofservice is required to provide the necessary treatmentto set them back on the course of prosocialdevelopment.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. (1998). Psychological testing (7th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Borum, R. (1996). Improving the clinical practice of violencerisk assessment: Technology, guidelines, and training.American Psychologist, 51, 945-956.


Brandt, J. R., Kennedy, W. A, Patrick, C. J., & Curtain, J. J.(1997). Assessment of psychopathy in a population ofincarcerated adolescent offenders. Psychological Assess-

ment, 9, 429-435.Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., & Lavoie, F. (2001).

Reactive and proactive aggression: Predictions to physicalviolence in different contexts and moderating effects ofparental monitoring and caregiving behavior. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 293-304.Brown, K., Atkins, M. S., Osborne, M. L., & Milnamow, M.

(1996). A revised teacher rating scale for reactive andproactive aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 24, 473-479.Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria

for establishing interrater reliability of specific items:Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American

Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127-137.Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Construct validity: Basic

issues in objective scale development. Psychological

Assessment, 7, 309-319.Cleckley, H. (1981). The mask of sanity (5th ed.) St Louis, MO:

Mosby.Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., &

Pine, D. (1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactiveviolent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 64, 783-790.Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-

processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression inchildren’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 53, 1146-1158.Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., &

Pettit, G. S. (1997). Reactive and proactive aggression inschool children and psychiatrically impaired chronicallyassaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106,37-51.

Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Bachorowski, J., & Newman, J. P.(1990). Hostile attributional biases in severely aggressiveadolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 385-392.

Ewing, C. P. (1990). Juveniles or adults? Forensic assessmentof juveniles considered for trial in criminal court. Forensic

Reports, 3, 3-13.Fagan, J., & Deschenes, E. (1990). Determinants of judicial

waiver decisions for violent juvenile offenders. Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 314-347.

Feld, B. C. (1981). Legislative policies toward the seriousjuvenile offender: On the virtues of automatic adulthood.Crime and Delinquency, 27, 497-521.

Forth, A. E., & Burke, H. C. (1998). Psychopathy in adolescence:Assessment, violence,and developmental precursors. In D.J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy:

Theory, research, and implications for society (pp. 205-229). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1990). Assessment ofpsychopathy in male young offenders. Psychological

Assessment, 2, 342-344.Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). The

Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.

Frick, P. J. (2002). Juvenile psychopathy from a developmentalperspective: Implications for construct development anduse in forensic assessments. Law and Human Behavior,

26, 247-253.Frick, P. J., O’Brien, B. S., Wootton, J. M., & McBurnett, K.

(1994). Psychopathy and conduct problems in children.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700-707.

Griffin, P. (2000). National overviews. State juvenile justice

profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for JuvenileJustice.

Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota,FL: Professional Resource Press.

Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1993). Is it unethical to offerpredictions of future violence? Law and Human Behavior,

16, 621-633.Grisso, T., Tomkins, A., & Casey, P. (1986). Psychosocial

concepts in juvenile law. Law and Human Behavior, 12,

403-437.Guttman, C. R. (1995). Listen to the children: The decision to

transfer juveniles to adult court. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil

Liberties Law Review, 30, 507-542.Hart, S. D., Watt, K. A., & Vincent, G. M. (2002). Commentary

on Seagrave and Grisso: Impressions of the state of the art.Law and Human Behavior, 26, 241-245.

Heilbrun, K., Leheny, C., Thomas, L., & Huneycutt, D. (1997).A national survey of U. S. statutes on juvenile transfer:Implications for policy and practice. Behavioral Sciences

and the Law, 15, 125-149.Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966).Kosson, D. S., Cyterski, T. D., Steuerwald, B. L., Neumann, C.

S., & Walker-Matthews, S. (2002). The reliability andvalidity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version innonincarcerated adolescent males. Psychological Assess-

ment, 14, 97-109.Kruh, I. P., & Brodsky, S. L. (1997). Clinical evaluations for

transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Current knowledgeand future research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15,

151-165.Loeber, R. (1991). Antisocial behavior: More enduring than

changeable? Journal of the American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 393-397.Lynam, D. R. (2002). Fledgling psychopathy: A view from

personality theory. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 255-259.Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C.

(1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A

handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. (2nded.). New York: Guilford.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy.Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

Monahan, J., & Steadman, H. J. (1996). Violent storms andviolent people: How meteorology can inform riskcommunication in mental health law. American Psych-

ologist, 9, 931-938.Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2002).

Statistical briefing book. Retrieved September, 29,2003, fromhttp://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/asp/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa220 1012002.


O’Neill, M. L., Lidz, V., & Heilbrun, K. (2003). Adolescentswith psychopathic characteristics in a substance abusingcohort: Treatment process and outcome. Law and Human

Behavior, 27, 299-313.Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000). Reactive and proactive

aggression: Evidence of a two-factor model. Psychological

Assessment, 12,115-122.Salekin, R. T. (2002a). Clinical evaluation of youth considered

for transfer to adult criminal court: Refining practice anddirections for science. Journal of Forensic Psychology

Practice, 2, 55-72.

Salekin, R. T. (2002b). Psychopathy and therapeutic pessimism:Clinical lore or clinical reality? Clinical Psychology Review,

22, 79-112.Salekin, R. T. (2001). Juvenile transfer to adult court: How can

developmental and child psychology inform policy decisionmaking? In B. L. Bottoms, M. B. Kovera, & B. D. McAuliff(Eds.), Children, social science, and U. S. law. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Salekin, R. T. (in press). A manual for risk, sophistication-

maturity, and treatment amenability-instrument (RST-i).

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Machin, D. (2001). Psychopathy

in youth: Pursuing diagnostic clarity. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 30, 173-195.Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review

and meta-analysis of the psychopathy checklist andpsychopathy checklist-revised: Predictive validity ofdangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,

3, 203-215.Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Ustad, K. L. (2001). Juvenile waiver

to adult criminal courts: Prototypes for dangerousness,sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 381-408.

Salekin, R. T., Yff, R. M., Neumann, C., Leistico, A. R., & Zalot,A. A. (2002). Juvenile transfer to adult courts: A look atthe prototypes for dangerousness, sophistication-maturity,and amenability to treatment through a legal lens.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 373-410.

Salekin, R. T., Ziegler T. A., Larrea, M. A., Anthony, V. L., &Bennett, A. (2003). Predicting dangerousness with twoMillon Adolescent Clinical Inventory psychopathy scales:The importance of egocentric and callous traits. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 80, 154-163.Sanborn, J. B., Jr. (1994). Certification to criminal court: The

important policy questions of how, when, and why. Crime

and Delinquency, 40, 262-281.Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent development and

the measurement of juvenile psychopathy. Law and Human

Behavior, 26, 219-239.Smithmyer, C. M., Hubbard, J. A., & Simons, R. F. (2000).

Proactive and reactive aggression in delinquent adolescents:Relations to aggression outcome expectancies. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 86-93.Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Implicit theories of intelligence as

exemplar stories of success: Why intelligence test validityis in the eye of the beholder. Psychology, Public Policy,

and Law, 6, 159-167.Vitaro, F., Gendreau, P. L., Tremblay, R. E., & Oligny, P. (1998).

Reactive and proactive aggression differentially predictlater conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 39, 377-385.Woolard, J. L., Fondacaro, M. R., & Slobogin, C. (2001).

Informing juvenile justice policy: Directions for behavioralscience research. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 13-24.

testing the reliability and validity of the risk, sophistication-maturity, and treatment amenability...

Documents