Can Psychological Assessments Predict Desistence From Offending - Research Paper Example

Overview Various factors that contribute to sever aggressiveness as well as antisocial behaviour further lead to misconduct among individuals. This paper provides an investigation on whether psychological assessments that help in identifying resilient personality traits can predict desistence from offending. This investigation is based on the standpoint that the presence of a single protective factor could generate a significant influence on the course of adolescent offending. In this case, the aspect of concern is the distance from offending behaviour or violence. The factors indicative of a resilience personality type is the major protective factor when it comes to the prediction of desistance from offending behaviour. The research presented in this paper uses secondary data about adolescent offenders. With the use of this kind of data, outcome data of further psychological assessments can be used to test the factors, which may make up a resilient personality type, mainly to predict desistance from adolescent offending behaviour. This could be within a follow up of a predetermined period such as 12 months. The paper focuses on whether any scale such as IQ predicts desistance, if it backs up what people know, and what people can do about the subject. To find a comprehensible solution to this issue, various studies are reflected. The aim of the research is to establish developmental pathways to antisocial behaviour/conduct disorder as well as violence, desistance from violence, and the influence of such behaviour/conduct on youth violence. The research question in this case is; can psychological assessments that help identify resilience personality traits predict desistence from offending? Introduction In England and Wales, adolescents under the age of 18years execute 18% of cases relating to assaults and 40% of all robbery cases (UK Government, 2013). The interest in the prediction and management of risk has increased in the last three decades (Farrington & Welsh, 2007). In adult literature, noteworthy progress has taken place in actuarial and a structured professional judgment (SPJ). Actuarial risk assessments are founded on several risk factors that are well known in the prediction of recidivism and are applied in developing a final numerical score (Farrington & Welsh, 2007). Evidence has accumulated demonstrating that actuarial approaches are important in establishing groups at higher risks of recidivism (Springer & Roberts, 2007). Structured professional judgment (SPJ) methodologies represent a compound of empirical knowledge and clinical expertise. The methodologies promote prevention instead of prediction, and they are intended to be effective to clinicians in establishing the needed level of risk management (Farrington & Welsh, 2007). Evidence suggests that SPJ methodologies can strongly predict violent/ aggressive behaviour among civil psychiatric patients, forensic patients as well as the prison population. Even if numerical scoring is in a position to predict recidivism, several studies have demonstrated adding clinician’s last risk judgments improve predictions (Raine, 2006; Caducci, 2006; Dahlberg & Potter, 2001). In psychology, conduct disorder (CD), psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder are traits correlated with considerable intra and interpersonal dysfunction in one’s life and are consistent presentations within the Criminal Justice System (Dolan & Rennie, 2006). Although most of them are more of behavioural issues, psychopathy heightens the interpersonal and affective aspects (Dolan & Rennie, 2006). Psychopathy is characterised by different interpersonal, affective and behavioural qualities and is assumed to be particularly related to instrumental aggression. Relevant studies suggest conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder are more prevalent as compared to psychopathic personalities, which have an effect on almost 1% of the adult population and roughly 15-25% of those in detention (Tracy et al 2007; Patrick, 2005). Evidence exists that offenders finally cease their illegal “careers” and this remains for violent offenders (The Scottish Government, 2014). The casual systems in charge of activating and sustaining this process are still not fully understood; meaning that desistance from violence is inadequately understood. This comprehensive review presented by the (The Sscottish Government (2014) literature disclosed that research in this field is weighed down by definitional, operational and measurement variations. The majority of the conceptual framework implemented in explaining desistance from delinquency has not been particularly used in correlation to violence/ aggressiveness. Nevertheless, it was criminological enquiries that pointed at informal social control as highly contributing to desistance from violence and that both internal and external variations seem to bring some hope in understanding the desistance process (Beauchaine & Hinshaw, 2013; Otto & Douglas, 2010). Psychological research has focused on the role of risk and