Psichologijos_zurnalas_22_korektura.indd SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS International Journal of Psychology: Biopsychosocial Approach 2018 / 22 ISSN 1941-7233 (Print), ISSN 2345-024X (Online) https://doi.org/10.7220/2345-024X.22.2 1 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Virginija Klimukienė, Bendrosios psichologijos katedra, Psichologijos institutas, Universiteto g. 9, LT-01513 Vilnius. E-mail: virginija.klimukiene@gmail.com EXAMINATION OF CONVERGENT VALIDIT Y OF START: AV R ATINGS AMONG MALE JUVENILES ON PROBATION Virginija Klimukienė1*, Alfredas Laurinavičius*, Ilona Laurinaitytė*, Laura Ustinavičiūtė*, **, and Mykolas Baltrūnas* *Vilnius University, Lithuania; **Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania Abstract. The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START: AV, Viljoen, Nicholls, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster, 2014) provides a structural profes- sional judgement on the risk of adverse outcomes related to harm to others and rule violations. The advantage of START: AV is in that it includes the assessment of both strengths and vulnerabilities. As it is a relatively new assessment tool, the questions related to psychometric properties of the measure are still topical, especially in in- tercultural context. The reliability and convergent validity of START: AV ratings were examined in a sample of 159 male juveniles (M age = 16.97, SD = 0.81) on probation. Information about the psychosocial functioning of the minors was collected during the interviews with probation officers and rated by the researchers according to the START: AV User Guide. The Subtypes of Antisocial Behaviour (STAB; Burt & Donnel- lan, 2009), the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010), and the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M; Shields & Simourd, 1991) were used as convergent measures in this study. The results provided evidence for the reliability of the START: AV ratings and associations between behavioural variables, psychopathy constructs and START: AV are in favour of its concurrent validity. Pro-criminal attitudes were not associated with START: AV ratings, and further research is needed to test the manifes- tation of pro-criminal attitudes among juvenile offenders on probation. These find- ings support for further testing the START: AV on its predictive validity as well as utility in work with juvenile offenders. Keywords: youth delinquency; risk of adverse outcomes; strengths; vulnerabilities. The phenomenon of delinquency is observable in all societies; however, there is an ongoing debate, whether delinquent behaviour 31 https://doi.org/10.7220/2345-024X.22.2 mailto:virginija.klimukiene@gmail.com 32 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas is normative for juveniles, who as a group, have a stronger preference for risk and novelty (Siegel & Welsh, 2009), or it is an issue, which needs a big public concern. Research shows that only a small proportion (i.e. around 5%) of young people will commit delinquent acts on an ongo- ing basis while most of juveniles desist from offending without any form of intervention (Steinberg, Cauffman, & Monahan, 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to identify these juvenile offenders who further continue to break rules and are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime as well as to analyse their current and past situations by identifying the principal risk and protective factors so as to assess the level of future risk and develop tailored intervention plans (Savignac, 2010). Decades of research have found a huge number of factors signifi- cant to the origins and maintenance of delinquent behaviour (Skilling & Sorge, 2014), such as antisocial peers or attitudes, personality or mis- conduct problems, poor parent-child relations, educational difficulties and/or ineffective use of leisure time are the best predictors of delin- quency (Campbell, Schmidt, & Wershler, 2016; Cauffman & Steinberg, 2012; Contreras, Molina, & Cano, 2011; Grieger & Hosser, 2014; Heilbrun et al., 2000; Simourd & Andrews, 1994). The domain of behavioural his- tory is the strongest predictor of future delinquency (Casey, 2011; Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001; Farrington, 2005; Frick, 2012; Frick, Ray, Thorn- ton, & Kahn, 2014; Wasserman et al., 2003) meaning that the earlier the onset of behaviour problems, the worse predictions of desistance from antisocial behaviour are in the future (Dishion & Patterson, 2006; Loeber & Farrington, 2000; Moffitt, 1993, 2006). Individual characteristics play an important role in manifestation of delinquent behaviour (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Skilling & Sorge, 2014). Antisocial personality pattern refers to extremes of normal dimensions of personality that exist within general population (Grieger & Hosser, 2014; Hare & Neumann, 2010); however, there are some doubts whether any particular type of personality can be labelled for adolescents as there is a threat that some maladaptive features prevailing in adoles- cence can lead to the positive false assessment of antisocial personality (Hart, Watt, & Vincent, 2002; Seagrave & Grisso, 2002). On the other hand, callous-unemotional or impulsivity traits observed in childhood remain pretty stable through the lifetime (Dhingra & Boduszek, 2013; Frick, Ki- monis, Dandreaux, & Farell, 2003; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Lynam & 33 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation Gudonis, 2005; Lynam, Charnigo, Moffitt, Raine, Loeber, & Stouthamer- Loeber, 2009). Callousness and impulsivity are evaluated in a number of instruments developed for the assessment of delinquent juveniles, such as Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD) (Frick & Hare, 2001), or Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPY) (Andershed, Kerr, Stattin, & Levander, 2002). The difficulties related to emotional and behavioural domains are also captured by a new operationalization of psychopathy, namely, the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009), which distinguishes three phenotypic constructs: Disinhibition, Boldness and Meanness (Drislane, Patrick, & Arsal, 2014, Drislane, Brislin, Kendler, Andershed, Larsson, & Patrick, 2015). Boldness entails resilience to stressors and tolerance towards uncertainty or danger, therefore it is associated with interpersonal dominance and sensation seeking (Ven- ables & Patrick, 2012). The other two constructs: Disinhibition, related to impulsivity, irresponsibility, rule braking, and Meanness, reflecting disre- gard for and exploitation of others, are reliable predictors of substance abuse problems (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009), general and violent reoffending among adults and adolescent boys (Dhingra & Boduszek, 2013; Kimonis, Kennealy, & Goulter, 2016). The importance of antisocial attitudes in the prediction of delin- quent behaviour has a long history already (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Evans, 2017; Mills, Kroner, & Hemati, 2004; Skilling & Sorge, 2014); how- ever, this importance may vary across different types of offenders and different types of antisocial attitudes (Banse, Koppehele-Gossel, Kiste- maker, Werner, & Schmidt, 2013, Mills, Kroner, & Forth, 2002). As the vast majority of studies are conducted within adult offender populations (see Walters, 2012), there is a lack of evidence that attitudes play an impor- tant role in juvenile offending. Some studies with juvenile samples sup- port the use of criminal attitudes measures for predicting the repeated