|
This Bulletin provides a synthesis of years of research leading to the postulation and testing of a theoretical model for child and adolescent development of disruptive behaviors along orderly, progressively more serious pathways. Three pathways were found to be better than one in terms of clarifying the dynamic escalation of severity along the continuums of covert, overt, and authority conflict behaviors. Replications of the pathways in other data sets have been reported by Tolan and Gorman-Smith (in press). It is not yet clear to what extent the pathways apply to girls. The strength of this pathways model is in large part due to the researchers' sensitivity to the developmental realities of life for children and adolescents. Age-appropriate developmental tasks must be mastered before an individual child can successfully progress to the next level of challenges. Not all problem behaviors emerge at the same developmental stage. A key to the identification of stages within the pathways model is documenting the age of onset for specific disruptive behaviors. The pathways represent developmentally formulated stages that are sensitive to both age-appropriate manifestations of problem behavior and increases in severity, with each stage of the pathway serving as a stepping stone toward more serious behaviors. Each of the three hypothesized pathways can be thought of as representing different developmental tasks:
What are the implications of developmental pathways for the prevention of disruptive and delinquent behavior? First, age-appropriate strategies must be devised to assist children in mastering key developmental tasks. For instance, to avoid onset of the overt pathway, children must learn to control aggressive outbursts and use words, rather than fists, to resolve problems. However, tasks that appear to be directly linked to the overt, covert, and authority conflict pathways cannot be the sole focus. Child development cannot be neatly compartmentalized, so a holistic approach must be followed to meet the needs, identify the interests, and foster the strengths of the total person. Second, the warning signs of early onset of disruptive behaviors must not be dismissed with a "this too will pass" attitude. Interventions will be more successful if the child has not already persistently performed a negative behavior or penetrated the more serious stages of a pathway. How can children at risk for pathway onset and penetration be efficiently identified? Each child should be approached from a developmental perspective. Is the child exhibiting appropriate behavior for his developmental stage? Are there knowledgeable individuals in the child's life who could help in determining risk? Several of the instruments employed in this research can also be administered to parents and teachers to help identify those children exhibiting risk factors for problem behaviors. Factors to examine include how often a child is disruptive, with what intensity and provocation he exhibits disruptive behavior, and whether the behavior occurs in multiple settings. This research indicates that a child who only experiments with disruptive behavior is at far less risk for progressing along the pathway than a child who persists in practicing negative behaviors. When screening at-risk children for possible interventions, practitioners should consider utilization of a multiple-gating design (Loeber, Dishion, and Patterson, 1984). This cost-effective screening procedure is based on techniques commonly used in personnel selection. As shown in figure 14, the least expensive screening procedure is first applied to the full sample of at-risk children, such as having teachers complete a checklist of early problem behaviors at school in the first gate. Based on red flags from the teacher's screening, a more expensive screening involving telephone interviews could be conducted with mothers in the second gate to gather information on problem behavior at home. For the smaller group of children still considered at high risk after the second gate, even more intensive home observations could be conducted to gather information on parents' child-rearing practices in the third gate. With a multiple-gating design, the assessment of progressions in developmental pathways and disruptive behavior in multiple settings, frequency, and variety can all be incorporated in the screening process.  Once a parent, teacher, or other caretaker is aware of a child's propensity for disruptive behavior, help should be sought as soon as possible. Research on the oldest sample (Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 1995) indicated that the development of disruptive and delinquent behaviors was largely left unchecked among a population of eighth grade boys. Problem behavior had been exhibited for an average of 6 years by boys who had committed delinquent acts. Only 41% of these boys' parents had ever sought help from anyone, including friends, family members, or professionals. By the eighth grade, only 20% of the delinquent boys had been in contact with the juvenile court. The researchers concluded that the majority of the delinquent boys experienced uninterrupted delinquent careers. Clearly, parents need to be informed about their children's potential progression into more serious behaviors and about any available community services. Teachers come into direct contact with most at-risk children. Teachers often observe problem behaviors in the classroom, the cafeteria, and on the playground and frequently are the first to refer children for assessments for ADHD, other conduct disorders, and specific learning disabilities. A child's failure to experience academic success can often accompany behavioral problems. A child's progression along developmental pathways can have negative consequences for his educational advancement and for the overall learning climate in the classroom. Teachers play a critical role in communicating problems to the child and his parents, instituting classroom interventions, and providing referrals to appropriate resource personnel or agencies. Schools may need to implement educational reforms that focus on students at risk for disruptive behavior (Montgomery and Rossi, 1994). Mental health and juvenile justice practitioners have much to contribute by working together to redirect disruptive children back on the track of positive development. Often, the same children are given a psychiatric diagnosis of mental health problems and are processed in the juvenile justice system. OJJDP recently initiated the Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Initiative. Under this initiative, OJJDP supports a number of projects to enhance collaboration between the mental health and juvenile justice systems:
These efforts are designed to deal with children already exhibiting problem behavior or delinquency. OJJDP is also providing partial support for the Risk Reduction Via Promotion of Youth Development project. This is a large-scale intervention project designed to promote coping competence and to reduce risk for conduct problems, substance use, aggression, delinquency, and school failure beginning in early elementary school. It includes a classroom program, a schoolwide conflict management program, peer social skills training, and home-based family programming. The project also seeks to alter home and school climates to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes and to promote positive youth development. These programs have much to offer in terms of reaching out to families of at-risk youth, intervening with disruptive boys, advancing practices in dealing with mental health concerns in the juvenile justice system, and fostering a climate for positive youth development. Researchers at the Pittsburgh Youth Study continue to follow up with the youngest and oldest boys (the middle sample is not being followed up) to learn how their lives unfold and how they progress in the developmental pathways of disruptive and delinquent behavior. Future analyses will focus on examining factors in the boys' lives that increase the risk of pathway onset, penetration, and persistence. Attention will also be paid to the influence of community factors and peer influences. An important finding from these analyses is the latency period that occurs between physical fighting or violent episodes. Extensive periods of inactivity may surface as the boys provide additional data waves for analysis. In the meantime, interventions targeting violent juvenile offenders cannot be of short duration. Furthermore, followup timeframes for measurement of recidivism among violent juveniles must be more extensive than the latency periods of 6 to 18 months identified in this study. Children's behavior is not readily remolded and reshaped; the years of developmental pathways that led to the emergence of the present behavior must be considered. Each child has a lengthy course of development, and there are rarely quick fixes that will redirect a child on the pathway to positive development. This country must make a long-term commitment to each and every child and be prepared to stand beside them when they face difficult challenges and need nurturance and guidance. Before children can change unacceptable behavior, they must be shown how. This is truly the developmental task that challenges the evolving society in the United States today.
|