Program Outcomes for Youth

 

Social Competencies 
 
Adolescent Violence 
Measures 
 
The measures listed in this section are by no means exhaustive and are merely a sampling of the more popular measures used by researchers for assessing the various components believed to be important in successful adolescent relationships. It is possible also that the often overlooked qualitative measures such as portfolios, diaries or journals, and personal interviews can be valuable and useful alternative sources of data gathering when investigating the dynamics of adolescent interpersonal relationships. 
 

Name: Lethal Behaviors Scale
Author: Thorson and Powell
Date: 1987
Instrument Description:  The instrument is an inventory of 22 lethal activities presented in a yes/no format. Scoring ranges from 1-3 with possible range of the instrument from 22-66, with higher scores reflecting more lethality. Younger males were the most likely to engage in lethal activities. 
Where Available: James A. Thorson, Gerontology Program, University of Nebraska, Omaha, NE 68182.
Literature Reference: Factor structure of a lethal behaviors scale. Psychological Reports, 61, 807-810. 
Cost: Not available
Intended Audience: Tested on adults with mean age of 33.54
Subtests: None 
Psychometrics: Factor analysis revealed four factors: general orientation toward danger, orientation toward bravery and adventure, thrill seeking, and safe and unsafe habits. Reliability alpha for the scale was .62 but authors noted that the scale could be improved with the elimination of some questions, which they specify.
Advantages/Disadvantages Tested on older population. However, it is highly likely the questions could apply to adolescents as they encompass those dimensions researchers frequently assess adolescents on. Sample questions are: do you ever take chances or do dangerous things for the thrill of it; have you ever experimented with dangerous drugs; when driving, do you generally pass most of the other cars on the highway; do you smoke. The scale could benefit from further testing on different populations.
 
Name: My Exposure to Violence (My ETV)
Author: Buka, Selner, O’Hagan, Kindlon, & Earls
Date: 1996
Instrument Description:  A highly structured interviewer administered instrument that covers lifetime and past-year exposure to 18 different violent events that have been either personally experienced or witnessed by the participant. 
Where Available: Authors
Literature Reference: (1) Buka, S., Selner-O’Hagan, M., Kindlon, D., & Earls, F. (1996). My Exposure to Violence and My Child’s Exposure to Violence. Unpublished manual. (2) Selner-O’Hagan, M., Kindlon, D. J., Buka, S. L., Raudenbush,, S. W., & Earls (1998). Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child Psychological Psychiatry, 39(2), 215-224. Information: mohagan@phdcn.harvard.edu
Cost: Not Available
Intended Audience: Adolescents ages  9-24 
Subtests: Witnessed violence; victimization; total exposure
Psychometrics: Test/retest reliability scores indicated r = .75 to .94. Cronbach’s alpha assessed internal consistency at r = .68 to .93. Construct validity was provided by item analysis, which revealed a theoretically sensible ordering of item extremity.
Advantages/Disadvantages Manual is unpublished. Authors suggest the scale can be used to augment longitudinal studies of exposure to violence and assess violence protection programs; to investigate trajectories of ETV and factors that affect those trajectories; and used as an outcome measure in violence prevention trials at the school and neighborhood level. 
 
Name: Risk Appraisal Guide (RAG)
Author: Harris, Rice, & Quinsey
Date: 1993
Instrument Description:  Originally developed to predict the violent behavior of mentally disordered male offenders. Research conducted by Loza and Dhaliwal (1997) indicated the reliability and the concurrent validity of the RAG for assessing violent behavior of incarcerated nonmentally disordered male offenders (ages 16 – 58).
Where Available: Authors 
Literature Reference: (1) Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 315-535. (2) Loza, W., & Dhaliwal, G. K. (1997). Psychometric evaluation of the Risk Appraisal Guide (RAG): A tool for assessing violent recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(6), 779-793.
Cost: Not available
Intended Audience: Currently tested on males 16-58. 
Subtests: elementary school maladjustment, age at index offence, victim injury for index offense, female victim, and alcohol abuse history scales.
Psychometrics: Internal consistency coefficient alpha was .72. Significant correlations are found between most of the item scores and the total score. Factor analysis of the RAG items indicated two factor loadings: Psychopathy/Antisocial Personality and Victim Data. 
Advantages/Disadvantages Currently has been utilized with older male population but it is possible that components may be extrapolated into the juvenile population. Further research using the scale is needed. Current research indicated good predictive ability.
 
Name: Risk of Eruptive Violence Scale
Author: A. Mehrabian
Date: 1996
Instrument Description:  A 35-item scale designed to identify individuals who have a general tendency to act violently, and those who erupt suddenly and unexpectedly into episodes of violence. Based on the premise that those individuals displaying quiet, withdrawn, and restrained but tense characteristics but who may habitually experience seething anger and frustration. A portion of the scale involves questions dealing with wishes to harm, injure, or even destroy specific others or larger groups in the population.
Where Available: Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa Rd., Monterey, CA  93940 or A. Mehrabian, Dept. of Psychology, UCLA, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA  90095
Literature Reference: Mehrabian, A. (1997). Relations among personality scales of aggression, violence, and empathy: Validational evidence bearing on the Risk of Eruptive Violence Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 433-445.
Cost: Not Available
Intended Audience: Adolescents ages 13-21
Subtests: Not explicated
Psychometrics: Alpha internal consistency was .98. In general, item-total correlations ranged from .45 to  .95. Reliability level is .84.
Advantages/Disadvantages The instrument has focused on juvenile inmates in high security facility. However, as it is a fairly new instrument its potential is still in development and could in all likelihood benefit from testing with youth in various settings. The method could prove quite useful to community-based programs, especially those focusing on gang violence and school and community violence.
 
Name: Screen for Adolescent Violence Exposure (SAVE)
Author: Hastings and Kelley
Date: 1997
Instrument Description:  The scale was developed in order to provide a socially valid and clinically sensitive measure of violent events experienced by adolescents in the school, home, and community. The authors note several crucial elements considered in the scale’s development including ease in administration, suitability for poor readers, acceptable reliability and validity, and measurement of the stressor criterion associated with PTSD. 
Where Available: Teresa L. Hastings, PO Box 95606, Seattle, WA 98145-2606.
Literature Reference: Hastings, T. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1997). Development and validation of the Screen for Adolescent Violence Exposure (SAVE). Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25(6), 511-520.
Cost: Not Available
Intended Audience: Adolescents ages 11-18.
Subtests: Traumatic violence (relating to severe victimization experiences, 12 items), indirect violence (witnessing of or being informed of less severe interpersonal violence, 14 items), and physical/verbal abuse (actual or threatened violent harm directed at the participant, 6 items).
Psychometrics: Internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha for each setting scale was .90 to .94. subscale alphas ranged from .58 to .91. Intercorrelations between subscales ranged from .19 to .93. Test-retest coefficients ranged from .53 to .92. Discriminate analyses demonstrated utility in classifying high- and low-violence participants.
Advantages/Disadvantages Needs further testing using a more ethnically diverse population (the population thus far tested consisted of primarily African-American inner city youths).
  
 
Resources
 
Measures
 
Bibliographies
 
| Risk Behaviors |
| Program Outcomes for Youth |
| NOWG Home |