delinquent behaviour (Skilling & Sorge, 2014). However, pro-criminal, and particularly pro-violence cognitions, are more prevalent in gang- affiliated youngsters in comparison to their non-gang counterparts (Chu, Daffern, Thomas, Ang, & Long, 2014), and may mediate the prior delinquency-future delinquency relationship (Walters & DeLisi, 2013). Jones with colleagues (2012) found that youths’ antisocial attitudes were strongly related with alcohol abuse, particularly if associated with higher risks in peer or community domains. However, criminal behaviour was 34 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas beyond the scope of the study. It can be noted that exploration of rela- tionships between attitudes and criminality in youth still requires more empirical research. The above described factors are captured in most of the risk assess- ment instruments designed to help the professionals assessing major risk factors and making evidence-based judgements on future delin- quent behaviour. The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability Adolescent Version (hereinafter referred to as START: AV) is one of the instruments specifically designed to assess the risk of juveniles (Viljoen, Nicholls, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster, 2014). The START: AV belongs to the so-called 4th generation instruments which differ from previous ones by their emphasis on risk management and intervention planning rather than risk assessment alone (Baird et al., 2013). Moreover, START: AV assesses not only risk factors, defined as Vulnerabilities of the ado- lescent, but also protective factors (i.e. Strengths), which are extremely important for the desistance from offending behaviour (Brodowski & Fischman, 2013; de Vries Robbé, 2014; Dickens & O’Shea, 2018; Fortune & Ward, 2017; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995; Maruna & LeBel, 2010; Ward, 2017). Certainly the biggest advantage of the START: AV is that it is both developmentally and gender informed (Viljoen, Cruise, Nicholls, Desmarais, & Webster, 2012a). The studies support the reliability and validity of START: AV based risk assessments completed in adolescent samples on probation (Viljoen et al., 2012b), correctional facilities (Desmarais et al., 2012), and clinical setting (Sher, Warner, McLean, Rowe, & Gralton, 2017). However, these studies are few and mostly conducted with abbreviated manual of the START: AV. There is a need for further investigations on psychometric characteristics of the START: AV using the full version of START: AV user guide (Viljoen et.al., 2014) and in samples other than from the place of origin of the instrument. Our study was conducted within the sample of male juveniles, who were on probation in Lithuania, and the aim of the study was two-fold. First, we aimed at testing how reliable START: AV ratings based on infor- mation derived from the interviews with probation officers were. Sec- ond, we evaluate the convergent validity of START: AV ratings. On the basis of the literature review we formulate the following hypotheses: 35 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation 1. Strengths are negatively associated with Vulnerabilities and Risks of Adverse Outcomes. 2. Estimated Risks of violence, non-violent offences, substance abuse, and unauthorized absence are positively associated with the previ- ous history of delinquency, antisocial attitudes, demographic char- acteristics (e.g. age of onset), and domains of psychopathy. ME THOD Participants The sample consisted of 159 male adolescents who were under su- pervision of municipal probation offices. Youths were 17 years old on average (M = 16.97, SD = 0.81, range = 14.6–18.3). The vast majority of the sample (93.6%) was Lithuanians; 52.9% lived with both parents/care- givers, 33.7% lived in one-parent family, and 13.4% of youth were the residents of child care homes. Index offenses varied from theft (32.7%), robbery (22.7%), mischief (20.7%), to physical (12.0%) and sexual (5.3%) violence, illicit disposal of drugs (5.3%), and road traffic offences (1.3%). The average length of supervision was 12.66 months (SD = 7.12, range = 3–36). The majority of youth (72.7%) did not have prior contacts with the justice system and that was their first conviction (M = 1.40, SD = 0.76, range = 1–4); the mean age of the first contact with police was 14.88 years (SD = 1.59, range = 8–17). Youth were on the 10th school grade on average (M = 9.65, SD = 1.03, range = 7–12). Twenty-seven percent of the sample had ever repeated the same school grade and 16.6% had ever terminated school deliberately. The sample of juvenile offenders was recruited with the help of probation officers, who informed the caregivers of the super- vised adolescents about the study and received their active consent for the youths’ participation. The juveniles also provided their con- sent for the participation. To be eligible to participate, minors had to be less than 18 years old and to be on the court-ordered supervi- sion for the remaining three months at least. Fifty six probation of- ficers from 37 municipal probation offices managed to involve the youth to the study; the number of study participants within municipal 36 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas probation offices varied from 1 to 15 (M = 4.27, SD = 3.48), and the num- ber of study participants for probation offers varied from 1 to 9 (M = 2.84, SD = 2.04). Procedure The ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethical Com- mittee of Institute of Psychology, Vilnius University. The research was conducted in cooperation with the Prison Department under the Min- istry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania. One of the authors of the study has participated in START: AV training conducted by the authors of the instrument and after its completion has collected pilot interviews with probation officers. The research team participated in 2-day self- training in which training materials and interviews from the pilot study were used. After reaching satisfactory knowledge and skills in START: AV assessment, the team members started to collect interviews. The eye-to-eye interviews with probation officers (interview length M = 44.18 minutes, SD = 9.07) focused on the past and current psycho- social functioning of the adolescent. Probation officers from all over Lithuania execute the State’s supervision ordered by the court; thus, re- ceive legal records, usually meet minors twice a month, conduct curfew checks, communicate with caregivers, schools, police and, if necessary, child welfare services; therefore, contain most of the information rele- vant to the completion of risk assessment. All interviews were audio-recorded and later rated by the members of the research team according to START: AV User Guide (Viljoen et al., 2014) identifying Strengths and Vulnerabilities of every item as well as estimating the risk of adverse outcomes. Thirty interviews were ran- domly selected and rated by pairs of evaluators on purpose to calcu- late the interrater reliability coefficients. It was assumed that there is a systematic source of variance associated with both juveniles and evalu- ators; therefore, the two-way random effect model was used for calcula- tion of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) (McGraw & Wong, 1996). As interrater reliability of evaluations varied from fair to excellent (see Table 1), the rest of the cases were coded independently. Strengths and vulnerabilities were summed up for total scores. Item 23 “Medical Adherence” and Item 25 “Case Specific Items” were excluded 37 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation from the analysis, as there were only few ratings for them. According to previous research practice (e.g., Viljoen et al., 2012b;), the cut-off of 20% of the missing items (which equals to 5 non-rated Strength or Vulner- ability items) was selected for the inclusion of START: AV protocols; this resulted in exclusion of 32 cases. For cases having less missing ratings we followed the instructions provided in previous studies (see Desmarais et al., 2012), and prorated total scores by formula: prorated total score = [(raw total score / 50) x number of missing items] + raw total score. After the comparison of included and excluded protocols it was found that the excluded juveniles did not differ from the included juveniles on all the evaluated demographic characteristics, such as age t(150) = -1.45, p = .15, nationality χ2(3, N = 156) = 1.07, p = .78, age of the first contact with police t(146) = -1.80, p = .07, number of convictions t(154) = -.39, p = .70, length of supervision sentence t(148) = -1.79, p = .08, and deliber- ate school termination χ2(1, N = 156) = 0.59, p = .81. The expected differ- ence was found in length of the interview t(156) = -2.45, p = .02 showing that the excluded protocols were characterized by a significantly shorter interview time that was most probably caused by the lack of information about juveniles. Measures Demographic questionnaire was developed to gather the sociode- mographic information about the research participants and their previ- ous delinquent behaviour. The questions related to the age, place of resi- dence, school grade, family structure, age of the first contact with police, duration of probation, etc. This questionnaire was filled in by probation officers on the basis of the case records. The instruments described below were chosen as concurrent mea- sures for criminal risk estimates as their relationship with criminal behav- iour is established in numerous studies cited above. Permissions to use the instruments in current study were acquired from their authors. The instruments were translated into Lithuanian by the research team. The Lithuanian version of the instruments was translated back into English by a professional translator, who was not familiar with the original texts. The back translations were submitted to the authors of the instruments and certain changes (if any) within Lithuanian versions was made ac- cording to their comments. 38 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas The START: AV (Viljoen et al., 2014) is a structured professional judgement scheme guiding the assessment of multiple adverse out- comes in adolescents between 13 and 18 years of age. The adverse out- comes are divided into two groups: (1) harm to others and rule viola- tions, and (2) harm to the adolescent, each containing for four separate domains. As our study focuses on criminal behavior of juveniles, only the outcomes related to harm to others and rule violations were analyzed in this article, namely, risks of Violence, Non-Violent Offences, Substance Abuse, and Unauthorized Absence. The structured professional judgement approach requires two types of decisions: first, the assessors should examine the acquired information and rate every item included in the instrument according to the rating criteria described in the User Manual. Second, they need to make a final decision on the risk level of each adverse outcome. START: AV contains 25 items, each coded as Strengths and Vulnerabilities evidenced during the past three months on the 3-point scale (0 = low, 1 = moderate, 2 = high). The Strengths and Vulnerabilities are rated separately from each other and those identified as especially relevant to risk management are re- ferred to as key (for Strengths) and critical (for Vulnerabilities). Taking into consideration the rated items as well as the historical factors, the as- sessors estimate the risk of each adverse outcome over the next three months as low, moderate, and high. Alongside the risk ratings total scores of Strengths and Vulnerabilities were calculated for the research pur- poses, and each of them could range from 0 to 50. The Subtypes of Antisocial Behaviour Questionnaire (STAB; Burt & Donnellan, 2009) measures self-reported history of delinquent behav- iour. The STAB is composed of 32 items which are rated using a 5-point scale ranging from never (1) to nearly all the time (5). The STAB contains the following three scales: Physical Aggression (PA), Social Aggression (SA), and Rule Braking (RB), consisting of 10, 11, and 11 items respec- tively. The participants completed the STAB reporting if the indicated be- haviour occurred any time in their life. In the current study, Cronbach’s α of STAB ranged from .68 to .92. The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010) is a 58-item self-reported inventory that yields an overall psychopathy score along with 3 subscales of Disinhibition, Meanness, and Boldness corresponding to construct of the Triarchic model of psychopathy. The 39 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation Disinhibition scale evaluates general propensity towards externalizing problems and comprises 20 items; the Meanness scale evaluates the cal- lous aggression subdomain of the externalizing spectrum, and the Bold- ness scale evaluates the adaptive component of psychopathy entailing traits of dominance, emotional stability, and adventurousness. The latter two scales comprise 19 items each. The participants were asked to rate their agreement to each statement on 4-point scale: true (0); somewhat true (1); somewhat false (2); false (3). In the present sample, Cronbach’s α ranged from .65 to .85. Criminal Sentiments Scale – Modified (CSS-M; Shields & Simourd, 1991) is a self-reported instrument designed to measure three general categories of criminal attitudes (Martinez & Andres-Pueyo, 2015). It consists of 41 items: first 25 items compose the subscale of Attitudes towards the Law, Court, and Police (LCP); next 10 items compose the subscale of Tolerance for Law Violations (TLV) related to the category of neutralization. The latter 6 items compose the subscale of Identifica- tion with Criminal Others (ICO). Each item is scored on a 3-point scale: agree (0), undecided (1), disagree (2), with higher scores reflecting stron- ger criminal attitudes. Previous researches have shown that CSS-M pos- sesses good psychometric properties and predictive validity in samples of adult criminals (Simourd & van de Ven, 1999); in our sample Cron- bach’s α ranged from .53 to .91. RESULTS START: AV Ratings: Reliability, Missing Items and Correlations Between Strength and Vulnerability Ratings The START: AV interrater reliability was calculated on 30 cases from the study pool. Each case was evaluated by two independent evaluators. The values of interrater reliability which are less than .40 indicate poor inter- rater reliability; between .40 and .59 mean fair; .60–.74 – good; .75–1.00 – excellent (Cicchetti, 1994). The interrater reliability of individual evalua- tions (ICC1) and average ratings (ICC2) of START: AV Strengths and Vulner- abilities total scores were excellent as varying from .82 to .96 (see Table 1). The 88% of separate START: AV items (i.e. 22 Strengths and 22 Vulnerabili- ties) ICC1 coefficients vary from fair to excellent; however, the analysis of 40 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas ICC values shows interrater agreement difficulties in rating such items as Coping, Social Support from Adults and Community. These difficulties can arise due to limited sources of information used for ratings. Table 1. Interrater reliability, descriptive characteristics, and internal