Preliminary Cross-Sectional Validation of the CROPS 14-Item for Juvenile Offenders
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X20904703 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Preliminary Cross-Sectional
Comparative Criminology
2020, Vol. 64(12) 1258 –1274
Validation of the CROPS 14-
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Item for Juvenile Offenders
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20904703
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20904703
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
Benjamin J. Edner1 , Ashley L. Piegore1,
Brian A. Glaser1, and Georgia B. Calhoun1
Abstract
The Child Report of Posttraumatic Symptoms (CROPS) is an effective 26-item
trauma assessment tool. Research has indicated a 14-item version of the CROPS for
juvenile offenders with improved predictive accuracy for detecting trauma exposure
among male offenders and commensurate accuracy for female offenders. However,
the 14-item scale has yet to be validated for juvenile offenders with an established
trauma measure. Cross-sectional retrospective data of 74 adjudicated youth (59.5%
male) from the original CROPS 14-item psychometric study sample were used to
examine the factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent and divergent
validity of the 14-item scale. Findings indicated strong internal consistency and
significant correlations with all scales of an established and more extensive trauma
measure for children and adolescents. Findings also revealed a CROPS 12-item model
explaining 36.9% of variance. Results supported both convergent and divergent
validity, suggesting both the CROPS 14-item and 12-item may be used as valid trauma
symptom screeners for juvenile offenders.
Keywords
trauma, assessment, juvenile offender, CROPS, TSCC
Juvenile offenders are highly susceptible to childhood maltreatment (Abram et al.,
2004) and have likely been exposed to a multitude of traumatic experiences (Adams
et al., 2013; Briere et al., 2016). Such experiences have been robustly established in
1University of Georgia, Athens, USA
Corresponding Author:
Benjamin J. Edner, Department of Counseling and Human Development Services, University of Georgia,
110 Carlton Street, Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Email: benedner@gmail.com
Edner et al.
1259
the literature as a risk factor for juvenile delinquency (Malvaso et al., 2018; Onifade
et al., 2014). Unequivocal findings establishing the empirical relation between exten-
sive childhood trauma and higher rates of juvenile delinquency in the United States
can be dated back to the 1960s (Silver et al., 1969). Since that time, rates of trauma
within delinquent populations have been found to be upward of 90% (Abram et al.,
2004; Ford et al., 2012; Ko et al., 2008; Lyons et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2002), with a
majority percentage meeting full or partial criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD; Amatya & Barzman, 2012). Research demonstrates that the higher the fre-
quency of trauma exposure, the more adjudicated youth report posttraumatic stress
reactions, depression, and engage in delinquent behavior (Onifade et al., 2014).
Current findings suggest that children with early trauma exposure regularly present
with comorbid diagnoses—a substantial percentage of diagnoses include conduct-
related disorders among juvenile offenders (Spinazzola et al., 2005; Teplin et al.,
2002).
International research elucidates that rates of psychiatric disorders among adjudi-
cated youth range from 70% to 90% (Colins et al., 2009). Other prevalence rates indi-
cate juvenile offenders exhibit psychiatric disorders ranging from 40% to 82% (Cohen
et al., 2010; Lyons et al., 2001) compared with the 9% to 33% found within the general
population (Lyons et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2002). These rates of psychiatric disorder
onset are 3 to 4 times higher than the general adolescent youth population (Merikangas
et al., 2010). As a result, the past decade has seen an increase in the attention drawn to
the unmet mental health needs of juvenile offenders (Becker et al., 2014).
Trauma exposure in childhood is associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety,
posttraumatic stress (Dembo et al., 2007; Kerig et al., 2016; Kerig et al., 2009), sub-
stance use, externalizing disorders (Ford et al., 2011), and affective disorders (King
et al., 2011), respectively. Trauma exposure has also been linked to engagement in
antisocial behavior and violent and nonviolent criminal offenses (Evans & Burton,
2013). Physical abuse in childhood directly relates to engagement in property crime,
violent crime, and fraud (Shin et al., 2016) as well as proactive and reactive criminal
thinking styles (Cuadra et al., 2014). In addition, Kopp et al. (2009) found that physi-
cal abuse is a predictor for total months of incarceration among delinquent offenders.
Sexual abuse is associated with an increased risk for juvenile offending (Seto &
Lalumiere, 2010) and adult criminality (Cuadra et al., 2014; Kopp et al., 2009). Neglect
has been implicated in juvenile conduct problems (Ryan et al., 2013) and delinquency
(Evans & Burton, 2013). Witnessing community violence is associated with delin-
quency and violent offending patterns (Baskin & Sommers, 2014) and predicts engage-
ment in criminal behavior (Eitle & Turner, 2002).
The need to make meaning of exposure to trauma can influence ways in which
youth process and cope with these experiences. The ability to accurately assess how
youth interpret and process trauma is necessary for implementing interventions that
build healthy processing skills and promote positive recovery (Simon et al., 2010). As
such, it is imperative that practitioners are able to identify trauma symptoms and con-
ceptualize how these symptoms inform the worldview of the adolescent to effectively
provide treatment. Successful treatment provision thus necessitates appropriate
1260
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 64(12)
evaluation utilizing instruments with the capacity to accurately detect trauma exposure
and measure the severity of corresponding trauma symptoms (Grisso, 2005; Kazdin,
2006).
Understanding the implications of experiencing trauma for juveniles suggests a
critical need for psychological instruments that can provide relevant information for
practitioners. Decisions regarding the most appropriate evidence-based treatments to
implement with juveniles who have experienced various forms of trauma, in part, rest
on a foundation of valid and appropriate assessment (Dobson & Dobson, 2018).
Sufficient assessment of juveniles is facilitated by the use of empirically validated
measures, designed to assess specific factors associated with trauma. Administration
of appropriate psychological measures yields data that can inform both diagnostic and
treatment utility (Hunsley & Mash, 2008).
Data from appropriate assessment tools can inform selection and implementation of
appropriate evidence-based treatments specific to the needs of clients (Chorpita et al.,
2004; Kerig, 2013). Specifically, data acquired using appropriate psychological mea-
sures help identify characteristics and symptomology of juveniles, which allows for
both accurate selection of evidence-based treatments for trauma (Chorpita et al., 2004)
and the tailoring or modifying of treatments to match client idiosyncrasies (Stirman
et al., 2013, 2017). Psychological measures are not only useful for identifying appro-
priate evidence-based treatments (e.g., Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education
and Therapy, TARGET; Ford & Russo, 2006; Trauma Systems Therapy, TST; Brown
et al., 2013; Saxe et al., 2006; Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Response to
Chronic Stress, SPARCS; DeRosa & Pelcovitz, 2008; Habib et al., 2013), they can
also be vital in determining the effectiveness of treatment throughout the process
(Williams et al., 2005). Such attention to ongoing treatment effectiveness can allow for
enhanced predictability of treatment outcome.
Contemporary rating scales for measuring psychological trauma contain several
limitations when used with juvenile offender populations (Kerig, 2013; Perkins et al.,
2014; Vergano et al., 2015). Copious valid and well-established psychological trauma
questionnaires are designed to capture the severity of PTSD symptomology (Bremner
et al., 2007; DiLillo et al., 2010). However, this narrow conceptualization of trauma
symptomology can significantly constrain the measurement of the range of possible
trauma symptoms not necessarily concomitant with typical PTSD presentations (Ford
et al., 2008; Kerig, 2013). Given that youth offenders typically experience cumulative,
chronic, and persistent stressors—adopting adaptive coping mechanisms accordingly
(Bennett & Kerig, 2014; Ford & Russo, 2006)—these youth tend to exhibit symptoms
consistent with complex trauma (Cook et al., 2005). Symptom clusters for juvenile
offenders can manifest as callous-unemotional traits and emotional numbing (Allwood
et al., 2011; Bennett & Kerig, 2014). Such strategies for regulating affect are not
entirely consistent with PTSD diagnostic criteria. Consequently, psychometric detec-
tion and/or measurement of trauma symptomology can be difficult for the juvenile
offender population (Perkins et al., 2016). Population-specific instruments therefore
should increase the accuracy and sensitivity for detecting and measuring variation of
trauma symptom manifest. Given the limited resources of forensic and...
To continue reading
Request your trial