protective factors in correlation to desistance (Otto & Douglas, 2010). Additional knowledge is being gathered about how the mechanism of protective factors lessen risk of future violence and secondly what role they play in the maintenance of violent free behaviours (Andrade, 2009; Forrest & Hay, 2011). Findings obtained from psychological and criminological research can be amalgamated and enhance our understanding of desistance from violence. Literature Review Developmental pathways to antisocial behaviour/conduct disorder and violence Antisocial behaviour, just like any other behaviour, can be overwhelmingly stable and endure throughout a person’s life. In fact, professionals in the Youth Justice System cite that the best predictor of future antisocial behaviour is historical conduct (Hess, Orthmann and Wright, 2012). According to this research, children who demonstrate a problem in behaviour at an early stage develop chronic and serious delinquent and criminal behaviour later in life. According to these authors, the single most relevant risk factor in determining later delinquency is the development of antisocial behaviour at an early stage, mostly aggression (Hess, Orthmann and Wright, 2012). Longitudinal research has demonstrated that development of delinquent behaviour, mostly in boys, takes place incrementally and progresses with age is understood as developmental pathways to criminality (Hoffman et al, 2011). A pathway becomes apparent when a set of individuals experience a behavioural development that is different from the behavioural development of other groupings (Grigorenko, 2012; Dahlberg & Potter, 2001). In a developmental pathway, behaviour develops slowly and in a sequential manner. In a defined sequence, a difficult temperament is the first problem seen among infants, these children can then become oppositional and can further be described as hyperkinetic and the level of activity increases as a child learns to walk and so on (Grigorenko, 2012; Dahlberg & Potter, 2001). In a different observation by Connor (2012), concluded that the multiple pathways model illustrates that less serious forms of aggression and antisocial behaviours usually herald forms that are more dangerous. In this observation, it is also noted that whereas many youngsters may participate in milder forms of these behaviours, a number of these youngsters become more aggressive and participate in serious activities (Connor, 2012; Dahlberg & Potter, 2001). Connor (2012) presented a developmental sequence in disruptive behaviour in three community samples of boys from six through to 13 years was carried out prospectively over three years. Every group that was sampled was seen to have a high percentage of boys with disruptive behaviours as compared to girls (Connor, 2012). The study summed up three developmental pathways in antisocial behaviour. Of the three components, the first to appear is the authority conflict pathway, which is seen in childhood. Component one, as indicated earlier, this is manifested by stubborn behaviour and slowly translates to defiance. The next manifestation in this pathway is avoidance of authority that maybe represented by truancy, running away, and other similar behaviour and it is mainly manifested in adolescence. Component two in the formulated model entails escalation in covert problem behaviours. These are not apparent and do not generally involve direct physical confrontation with other people. This can first be seen inform of minor covert behaviours such as lying and shoplifting (Patrick, 2005). This slowly graduates to other stronger behaviours such as vandalism. Serious forms of delinquency such as car theft and drug dealing represent component three in this pathway. The next pathway includes escalation in overtly aggressive behaviours, demonstrated by direct and physical confrontation with others. This commences as minor acts of overt aggression such as bullying which graduates to physical fighting and lastly becomes serious violence. This aspect is among a number of models that seek to illustrate the developmental pathways in anti-social and delinquent behaviours. However, it is important to note that irrespective of the specific model, a multiple-pathways model discriminates better among different degrees and types of deviance than is possible with the formulation of only a single developmental pathway (Potter & Dahlberg, 2001; Loeber et al., 2008). Desistence from Violence Maruna (2000) as cited in Baldry and Winkel (2008) refers desistance as “the long-term abstinence from crime among individuals who had previously engaged in persistent patterns of criminal offending” (p.175). It is a process represented by pro-social positive relationships in family, work, and society. Many people who engage in criminal or other risky behaviour eventually stop these behaviours, some without any intervention (Connor, 2012; Krohn, Lizotte & Hall, 2009). For others, such behaviours persist over time. Identifying predictors of such continuity and discontinuity is an important goal especially for those tasked with intervention connected to the Criminal Justice System. For instance, if a set of predictors can be identified then it might be possible to institute intervention measures to encourage desistance. Further, greater effort can be taken to strengthening these factors to amplify the effect (Tracy et al, 2007). Sampson and Laub’s (1993) life-course model as cited by Tracy et al (2007) holds that life events influence behaviour and modify trajectories (Dolan & Rennie, 2006). A host of researches have focused on external factors such as marriage and employment as triggers to desistance from criminal behaviour. Other factors that are considered are changes in peer groups. In entirety, these factors have been seen to play a major role, either solely or jointly, in encouraging desistance among those previously engaged in crime (Springer & Roberts, 2007; Forrest & Hay, 2011). One rejoinder is that the effectiveness or relevance of many of these factors is largely based on the age of the individual (Tracy et al, 2007). The causes of desistance from aggression in childhood are similar to the causes of desistance from aggression or violence in adolescence or adulthood (Tracy et al 2007; Forrest & Hay, 2011). As an example, research has indicated that some form of permanent/stable employment predicted or led to long-term desistance in adults (Krohn, Lizotte & Hall, 2009). This shows that desistence cannot be isolated and needs to be studied with the developmental framework in mind. Notably, besides the external causes or triggers to desistance highlighted by the above-discussed researchers there are internal factors, which have, been researched and found to be reasonably effective in informing desistance. Haggard et al (2001), as quoted by Krohn et al (2009) states that an individual’s decision to change his/her life is the first step to showing progress toward desistance and demonstrating actual changes in behaviour prochaska diclemente. A separate research found out that the relationship between age and desistance was mediated by “optimism for achieving success via a legitimate pursuits and expectations of criminal success”. In this respect, the individual’s optimism and desire to adopt a pro-social lifestyle may play an important role in the desistance process (Farrall & Calverley, 2005). Discussion of Resilience literature and influence on youth violence The related concepts of risk, protection, and resilience have come to the fore as important constructs for understanding the development of social problems specifically those facing young people and their families (Richman and Fraser, 2001). Resilience can be defined as a dynamic process that entail an interplay between risk and protective processes (Rennie and Dolan, 2010); Rutter (1985; 1999). Resilience represents the chance to adapt pro-social tendencies even when faced or seemingly overwhelmed by adverse factors such as strong negative influence from peers and social groupings and lack of education or simply the interest to enrol in school (Richman and Fraser, 2001). In most cases when researchers make use of these words they provide a new way to conceptualise social problems such as, and not limited to, youth violence. Sometimes referred to as “risk and resilience”, the concept is founded on the idea that adaptation behaviour results from interplay of a combination of factors predictive of negative developmental outcomes and secondly combinations of counteracting factors that reduce risk (Richman and Fraser, 2001; Hoffman, Knox & Cohen, 2011). The concept of resilience is also discussed by Losel and Bliesner (1990) as cited by Rennie and Dolan (2010). The latter look at the concept of resilience and protective factors, they hold that protective factors are either environmental or personal and help safeguard an individual against the consequence of a number of stressors and thus avert a person from taking on deviant behaviour. In their research aimed at studying “The significance of protective factors in the assessment of risk”, Rennie and Dolan (2010) conclude that protective factors may reduce the effects of risk factors. In this case, nurturing or building a resilient personality becomes central in buffering the risk factors. This finding is seen to be very critical in risk management and interventions among adolescents who are highly exposed to the risk of sliding into violent or delinquent behaviour. In light of these findings, Rennie and Dolan (2010) suggest that clinicians should work with high-risk adolescents to develop at least one protective factor to improve resilience and thus reduce the chances of delinquency or for those engaged in these crimes mitigate the risk of re-offending. SAVRY and its Use with Young People to Predict Violence The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) is a tool used in assisting professional evaluators in the course of making decisions regarding the risk of violence among young people. The tool is primarily used to aid in the structuring of the assessment made on young people such that important aspects supported by research are emphasised to formulate the final professional judgment. SAVRY is fundamentally a 30-item instrument that utilises the structured professional judgment (SPJ). It is used to evaluate SAVRY adolescents who are mainly aged 12-18 and are under detention or have been referred for an assessment of violence risk (Andrade, 2009). In this way, SAVRY helps clinicians to evaluate risk for violence with an adolescent populace. It is made up of 8 Individual-Clinical Risk Factor items, 10 historical Risk Factor items and 6 Social Risk Factor items. It is different from other risk assessment instruments because of the roles played by the 6 Protective Factor items. The Protective Factor items are known for reducing the possibility of violent behaviour to pro-social involvements, strong attachment, strong social support, positive attitudes towards intervention and authority and flexible personality characteristics (Otto, & Douglas, 2010). The social and risk factors are dynamic and represent probable chances for therapeutic involvements to mitigate the chance of violence. SAVRY identifies that not all factors can be captured in the enumerated 24 risk factors. For this reason, it has a rating form, which makes it possible to identify any other factors that reasonably influence risk. If these factors are considered relevant, then they should be added as they may help in understanding the risk of violence. Under the test, the critical factors are those that emerge as principally relevant to the risk of violence in specific cases. With regard to desistence from violence using SAVRY protective factors it is important to examine the associated factors in the context of the test. Protective factors are more than simply the absence of an identified risk factor. Rather, they are positive traits, experiences, or contexts that have been found to reduce the risk of violence in a particular environment. A further definition of these factors is “Variables that reflect involvement with and commitment to conventional society that control against non-normative activities, and that refer to activities incompatible with normative transgression” (Grigorenko, 2012). Some of the strongly identified protective factors that are often alluded to in research are, strong school performance and an overall bonding to the academic environment and established ability to form a close relationship with a positive role model ((Salekin & Lynam, 2011). Protective factors appear to play a particularly important role when evaluating adolescents who are at high risk for violence. Assessment Procedure There is no specific way of administering the SAVRY test. All the same, the test is coded based on dependable and obtainable data. It is important that the identified sources of data be thorough, irrespective of the mode applied, such as observations, interviews and records. Typically, secondary data of adolescent offenders could be important since it can assist in the use of outcome data regarding further psychological assessments. These assessments test for the factors making up a resilient personality type in predicting desistance from adolescent offending behaviour. The first step in administering the test is to identify where the most relevant data can be found, whether in schools, prisons/juvenile facilities among other areas. Once this is identified, actual administration is carried out, the best way to gather crucial and through information is through an interview. The information gathered should then be coded with the coding process being initiated in three levels, which include High, Moderate or Low. In coding, protective factors should be noted either as present or absent. If a factor is noted as absent then it signifies that the risk factor is generally “Low”. In cases where the particular risk factor is relatively present the term “Moderate” can be assigned. “High” is designated when the characteristic is severe or has a strong chance of causing impairment. In cases where there is insufficient information, an “X” can be used. Discussion of Other Assessment Tests Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence Risk factors are seen to raise the likelihood of a young individual becoming violent. Risk factors are hardly the direct causes of youth violence, but they contribute to violence among the youth. While there are risk factors, protective factors exist as well. Notably, intelligence is seen as a protective factor as supported by a number of studies, which show that the average criminal is below average intelligence (Canter, 2014; Farrington & Welsh, 2007; Raine, 2006). These studies found that the average intelligence of offenders is only slightly below average with an average IQ of 92 compared to the average of the general population of 100. Just as low intelligence is a risk factor for offending, it has been suggested that high intelligence might be a protective factor, which underlines the need to evaluate this in this extensive study (Farrington & Welsh, 2007; Raine, 2006). Low IQ is an individual risk factor since it may expose a young individual to other aspects such as violent victimization, learning disorders or attention deficits, early aggressive behaviour, poor behavioural control, and high emotional distress among others. High IQ is on the other hand a protective factor since it provides one with the ability to overcome all the possible individual risk factors. WASI is among the initial commercially published tests of intelligence originating from the Wechsler series. This test is modelled in a way that allows quick and reliable measures of intelligence for person of 6-89 years of age (Kamphaus, 2005). The innovators of the test precisely indicate that the test is not a replacement for more thorough tests of intelligence and more complete tests should be made use of in coming up with diagnostic decisions. Instead, the WASI is considered useful in screening mental retardation and giftedness, reassessment of individuals having already gone through a comprehensive test, obtaining approximations of present cognitive functioning for psychiatric, vocational, or rehabilitation purposes, and for gauging intellectual ability for a large pool of individuals (Kamphaus, 2005; Mash & Barkley, 2010). As a test, it is individually administered and is made up of four subtests. The four subtests are further divided into two based on the tests they seek to administer. The subtests are vocabulary and similarities subtests, which comprise of the Verbal scale and the Block design, and then we have the Matrix Reasoning, which is made up of the Performance scale and Matrix reasoning which consists of the Performance scale (Mash & Barkley, 2010). These Wechsler subtests were preferred as they bear the largest “g” loadings and “include a number of facets of intelligence such as verbal knowledge, visual information processing, spatial and non-verbal reasoning, and crystallized and fluid intelligence” (The Psychological Corporation, 1999; Kamphaus, 2005). WASI can be administered in two formats, the first is using the four subtests and the second is use of two-subtest approach. The two subsets of the WASI are Vocabulary, and Matrix Reasoning. Block Design and Matrix Reasoning make up the Performance scale that characterizes a Performance score. Temperament Character Inventory (TCI) TCI was developed by Robert Cloninger to determine seven factors present in his psychological model of personality. It is a self-administered questionnaire, which contains 240 items (Cloninger, 1999). It is structured to determine seven basic personality dimensions. Individuals have two sets of traits, the temperament trait and the characteristic traits. The temperament traits are passed on and thence stable while characteristic traits are variable and may include such traits as cooperativeness and self-transcendence. Traits under temperament dimensions may include reward dependence, and persistence (Leary & Hoyle, 2013). All of these dimensions have variant facets, representing either higher or lower order traits. As a test, TCI if properly administered is in a position to differentiate personality subtypes by evaluating four temperament and three character higher-order traits. An individual with refined understanding of the ensuing seven factors can appropriately administer the test, meaning that, at this level everyone can administer the TCI successfully and appropriately. Briefly, Cloninger (1987) describes temperament in terms of four dimensions, which reflect brain systems for inhibition, activation, and maintenance of behaviour and underlie pre-conceptual biases in patterns of adaptive responses to experience. In addition to understanding personality as being tied to specific brain structures, Cloninger (1987) looks at emotionality as a critical component of the brain system that guide learning processes and regulated motivated behaviour. In as such, TCI is founded on Cloninger’s view that temperament dimensions can be systematically associated with basic mood traits (Cloninger, 1987). Temperament is noted among coping skills and positive self-esteem as a possible protective factor (Gullota & Blau, 2007; Beauchaine & Hinshaw, 2013). Stocking of Cambridge This test determines spatial planning ability. Those being tested are required to position coloured balls at the bottom half of a screen in line with a goal arrangement at the top half of the screen. Every problem has a specific minimal number of moves that heighten with difficulty (from 2-5 moves) (Cognitive Atlas, 2013). Those under test are required to look at the position of the balls at the start of every problem and are required not to make a move until they are sure of executing the entire sequence necessary to generate a solution (Cognitive Atlas, 2013). Latencies are recorded at the start and later on in every trial to give a clue of cognitive speed. In every trial, a yoked control is ensured. In conducting a yoke trial, those under trial are required to carry out a sequence of solitary moves that correspond with the moves made in the preceding trials. Measures of initial thinking are computed for every move by subtracting initiation times for both yoked and corresponding problems. Test trials and yoked controls are put in order in four blocks each consisting six problems. The main tests are carried out to determine accuracy and the speed in each difficulty level. Records in each latency level are denominated in centiseconds (Cognitive Atlas, 2013). Delay of Gratification (DGT) This is a test used to measure the ability to stand delays in gaining rewards. The tests inception and validity is largely due to the work of Andershed et al (2002) who used it to measure the core personality traits of the psychopathic personality. Those under test are required to undergo 30 trials; under each trial, the respondent is required to choose between a prompt and delayed response button, the latter has a 40% chance of reward while the former has an 80% chance of reward (Salekin and Lynam, 2011). There are no cost implications for all non-reward trials. Before the beginning of the trial task, it is necessary for the participants to participate in a brief training session to inform the, on the tests intricacies. Young Psychopathic Traits Inventory The YPI has 10 scales constructed to measure 10 core personality traits such as grandiosity, lying manipulation, thrill etc all of which are linked to psychopathy (Dolan & Lennox, 2013). Each item has five items, participants are required to rate the degree to which each of the enumerated items relate to them on a 4-point Likert scale. The scale is fashioned for individuals aged 12 and above (Springer and Roberts, 2007; Jackson and Roesch, 2007). The YPI is particularly interesting as it is designed to address a number of inherent problems with the self-assessment of psychopathy. Using multiple items to measure each core personality trait is strength as well. Overall, the psychometric data for this instrument are somewhat stronger than those reported for the other available self-report measures. However, more research using this measure needs to explore issues of consistency between youth report on the YPI and adult report on other psychopathy measures (Jackson and Roesch, 2007; Salekin and Lynam, 2011). Looking at the test methods discussed herewith, this study considers YPI the most appropriate. This is not only because of the strengths mentioned herewith but also because it has no demands hedged on training and it thus becomes easy to implement for criminal justice professionals looking to assess this further within the SAVRY and thus amplify the effects of protective factors. Within the SAVRY, resilient temperament makers consist of intellectual ability as well as cognitive skills that are above average (Rennie & Dolan, 2010). State-Trait Anxiety (STAI-C) The STAI-C Inventory was developed by (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) and was designed to avail reliable, relatively brief, self-support scales for accessing anxiety and trait anxiety in research (Carducci, 2006; Ollendick, 1994; Velotis, 2005). There are two forms of this test, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAI-C) and its predecessor, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The former assesses both chronic and acute anxiety in children ages 9-12 while, the latter is similar to STAIC but is used with adolescents and adults. It is a 40-item test comprised of two 20-item scales. The A-Trait scale measures chronic, pervasive anxiety, which represents the general tendency to be anxious. In contrast, the state-anxiety portion of the STAI is designed to assess how the individual generally feels (Velotis, 2005). Under State-Anxiety Items, the scores are calibrated under, not at all, somewhat, moderately so, or very much so. Under Trait-anxiety items, the scores are calibrated under almost never, sometimes, often and almost always. Once the circled scores are added up the higher your scores the greater the level of state and trait anxiety (Carducci, 2006; Ollendick, 1994). Evaluating or determining anxiety levels of the sample group is important as it helps in isolating those factors under SAVRY that may not pass as protective factors but are aggravated by anxiety across these individuals. Typically, STAI-C Inventory is significantly useful in predicting desistance. Usually, the test is independent of factors such as age and sex. The method is also useful due to its high level of consistency as well as high specificity in predicting desistance. The STAIC can be used in comparing anxiety scores between healthy individuals and asthmatic individuals in which high STAIC scores are found in anxious asthmatic scores. Given such ability to establish inconsistency in anxiety among different individuals, it is not only important in measuring desistance but also critical for the screening of disorder within a podiatric population. Bibliography Andrade, J.T. 2009. Handbook of violence risk assessment and treatment: New approaches for mental health professionals. London: Springer Publishing Company. Baldry, A. C., & Winkel, F. W. 2008. Intimate partner violence prevention and intervention: The risk assessment and management approach. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Beauchaine, T. P., & Hinshaw, S. P. 2013. Child and adolescent psychopathology. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons. Carducci, B. J. 2006. The psychology of personality. Oxford: Blackwell. Cloninger, C. R. 1999. Personality and psychopathology. Washington, DC [u.a.: American Psychiatric Press. Cognitive Atlas. 2013. Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery-Stockings of Cambridge Task. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from Cognitive Atlas: http://www.cognitiveatlas.org/task/id/trm_4da890cf99b9e Connor, D. F. 2012. Aggression and antisocial behaviour in children and adolescents: research and treatment. New York, Guilford Press. Dahlberg, L., & Potter, L.B. 2001. Youth violence. Developmental pathways and prevention challenges. Am J Prev Med. Volume 20, Issue 1. pp.3-14. Dolana, M. C. & Rennie, C. E., 2006. The relationship between psychopathic traits measured by the Youth Psychopathic trait Inventory and psychopathology in a UK sample of conduct disordered boys. Journal of Adolescence, pp. 1-11. Dolan, M. C. & Rennie, C. E., 2007. Is juvenile psychopathy associated with low anxiety and fear in conduct-disordered male offenders?. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Volume 21, p. 1028–1038. Dolan, M. & Rennie, C., 2006. Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version and Youth Psychopathic trait Inventory: A comparison study. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 41, p. 779–789. Dolan, M. & Lennox, C., 2013. Cool and hot executive function in conduct-disordered adolescents with and without co-morbid attention de cit hyperactivity disorder: relationships with externalizing behaviours. Psychological Medicine, Volume 43, Issue 11, pp. 2427 - 2436. Dolan, M.C. & Rennie, C.E. 2008. The structured assessment of violence risk in youth as a predictor of recidivism in a United Kingdom Cohort of Adolescent Offenders with conduct disorder. Psychological Assessment, Volume 20, Issue 1, 35-46. Farrall, S., & Calverley, A. 2005. Understanding desistance from crime: theoretical directions in resettlement and rehabilitation. Maidenhead, Open University Press. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. 2007. Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forrest, W. & Hay, C. 2011. Life-course transitions, self-control and desistance from crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice Volume 11, Issue 1, pp. 487-513. Fraser, M. W., & Richman, J. M. 2001. The context of youth violence: Resilience, risk, and protection. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Grigorenko, E. L. 2012. Handbook of juvenile forensic psychology and psychiatry. New York: Springer. Hess, K., Orthmann, C., & Wright, J. 2012. Juvenile Justice. London: Cengage Learning. Hoffman, J. S., Knox, L. M., & Cohen, R. 2011. Beyond suppression: Global perspectives on youth violence. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger. Jackson, R. & Roesch, R. 2007. Learning Forensic Assessment. New York: Taylor & Francis. Kamphaus, R. W. 2005. Clinical assessment of child and adolescent intelligence. New York, NY: Springer. Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., & Hall, G. P. 2009. Handbook on crime and deviance. Dordrecht: Springer. Leary, M.R. & Hoyle, R.H. 2013. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behaviour. London: Guilford Publications. Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & White, H.R. 2008.Violence and Serious Theft: Development and Prediction from Childhood to Adulthood. New York: Taylor & Francis. Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. 2010. Assessment of childhood disorders. New York: Guilford. Ollendick, T. H. 1994. International handbook of phobic and anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. New York [u.a.: Plenum Press. Otto, R.K. & Douglas, K.S. 2010. Handbook of violence risk assessment. London: Taylor Francis. Psychological Corporation. 1999. Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Author. Patrick, C. 2005. Handbook of Psychopathy. New York, Guilford Publications. Raine, A. 2006. Crime and schizophrenia: Causes and cures. New York: Nova Science Publ. RENNIE, C. E. & DOLAN, M. C., 2010. The signifi cance of protective factors in the assessment of risk. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, Volume 20, pp. 8-22. Salekin, R.T. and Lynam, D.R. 2011. Handbook of Child and Adolescent Psychopathy. London: Guilford Press. Springer, D. W., & Roberts, A. R. 2007. Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders: Assessment, treatment, and research. New York: Springer. The Scottish Government. 2014. Youth Violence in Scotland: Literature Review. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from The Scottish Governemnt-INTERVENTIONS AND DESISTANCE: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/10/07105517/5 Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. P. 2007. The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press. UK Government. 2013. Statistics - national statistics: Police powers and procedures England and Wales 2011/2. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from Gov.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-powers-and-procedures-in-england-and-wales-201112/police-powers-and-procedures-in-england-and-wales-2011-12. Velotis, C. M. 2005. Anxiety disorder research. New York: Nova Science. Read More