correlations of the START: AV START:AV ratings ICC1 ICC2 M (SD) % of not evaluated r ST VN ST VN ST VN ST VN Total score .82 .91 .90 .96 17.16 (9.40) 15.50 (9.28) 20.1 20.1 -.76** 1. School and work .70 .75 .83 .86 .52 (.62) 1.00 (.75) 6.3 6.3 -.56** 2. Recreation .80 .81 .89 .89 .71 (.70) .82 (.70) 5.7 6.3 -.55** 3. Substance use .66 .45 .80 .62 .34 (.57) .48 (.70) 8.8 8.8 -.28** 4. Rule adherence .57 .75 .73 .85 .93 (.66) .79 (.72) 0.6 0.6 -.53** 5. Conduct .50 .81 .67 .89 .69 (.66) .75 (.75) 4.4 5.0 -.37** 6. Self-care .63 .74 .78 .85 .58 (.61) .54 (.57) .6 3.8 -.18* 7. Coping .36 .73 .53 .85 .61 (.61) .70 (.70) 17.0 17.0 -.45** 8. Impulse control .55 .64 .71 .78 .35 (.55) .70 (.71) 3.1 2.5 -.37** 9. Mental/cognitive state .72 .79 .84 .88 .43 (.60) .47 (.66) 11.3 11.3 -.35** 10. Emotional state .58 .78 .74 .88 .67 (.68) .44 (.56) 6.9 7.5 -.52** 11. Attitudes .60 .79 .75 .89 .64 (.67) .73 (.74) 13.8 14.5 -.50** 12. Social skills .73 .75 .85 .85 .90 (.74) .55 (.66) 3.1 4.4 -.55** 13a. Relationships – caregivers/adults .59 .66 .74 .80 1.03 (.65) .54 (.63) 6.9 7.5 -.44** 13b. Relationships – peers .41 .45 .58 .62 1.06 (.60) .37 (.57) 25.8 26.4 -.39** 14a. Social support – adults .39 .69 .56 .82 1.02 (.67) .40 (.58) 22.6 23.3 -.41** 14b. Social support – peers .46 .39 .63 .56 .92 (.63) .42 (.61) 52.2 51.6 -.50** 15. Parenting .50 .73 .66 .85 .82 (.66) .90 (.73) 3.1 3.1 -.59** 16. Parental functioning .48 .37 .65 .54 .83 (.65) .72 (.74) 8.8 9.4 -.47** 17. Peers .49 .75 .66 .86 .47 (.62) .95 (.77) 23.9 23.3 -.42** 18. Material resources .70 .86 .82 .92 .73 (.68) .51 (.62) 5.0 4.4 -.51** 41 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation 19. Community .39 .61 .56 .76 .54 (.61) .68 (.68) 3.8 3.8 -.27** 20. External triggers .67 .29 .80 .45 .23 (.51) .33 (.58) 35.2 35.2 .10 21. Insight .75 .73 .86 .84 .51 (.60) .91 (.73) 11.9 13.2 -.60** 22. Plans .77 .49 .87 .66 .77 (.65) .63 (.62) 8.8 10.1 -.58** 24. Treatability .76 .81 .87 .90 .84 (.60) .57 (.68) 6.9 6.9 -.58** Risk of Violence .51 .68 .28 (.47) 20.1 Risk of Non-violent offences .66 .79 .42 (.64) 20.1 Risk of Substance abuse .49 .64 .37 (.66) 20.1 Risk of Unauthori- zed absence .89 .94 .74 (.82) 20.8 Note. Total sample consisted of N = 159 juveniles, ICCs were calculated for ratings of 30 cases. ST = Strengths Total scores; VN = Vulnerabilities Total scores. a Item 23. Medication adherence was not included as medication was prescribed only for 7 participants of the study. The ICC1 for Risk of Adverse Outcomes vary from .49 to .89 (Tab- le 1) showing from fair to excellent interrater reliability. In all the cases the intra-class correlation coefficients for average ratings (ICC2) were higher in comparison to the coefficients for individual ratings (ICC1). The obtained reliability statistics confirm the reliability of individual ratings and provide rationale to use these ratings in testing the convergent va- lidity of START: AV. The analyses of missing ratings revealed the frequency of which the items were not evaluated due to the lack of information from probation officers (see Table 1). Social Support from Peers was rated as neither Strength nor Vulnerability in more than 50% of the cases; External Trig- gers – in 35%, Relationships with Peers – in 26% of cases. The least miss- ing of ratings were on Rule Adherence (.6%), Strength in Self Care (.6%) and Vulnerability in Impulse Control (2.5%). In general Strengths and Vulnerabilities of the sample were rated relatively low (the means are between 0 and 1). The same can be said about the Risks of Adverse Outcomes, the means of which range from .28 (Risk of Violence) to .74 (Risk of Unauthorized Absence). Table 1 cont. START:AV ratings ICC1 ICC2 M (SD) % of not evaluated r ST VN ST VN ST VN ST VN 42 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas For interpretation of the strength of associations we used Cohen’s (1992) guidelines, where effect sizes of correlations are: small r > .10, me- dium r > .30, large r > .50. The correlations between Strength and Vulner- ability ratings were in an expected direction and ranging from medium to large with the exception of External Triggers. Our results are in line with the findings of other studies (e.g., Desmarais et al.; 2012), showing that associations for School/Work are among the largest while for Self- Care among the smallest. Associations Between START: AV Ratings and Behaviour- Related Variables As shown in Table 2 START: AV Strength total score was positively associated with an age of the first contact with police, and negatively associated with a number of convictions, deliberate school termination, and STAB scores. START: AV Vulnerability total score had associations inverse to the ones mentioned above. In addition, Risk of Violence, Risk of Non-Violent Offence, and Risk of Substance Abuse had associations similar to Vulnerability total score. The Risk of Unauthorized Absence was negatively correlated with the age of the first contact with police. Most of the correlations were of small and medium effect sizes. The length of supervision was not significantly correlated with any of the START: AV ratings. Table 2. Correlations between START: AV and convergent measures START:AV Strength Total scores Vulnerability Total scores Risk of Violence Risk of Non- violent offences Risk of Subs- tance abuse Risk of Unauthori- zed absence Age of FCP .28** -.36** -.12 -.40** -.23** -.31** Convictions -.21* .32** .20* .43** .25** .12 Length SP -.06 .17 .02 .12 .06 .09 DST -.24* .48** .28** .39** .27** .15 STAB Total -.26** .31** .22* .33** .20* .11 Physical Aggression -.23** .26** .23** .20* .09 .03 43 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation Social Aggression -.22* .25** .13 .32** .19* .12 Rule Breaking -.21* .31** .21* .41** .28** .17 TriPM Total -.13 .11 .16 .20* .05 -.05 Boldness .19* -.19* -.07 .04 -.00 -.09 Meanness -.17 .09 .19* .11 -.03 -.07 Disinhibition -.22* .26** .16 .24** .12 .03 CSS-M Total .05 -.08 .09 -.04 -.14 -.18* Law-Court- Police .03 -.06 .13 -.03 -.12 -.14 Tolerance for Law Violation .13 -.17 -.05 -.05 -.21* -.18* Identifi- cation with Criminal Others -.05 .02 .09 -.02 -.02 -.18* Note. Age of FCP = Age of the first contact with police; Convictions = Number of convic- tions; Length SP = Length of supervision in months; DST = Deliberate school termination; STAB = Subtypes of Antisocial Behaviour Questionnaire; TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Mea- sure; CSS-M = Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified. a DST (Deliberate school termination) is dichotomous variable meaning 0 = false, and 1 = true; Statistically significant correlations are bolded. * p < .05 (2-tailed), ** p < .01 (2-tailed). START: AV Associations with Psychopathy and Attitudinal Measures The results of correlations between START: AV, TriPM, and CSS-M scores are presented in Table 2. START: AV Strengths total scores had pos- itive correlations with Boldness and negative correlations with Disinhibi- tion, while START: AV Vulnerability total scores had negative correlations with Boldness and positive correlations with Disinhibition. All indicated Table 2 cont. START:AV Strength Total scores Vulnerability Total scores Risk of Violence Risk of Non- violent offences Risk of Subs- tance abuse Risk of Unauthori- zed absence 44 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas correlations were of a small effect size. As expected Risk of Violence was associated with Meanness, and Risk of Non-Violent Offences was associ- ated with Disinhibition. However, the associations between CSS-M and the Risks of two Adverse Outcomes (Substance Abuse and Unauthorized Absence) went on negative direction. DISCUSSION The main objective of this paper was to examine the interrater reli- ability and convergent validity of START: AV ratings in a sample of male juvenile offenders on probation. The START: AV ratings were based on information acquired during the interviews with probation officers, who supervise juvenile offenders. Our study revealed that this information is fairly comprehensive and relevant for estimating risk of different ad- verse outcomes, as the interrater reliability coefficients vary from fair to excellent and are similar to the interrater reliability coefficients found in other studies (e.g. Viljoen et al., 2012b). However, with regards to sepa- rate items, certain unevenness is observed: probation officers provide the most detailed information on rule adherence and from observation during direct communication either with a minor (e.g. self-care, impulse control, social skills) or with his caregivers (e.g. parenting; material re- sources). Yet, there is evident lack of information regarding juveniles’ communication with peers as well as important events happening in their lives: these items were not rated in half and one third of the cases respectively. The focus on certain aspects of psychosocial functioning of the juvenile can be related to the specific tasks of probation officers, as they are oriented mainly towards supervision how the court orders are executed. Anyway, the majority of the probation officers know the juveniles quite well and contain information necessary for START: AV assessment. The interrater reliability indicators of START: AV ratings in our study were sufficient: the interrater reliability of START: AV Strengths and Vul- nerabilities total scores were excellent. It means, that the description of items provided in the START: AV User Guide (Viljoen et al., 2014) en- sures the unambiguous ratings by different raters of both Strengths and Vulnerabilities. We also found satisfactory interrater reliability of esti- mated Risk of Adverse Outcomes, and these findings were similar to the 45 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation other studies (e.g., Desmarais et al., 2012) opening the floor for further analysis. Negative correlations between Strengths and Vulnerabilities were found in our study. Despite more general assumption that the presence of particular Strength does not mean the absence of particular Vulner- ability and vice versa, the studies show that on group level negative cor- relations between Strengths and Vulnerabilities are up to the large effect size (e.g., Desmarais et al., 2012). The same results confirming our first hypothesis were obtained in our study. The results have supported the second hypothesis, that the es- timated Risks of Adverse Outcomes are positively associated with be- havioural and personality variables. The effect sizes of the correlations ranged from small to medium, but relatively small effect sizes can be ex- plained by different errors related to different assessment methods. The START: AV assessment is based on Structured Professional Judgement, and errors can be caused by lack of relevant information or misinterpre- tations made by assessors. Self-reported measures are prone to other type of errors, mostly related to random responding or socially desirable responses. However, in this type of research correlation coefficients even of a smaller range can prove the convergent validity of the instruments (Sellbom, Laurinavičius, Ustinavičiūtė, & Laurinaitytė, 2018). Antisocial behaviour variables positively correlated with vulner- abilities and the risk of some Adverse Outcomes as well as negatively correlated with Strengths. The most abundant and the largest associa- tions were found between START: AV Strengths and Vulnerabilities total ratings and age of the first contact with police, number of convictions, deliberate school termination, and self-reported antisocial behaviour. The Risk of Violence had the largest correlations with deliberate school termination and the STAB Physical Aggression scale; this confirms the validity of Violence Risk assessment. The Risk of Non-Violent Offences had larger correlations with age of the first contact with police, number of convictions, deliberate school termination, and all scales of STAB (par- ticularly the scale of Rule-Breaking). These associations are in line with theoretical assumptions (e.g., Moffitt, 2006) and empirical findings (e.g., Casey, 2011) that history of antisocial behaviour is very important for the risk assessment and is necessary to be considered during the process of evaluation. 46 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas Associations between START: AV and psychopathy or attitudinal measures were not so numerous. The Meanness component of psychop- athy, which reflects callousness and aggressiveness, was associated with the Risk of Violence, while Disinhibition, which reflects poor regulation of emotion and behaviour, was associated with the Risk of Non-Violent Offences. Disinhibition also correlated with the Strengths and Vulner- abilities total scores, showing the potential importance for the antisocial behaviour of juveniles. It should be noted that the above-mentioned correlations were consistent with the theoretical assumptions in terms of their direction; nevertheless, they were small of their effect size. There were no correlations found between START: AV ratings and instruments measuring pro-criminal attitudes. None of Strengths/Vul- nerabilities total scores and Risks of Violence/Non-Violent Offences was correlated with any of the CSS-M scales. Moreover, small negative corre- lations between Antisocial Attitudes and the Risks of Substance Use and Unauthorized Absence were found contradicting the findings of other studies (e.g., Skilling & Sorge, 2014). This discrepancy can be explained by different features of the samples of the studies. The majority of our sample (72.7%) had no prior history of convictions. In comparison the study of Skilling and Sorge (2014) involved male juveniles, 76% of whom had prior contact with the justice system. Furthermore, with regard to index offense, 53.4% of our study participants were charged for non- violent offences in comparison to 74% participants charged for violent (physical or sexual) offences in the study of Skilling and Sorge (2014). Therefore, we assume that criminal attitudes play a more significant role in the samples characterized by lengthier or more serious criminal history. This assumption is also supported by the study in a sample of German youth inmates, which found that antisocial cognition appears among four key factors predicting violent recidivism, but not general reoffending (Grieger & Hosser, 2014). Another study with female young offenders also showed that while CSS-M adequately measures pro-crim- inal attitudes, the attitudes themselves are not so important for the of- fending behaviour (O’Hagan, Brown, & Skilling, 2014). On the other hand, despite the widely accepted notion of criminal attitudes as being the most important predictor of offending behaviour (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, Visu-Petra, Borlean, Chendran, & Buş, 2008), there is a lack of a uniform definition what criminal attitudes exactly refer 47 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation to as they might be defined as thinking styles, social cognition, crimi- nal sentiments, pride in the commission or positive evaluation of a par- ticular delinquent behaviour (Martínez & Andrés-Pueyo, 2015). All these definitions are inter-related but not overlapping; thus, further research is needed to clarify the extent to which criminal attitudes in general and criminal sentiments as measured by CSS-M in particular do manifest among juvenile offenders on probation. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIREC TIONS We consider that the main limitation of the study is related to the source of information used for START: AV ratings, which were conducted on the basis of the interviews with probation officers solely. Probation officers collect information about the psychosocial functioning of juve- niles; however, certain gaps exist, which do not allow to complete the START: AV ratings in full content. In our study the lack of information led to the exclusion of 32 cases where more than 20% of items were miss- ing. It should be noted, that for individual evaluation for non-research purposes the direct contact with juveniles is the main source of informa- tion and it should not be omitted. In other words, the interview with ju- veniles, their caregivers, and collaterals as well as analysis of all relevant documents are necessary to be conducted until all information for com- pleting the START: AV ratings is collected. Taking into consideration that the overall goal of the risk assessment is to predict the recurrence of adverse outcomes in the future, the merit of any risk assessment instrument as well as the endorsement of its ap- plication in practise undoubtedly is in its prospective validity. The verifi- cation of the sufficient interrater reliability and convergent validity of the START: AV advances the further investigation of the instrument particu- larly focusing on its power to predict the adverse outcomes for juveniles within a period of three months or other specified reference period. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The study was funded by a grant from the r Research Council of Lith- uania (No. S-MIP-17-112) for the project “Risk and Protective Factors as Predictors of Delinquent Juveniles’ Behavior”. 48 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas REFERENCES Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic Traits in Non-Referred Youths: A New Assessment Tool. In E. Blaauw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current International Perspectives (pp. 131–158). The Hague: Elsevier. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 5th edition. New Providence, NJ: Lexis Nexis. Baird, C., Healy, T., Johnson, K., Bogie, A., Dankert, E. W., & Scharenbroch, C. (2013). A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments in Juvenile Justice. The Report of the Study. Retrieved from http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/ publication_pdf/nccd_fire_report.pdf Banse, R., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Kistemaker, L. M., Werner, V. A., & Schmidt, A. F. (2013). Pro-Criminal Attitudes, Intervention and Recidivism. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 18(6), 673–685. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.024 Brodowski, M. L., & Fischman, L. (2013). Protective Factors for Populations Served by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families: A Literature Review and Theoretical Framework. Retrieved from http://www.dsgonline.com/acyf/ DSG%20Protective%20Factors%20Literature%20Review%202013.pdf Burt, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Development and Validation of the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 35(5), 376–398. doi: 10.1002/ab.20314 Campbell, M. A., Schmidt, F., & Wershler, J. (2016). Juvenile Risk Assessment. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Adolescence (pp. 1–21). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32132-5_127-2 Casey, S. (2011). Understanding Young Offenders: Developmental Criminology. The Open Criminology Journal, 4, 13–22. doi: 10.2174/1874917801104010013 Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2012). Emerging Findings from Research on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. Victims and Offenders, 7, 428–449. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2012.713901 Chu, C. M., Daffern, M., Thomas, S. D. M., Ang, Y., & Long, M. (2014). Criminal Attitudes and Psychopathic Personality Attributes of Youth Gang Offenders in Singapore. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(3), 284–301. doi:10.1080/10683 16X.2013.772182 Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb For Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Contreras, L., Molina, V., & Cano, M. C. (2011). In Search of Psychosocial Variables Linked to the Recidivism in Young Offenders. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 3(1), 77–88. http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/ http://www.dsgonline.com/acyf/ 49 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation Cottle, C. C., Lee, R. J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The Prediction of Criminal Recidivism in Juveniles: A Meta-Analysis. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 28(3), 367–394. doi: 10.1177/0093854801028003005 Desmarais, S. L., Sellers, B. G., Viljoen, J. L., Cruise, K. R., Nicholls, T. L., & Dvoskin, J. A. (2012). Pilot Implementation and Preliminary Evaluation Of START:AV Assessments in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(3), 150–164. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2012.737405 de Vries Robbé, M. (2014). Protective Factors: Validation of The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk in Forensic Psychiatry. Doctoral Thesis. Retrieved from: www.saprof.com Dhingra, K., & Boduszek, D. (2013). Psychopathy and Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Research Perspective. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 3(2), 83–107. doi: 10.1108/JCP-06-2013-0014 Dickens, G. L., & O’Shea, L. E. (2018). Protective Factors in Risk Assessment Schemes for Adolescents in Mental Health and Criminal Justice Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Predictive Efficacy. Adolescent Research Review, 3(1), 95–112. doi: 10.1007/s40894-017-0062-3 Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). The Development and Ecology of Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology: Vol. 3. Risk, Disorder and Adaptation (pp. 503–541). New Jersey: John Willey &Sons, Inc. Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., & Arsal, G. (2014). Clarifying the Content Coverage of Differing Psychopathy Inventories Through Reference to the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 350–362. doi: 10.1037/a0035152 Drislane, L. E., Brislin, S. J., Kendler, K. S., Andershed, H., Larsson, H., & Patrick, C. J. (2015). A Triarchic Model Analysis of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(1), 15–41. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2014_28_144 Evans, P. (2017). Challenging Pro-Criminal Attitudes and Behaviours of Juvenile Offenders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria, Australia: Monash University. Retrieved from https://au-east.erc.monash.edu.au/ fpfiles/8945692/PhillipaPhDFINALAMENDMENTS23.7.17.pdf Farrington, D. P. (2005). Integrated Developmental and Life-Course Theories of Offending. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Fortune, C. A. & Ward, T. (2017). Problems in Protective Factor Research and Practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.008 Frick, P. J. (2012). Developmental Pathways to Conduct Disorder: Implications for Future Directions in Research, Assessment, and Treatment. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41(3), 378–389. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2012.664815 Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). Antisocial Process Screening Device. Toronto, Ontario: Multi Health Systems. http://www.saprof.com https://au-east.erc.monash.edu.au/ 50 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Dandreaux, D. M., & Farell, J. M. (2003b). The 4 Year Stability of Psychopathic Traits in Non-Referred Youth. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 21(6), 713–736. doi: 10.1002/bsl.568 Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Annual Research Review: A Developmental Psychopathology Approach to Understanding Callous- Unemotional Traits in Children and Adolescents with Serious Conduct Problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(6), 532–548. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12152 Grieger, L., & Hosser, D. (2014). Which Risk Factors Are Really Predictive? An Analysis of Andrews and Bonta’s “Central Eight” Risk Factors for Recidivism in German Youth Correctional Facility Inmates. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 41(5), 613–634. doi: 10.1177/0093854813511432 Hare, R.D., & Neumann, C.S. (2010). The Role of Antisociality in the Psychopathy Construct: Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010). Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 446–454. doi: 10.1037/a0013635 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 Behaviour, 26(2), 241–245. doi:10.1023/A:1014648227688 Heilbrun, K., Brock, W., Waite, D., Lanier, A., Schmid, M., Witte, G., Keeney, M., Westendorf, M., Buinavert, L., & Shumate, M. (2000). Risk Factors for Juvenile Criminal Recidivism. The Post-Release Community Adjustment of Juvenile Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 27(3), 275–291. doi: 10.1177/0093854800027003001 Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F.M., & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective Factors in Adolescent Problem Behaviour: Moderator Effects and Developmental Change. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 923–933. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.6.923 Jones, D. E., Feinberg, M. E., Cleveland, M. J., & Cooper, B. (2012). A Multi-Domain Approach to Understanding Risk for Underage Drinking: Converging Evidence from 5 Data Sets. American Journal of Public Health, 102(11), 2080–2087. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300612 Kimonis, E. R., Kennealy, P. J., & Goulter, N. (2016). Does the Self-Report Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits Predict Recidivism? Psychological Assessment, 28(12), 1616–1624. doi: 10.1037/pas0000292 Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Young Children Who Commit Crime: Epidemiology, Developmental Origins, Risk Factors, Early Interventions, and Policy Implications. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 737–762. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400004107 Lynam, D. R., & Gudonis, L. (2005). The Development of Psychopathy. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 381–407. doi: 10.1146/annurev. clinpsy.1.102803.144019 51 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation Lynam, D. R., Charnigo, R., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2009). The Stability of Psychopathy Across Adolescence. Developmental Psychopathology, 21(4), 1133–1153. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409990083 Martinez, V. C., & Andres-Pueyo, A. (2015). The Spanish Version of the Criminal Sentiment Scale Modified (CSS-M): Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 67–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.03.001 Maruna, S., & LeBel, T. P. (2010). The Desistance Paradigm in Correctional Practice: From Programs to Lives. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender Supervision– New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 65–87). Willan, Cullompton.  McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming Inferences About Some Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30 Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G., & Forth, A. E. (2002). Measure of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA): Development, Factor Structure, Reliability and Validity. Assessment, 9(3), 240–253. doi: 10.1177/1073191102009003003 Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G., & Hemmati, T. (2004). The Measure of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA): The Prediction of General and Violent Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 31(6), 717–733. doi: 10.1177/0093854804268755 Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behaviour: A Developmental Taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/jessor/psych7536- 805/readings/moffitt-1993_674-701.pdf Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Life-Course-Persistent Versus Adolescence-Limited Antisocial Behaviour. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology: Vol. 3: Risk, Disorder and Adaptation (pp. 570–598). New Jersey: John Willey &Sons, Inc. O’Hagan, H. R., Brown, S. L., & Skilling, T. (2014). Predicting Recidivism Using the Measure of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA) In a Mixed-Gender Sample of Adolescent Offenders. Conference paper. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/278010975_Predicting_Recidivism_Using_ the_Measure_of_Criminal_Attitudes_and_Associates_MCAA_in_a_Mixed- Gender_Sample_of_Adolescent_Offenders Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic Conceptualization of Psychopathy: Developmental Origins of Disinhibition, Boldness and Meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938. doi: 10.1017/ S0954579409000492 Patrick, C. J. (2010). Operationalizing the Triarchic Conceptualization of Psychopathy: Preliminary Description of Brief Scales for Assessment of Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition. Unpublished manual. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/jessor/psych7536-805/readings/moffitt-1993_674-701.pdf http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/jessor/psych7536-805/readings/moffitt-1993_674-701.pdf https://www 52 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The Rank-Order Consistency of Personality Traits From Childhood to Old Age: A Quantitative Review of Longitudinal Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.1.3 Savignac, J. (2010). Tools to Identify and Assess the Risk of Offending Among Youth. Ottawa, Canada: National Crime Prevention Centre. Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/tls-dntf-rsk-rprt/tls-dntf- rsk-rprt-eng.pdf Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent Development and the Measurement of Juvenile Psychopathy. Law and Human Behaviour, 26(2), 219–239. doi: 10.1023/A:1014696110850 Sellbom, M., Laurinavičius, A., Ustinavičiūtė, L., & Laurinaitytė, I. (2018). The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure: An Examination in a Lithuanian Inmate Sample. Psychological Assessment, 30(7), e10-e20. doi: 10.1037/pas0000603 Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2009). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Simourd, L., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). Correlates of Delinquency: A Look at Gender Differences. Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 26–31. Simourd, D. J., & van de Ven, J. (1999). Assessment of Criminal Attitudes: Criterion- Related Validity of the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and Pride in Delinquency Scale. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 26(1), 90–106, doi: 10.1177/0093854899026001005 Sher, M. A., Warner, L., McLean, A., Rowe K., & Gralton, E. (2017). A prospective Validation Study of the START:AV. Journal of Forensic Practice, 19(2), 115–129. doi: 10.1108/JFP-10-2015-0049 Shields, I. W., & Simourd, D. J. (1991). Predicting Predatory Behavior in a Population of Incarcerated Young Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 180–194. Skilling, T. A., & Sorge, G. B. (2014). Measuring Antisocial Values and Attitudes in Justice-Involved Male Youth: Evaluating The Psychometric Properties of the Pride in Delinquency Scale and the Criminal Sentiments Scale–Modified. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(8), 992–1007. doi: 10.1177/0093854814521415 Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Monahan, K. C. (2015). Psychosocial Maturity and Desistance from Crime in a Sample of Serious Juvenile Offenders. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from: https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248391.pdf Venables, N. C., & Patrick, C. J. (2012). Validity of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory in a Criminal Offender Sample: Relations with Disinhibitory Psychopathology, Personality, And Psychopathic Features. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 88–100. doi: 10.1037/a0024703 Viljoen, J. L., Beneteau, J. L., Gulbransen, E. B., Brodersen, E., Desmarais, S. L., Nicholls, T. L., &. Cruise, K. R. (2012b). Assessment of Multiple Risk Outcomes, Strengths, and Change with the START:AV: A Short-Term Prospective Study https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/tls-dntf-rsk-rprt/tls-dntf-rsk-rprt-eng.pdf https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/tls-dntf-rsk-rprt/tls-dntf-rsk-rprt-eng.pdf https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/tls-dntf-rsk-rprt/tls-dntf-rsk-rprt-eng.pdf https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248391.pdf 53 2018, 22, 31–54 p.Examination of Convergent Validity of START: AV Ratings Among Male Juveniles on Probation with Adolescent Offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(3), 165-180. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2012.737407 Viljoen, J. L., Cruise, K. R., Nicholls, T. L., Desmarais, S. L., & Webster, C. D. (2012a). Taking Stock and Taking Steps: The Case for an Adolescent Version of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(3), 135–149. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2012.737406 Viljoen, J. L., Nicholls, T. L., Cruise, K. R., Desmarais, S .L., & Webster, C. D. (2014). Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV), User Guide. Burnaby, BC: The Mental Health Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University. Visu-Petra, G., Borlean, C., Chendran, L., & Buş, I. (2008). An Investigation of Antisocial Attitudes, Family Background and Moral Reasoning in Violent Offenders and Police Students. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 12(2), 143–159. Walters, G. D. (2012). Criminal Thinking and Recidivism: Meta-Analytic Evidence on the Predictive and Incremental Validity of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(3), 272–278. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.02.010 Walters, G. D., & DeLisi, M. (2013). Antisocial Cognition and Crime Continuity: Cognitive Mediation of the Past Crime-Future Crime Relationship. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 135–140. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.004 Ward, T. (2017). Prediction and Agency: The Role of Protective Factors in Correctional Rehabilitation and Desistance. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.11.012 Wasserman, G. A., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R. E., Coie, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Loeber, R., & Petechuk, D. (April, 2003). Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency. Child Delinquency Bulletin Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193409.pdf START: AV VERTINIMŲ KONKURENCINIS VALIDUMAS VYRIŠKOS LYTIES PAAUGLIŲ, ESANČIŲ PROBACIJOS PRIEŽIŪROJE, IMT YJE Virginija Klimukienė*, Alfredas Laurinavičius*, Ilona Laurinait ytė*, Laura Ustinavičiūtė* , ** Mykolas B altrūnas* * Vilniaus universitetas, Lietuva; ** Mykolo Romerio universitetas, Lietuva Santrauka. Rizikos ir atsako į intervencijas artimiausiu metu paauglių versija (angl. Short- Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version, sutr. START:AV, Viljoen, Nicholls, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster, 2014) yra struktūruotu specialisto sprendimu grįstas neigiamų pasekmių, susijusių su žala kitiems ir taisyklių nesilaikymu, rizi- kos vertinimo instrumentas. Vienas iš START:AV privalumų yra tai, kad jis numato tiek paauglio stiprybių, tiek sunkumų vertinimą. Kadangi tai yra santykinai naujas https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193409.pdf 54 Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas vertinimo instrumentas, yra svarbu įvertinti jo psichometrines charakteristikas atsi- žvelgiant į skirtingą kultūrinį kontekstą. START:AV vertinimo patikimumas bei konku- rencinis validumas buvo tirtas 159 vyriškos lyties probuojamų paauglių, kurių amžius M = 16.97, SD = 0.81, imtyje. Informacija apie tyrimo dalyvių psichosocialinį funkcio- navimą buvo surinkta interviu su juos prižiūrinčiais probacijos pareigūnais metu ir įvertinta START:AV instrumentu. Konkurencinio validumo tikrinimui buvo naudojami šie klausimynai: Asocialaus elgesio tipų klausimynas (STAB; Burt & Donnellan, 2009), Triarchinės psichopatijos klausimynas (TriPM; Patrick, 2010) bei Kriminalinių nuo- statų skalės modifikuota versija (CSS-M; Shields & Simourd, 1991). Gauti rezultatai parodė, kad START:AV Stiprybių ir Sunkumų suminiai balai pasižymi aukštu suderina- mumu, o ryšiai tarp START:AV ir elgesio bei asmenybės veiksnių pagrindžia START:AV konkurencinį validumą. Nerastos sąsajos tarp START:AV vertinimų ir prokriminalinių nuostatų reikalauja nuodugnesnių kriminalių nuostatų pasireiškimo probuojamiems paaugliams tyrimo. Apibendrinat galima pasakyti, kad tyrimo rezultatai sudaro tinka- mas prielaidas tolesniems START:AV prognostinio validumo tyrimams bei šio instru- mento praktiniam taikymui dirbant su delinkventiškais paaugliais. Reikšminiai žodžiai: paauglių delinkventiškas elgesys; neigiamų pasekmių rizika; stipry- bės; sunkumai. Received: 2018-10-08 Accepted: 2018-12-27 CONTENTS EDITORIAL NOTE SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Viktorija Cepukiene, Rytis Pakrosnis INTRODUCING UNGUIDED COMPUTERIZED SOLUTION-FOCUSED SELF-HELP INTO UNIVERSITY COUNSELING SERVICES Virginija Klimukienė, Alfredas Laurinavičius, Ilona Laurinaitytė, Laura Ustinavičiūtė, and Mykolas Baltrūnas EXAMINATION OF CONVERGENT VALIDITY OF START: AV RATINGS AMONG MALE JUVENILES ON PROBATION Karina Kravčenko, Laura Šeibokaitė THE EFFECT OF JOY AND ANXIETY ON EGOCENTRIC DECISIONS AMONG YOUNG ADULTS Ala Petrulytė, Virginija Guogienė ADOLESCENTS’ SOCIAL EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND EMPATHY IN LITHUANIAN SAMPLE Kristina Ražauskaitė-Pilipavičienė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DYADIC DOMINANCE DURING INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION: THE COMPARISON OF FRIENDS’ DYADS AND ROMANTICC OUPLES Lina Cirtautienė, Auksė Endriulaitienė THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS FOR LEADER’S EFFICIENCY IN GLOBAL IT COMPANIES Kristina Kovalčikienė, Giedrė Genevičiūtė-Janonė THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VOCATIONAL TEACHERS’ PERSONALITY TRAITS AND THE WORK MOTIVATION INFORMATION THE 20TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN PSYCHOLOGY AT UNK & VDU, DECEMBER 6TH, 2017. ABSTR ACTS THE 21ST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN PSYCHOLOGY AT UNK & VDU, APRIL 25TH, 2018. ABSTR ACTS CONTRIBUTORS REVIEWERS INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS