University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Engagement in occupations and its relationship to delinquency scores among 10 to 13-year-olds

(USC Thesis Other)

Engagement in occupations and its relationship to delinquency scores among 10 to 13-year-olds

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ENGAGEMENT IN OCCUPATIONS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO DELINQUENCY SCORES AMONG 10 TO 13-YEAR-OLDS by Bonnie Adler A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS (Occupational Therapy) December 1992 UMl Number: EP62645 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMl EP62645 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ERN CALIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K L O S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This thesis} written by 7 ............................... under the direction of h.^XT.....Thesis Committee, and approved by all its members, has been pre sented to and accepted by the Dean of The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M ^ t e r o f A rts Dean November 12, 1992 THESIS COMMITTEE Chairman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To the many individuals who provided support, encouragement, and guidance, for without them I would not have achieved this accomplishment. I thank each and ) ' everyone who stood behind me all the way. I Dr. Diane Parham played an instrumental role in the completion of this thesis. j I thank her for the dedication of endless hours of reviewing and the invaluable i I suggestions she made. Her motivation encouraged me to maintain my own motivation. She made me, as a student, feel competent and gave me the self- confidence I needed to believe I could do it. I would also like to extend my appreciation to others who assisted me along the way. Dr. Florence Clark and Dr. Ann Neville-Jan provided time and encouraging feedback during the review process. Dr. Mike Carlson dedicated many computer hours during the analysis of the data. I thank him for transforming the results into something comprehensible. Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to my parents, Rita and Sam Adler, who always encouraged me to follow my dreams. They were a constant source of support and enabled me to realize my dreams. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................. v ABSTRACT......................................................................................................... vi Chapter ONE. THE PROBLEM............................................................................. I Research Question............................................................................... 4 Research Approach.............................................................................. 4 Limitations and Assumptions............................................................ 6 TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 8 Occupational Science................. 8 Adolescent Occupations ............................................................ 9 Explanations of Juvenile Delinquency.............................................. 11 Biological Theories.............................................................................. 13 Historical Perspectives.................................................................. 13 I Genetic Theories.............................................................. 14 Biochemical Theories..................................................................... 16 Economic Theories.............................................................. 17 Political Theories................................................................................. 19 Psychological T heories...................................................................... 20 j Psychoanalytic................................................................................ 20 ' Personality Disorder 21 ! Intelligence...................................................................................... 23 ; Social Learning............................................................................... 23 Sociological Theories......................................................................... 24 ' Social Control Theories................................................................. 24 Strain Theories............................................................................... 26 Cultural Transmission................................................................... 28 | Radical Criminological Position.................................................. 29 Summary......................................................................................... 30 Role of Occupational Therapy........................................................... 30 The Context of Daily Occupations and the ; Development of Delinquency...................................................... 34 i Social Relationships............................................................................ 34 School Performance 39 | Participation in Activities 41 ; 1 1 1 THREE. METHODOLOGY......................................................................... 45 Design.................................................................................................... 45 Subjects................................................................................................. 45 Instrumentation.................................................................................... 48 Assessment of Engagement in Occupation ................ 48 Assessment of Delinquent Behaviors........................................... 51 Procedure.............................................................................. 54 Data Collection.............. 54 Current Procedure......................................................................... 55 Data A nalysis....................................................................................... 55 FOUR. RESULTS........................................................................................... 58 Transformation of D ata...................................................................... 58 Social Competence and Delinquency Scores of Subjects............. 59 Correlation A nalysis........................................................................... 60 Multiple Regression........................................................................ 63 Stepwise Regression...................................................................... 66 FIVE. DISCUSSION................................................................................. 69 Intercorrelations Among Variables.................................................... 69 Predictors of Delinquency.................................................................. 73 Conclusion.............. 75 Future Implications....................... 76 REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 78 APPENDIX A. B. The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and Behavior Profile................................... Definition of Terms. 89 94 IV LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Subjects.......................................... 47 2. Age and Intellectual Ability of the Subjects........................................... 48 3. Ratings on the Social Competence Scales for the Normative Sam ple...................................................................... 50 4. Ratings on the Delinquency Scale for the Normative Sam ple ......................................................... 52 5. Ratings on the Social Competence Scales and Delinquency P rofile.......................................................................... 59 6. Intercorrelations Among Predictor, Control, and Dependent Variables......................................................................... 61 7. Engagement in Occupation as a P r^ icto r of Delinquency........................................................................ 63 8. Control Variables as Predictors of Delinquency........................ 64 9. Engagement in Occupation, Age, and Education as Predictors of Delinquency.................................................................. 65 10. Stepwise Regression Results with All Variables Included as Predictors of Delinquency.................................................. 67 11. Engagement in Occupation as a Predictor of Delinquency After Controlling for Age and Educational Placem ent...................... 68 ABSTRACT This research was a correlational study that was designed to investigate the relationship between engagement in occupations and delinquency. The data j analyzed in this study were part of an earlier longitudinal research project that began i in 1984 and was later followed up in 1988. In the initial study, a group of students were stratified by age and randomly selected through a computer-generated list obtained from the Fresno Unified School District. Data in this research project were I obtained during the 1988 follow-up. The subjects of this study were between the ages of 10 and 13 at the time of data collection. Both learning handicapped and non-learning handicapped children were included. The sample for this study consisted of 53 subjects, 20 of whom were I female and 33 were male. Engagement in occupations was measured by scores obtained on the Social Competence scales of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). | These scales summarize participation and performance in three domains: participation in activities, social relationships, and school performance. In addition j to the scores in these three domains, a total social competence score is provided ! which is a composite of the three domains. In addition to the Social Competence scales, the Child Behavior Checklist has ■ a section which assesses behavior problems (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). In I I this study only scores that reflected the delinquent behavior profile type were used. I 1 Three of the four variables that comprised engagement in occupations were significantly correlated with Delinquency: Social Relationships, School vi Performance, and Total Social Competence. Social Relationships had the highest I Pearson correlation coefficient with delinquency over any other variable examined in . this study. Age was the only control variable that met the criterion level for j significance, with educational placement nearly meeting the .05 criterion level. I Regression analysis was employed to assess whether any combinations of 1 variables were especially related to Delinquency. Multiple regression results I indicated that the four variables that comprised engagement in occupations was the ' best combination of predictors of the variance in Delinquency scores, of all the , combinations studied. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that Social ^ Relationships was the best predictor of Delinquency. Even when age and educational placement were controlled for, Social Relationships still remained the best predictor of Delinquency. The findings suggest that engagement in occupations is significantly related to I ; Delinquency. The relationship between social relationships was particularly strong and deserves further research. V ll I CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION I I . The Problem I Adolescence is a period in which numerous changes are taking place within an I individual. It is a time when one is faced with many choices. Whether a youth I j decides to become a productive member of society or join the ranks of the criminal is thought to be largely decided during this time period. Because the number of persons taking the delinquent avenue is steadily increasing (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989), occupational therapists are increasingly being faced with having to deal with delinquent adolescents and their families. However, there is marginal documentation on how occupational therapists can best serve the delinquent I population. Occupational therapy is supported by the emerging field of occupational ; science (Yerxa, Clark, Frank, Jackson, Parham, Pierce, Stein, & Zemke, 1989). Occupation is the core emphasis of occupational science. The term occupation i means not just something nice to do; rather it is concerned with "specific chunks of activity within the ongoing stream of human behavior which are named in the I lexicon of the culture" (Yerxa et al., 1989,. p. 5), for example, playing, dressing, I doing homework, or dancing. Reilly (1974) states that occupation is "wired" into tlie human through the process of evolution. Occupational scientists study the human experience in relation to engagement in occupations. The occupational scientist is not only concerned with the nature of occupation, but also with the process (Primeau, Clark, & Pierce, 1989). Some of the central issues of research in occupational science include how individuals organize, plan, and anticipate their occupational roles, the importance of competence in engaging in daily occupations, and the relationship between life satisfaction and participation in occupations (Yerxa et al., 1989). Most of the literature on delinquency has been contributed by disciplines other I than occupational science. A wide range of etiological theories exist to explain the prevalence of juvenile delinquency. Psychology, sociology, economics, political I j science, and biology are among the disciplines that have contributed to our I j understanding of the emergence of delinquent behavior. Each of these disciplines has a unique focus. For example, psychology : emphasizes the personality and mental make-up of the individual, biology attributes j antisocial behavior to genetic factors, whereas sociology emphasizes social structure, : environment, and social life (Flowers, 1990). In contrast, the economic and the political perspectives emphasize potential gains, profit, and the relationship between I citizens and the state (Pepinsky, 1983; Witte, 1983). Despite valuable contributions made by each of these disciplines to our understanding of the problem of delinquency among youths, a limitation exists. I None of these theories addresses the human drive to engage in occupation, the role I of competence in choosing and participating in a particular occupation, and its i relationship to the development of delinquent behavior. Occupational science, I however, is uniquely distinguished from other disciplines because it deals with these : issues of occupation and regards them as important in the development of the I individual. I Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984) have identified domains of occupations in which adolescents participate. These occupations include productive, leisure, and maintenance activities and are carried out among family, with peers, within school, and in public places. Various studies about adolescents who display delinquent behavior patterns have focused on the contexts of family, peers, school, and leisure : activities. Some of the effects that the family, school, peers, and leisure activities have on promoting delinquency among adolescents are noteworthy. For instance, Walshe-Brennan (1976) concluded that parental example was the most significant influence on a child's behavior. Additionally, family intactness and attitudes in the ; family are also considered to contribute to a child's development of delinquent I behavior (LeFlore, 1988; Lipsitt, Lelos, & Gibbs, 1985). At school, youths with I , learning disabilities are at greater risk for developing delinquent behavior than youths who do not have a learning disability (Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986). This I I finding is attributed to the inability of youths with learning disabilities to achieve I and satisfy their needs among non-delinquent prone peer groups. Additionally, once a connection is made with a delinquent peer group, continued association with delinquent peers will foster the continuance of delinquent behaviors (Snyder, Dishion, & Patterson, 1986). During leisure activities, delinquent-prone youth show a decreased ability to conform to rules (Serok & Blum, 1982). Finally, according to Riemer (1981), for some individuals delinquent activities are engaged in just for fun as an exciting and enjoyable alternative to leisure activities that fit into social norms. This project examined engagement in occupations and its relationship to delinquent behaviors within a group of school children between the ages of 10 and 12 years. By using an occupational science perspective, this investigation attempted to identify factors that have been overlooked by other disciplines seeking to understand delinquency. In the future, this research may aid occupational science in establishing a theory of delinquent behavior that is broader and more holistic than current disciplinary conceptions of delinquency. Ultimately, an occupational science perspective on delinquency will enhance the practice and service delivered by occupational therapists. Research Question The following question guided this research: Is engagement in occupations | related to the development of delinquent behaviors in early adolescence? The ; instrument used in the study, the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), permitted analyses of three aspects of engagement in occupations: (a) number of activities and quality of participation; (b) social relationships; and | (c) school competence. These three aspects were analyzed separately and in aggregate in relation to delinquent behavior. Research Approach The primary problem addressed in this research was the relationship between engagement in occupations and delinquent behavior among adolescents. The j approach undertaken within this research involved quantitative analysis of an ^ I existing data base. The data base was obtained during a previous longitudinal study, headed by Diane Parham of the University of Southern California Occupational ! Therapy Department. Her study began in 1984 as a construct validity study of the , I Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests with co-investigators Florence Clark and Zoe Mailloux. Subjects were students from the Fresno Unified School District who were ! 6, 7, and 8 years old. In 1988, a follow-up project was initiated which reevaluated the subjects when they were 10 to 13 years old. Among other data collection ' procedures, parents were requested to complete the Child Behavior Checklist I (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). I The Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) is divided into two sections. The first section produces scores on three Social Competence Scales: Activities, Social Relationships, and School. All three of these scales were addressed in the present study. Items on these scales examine engagement in occupations such as sports, hobbies, games, activities, organizations, chores, and schoolwork, as well as social relationships with friends and family (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The second section produces scores on the Behavior Problem scales, derived from factor analysis. These scales identify behavior patterns such as social withdrawal, depressed, aggressive, delinquent, schizoid or anxious, obsessive- compulsive, hyperactive, and sexual problems. Only the delinquent scale is of , interest in the present study. Items that contribute to this scale include behaviors , such as lying, cheating, stealing, destructiveness, vandalism, fire setting, truancy, bad friends, running away, school problems, drug and alcohol involvement, and being impulsive (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Standard norm-referenced scores for both the Social Competence and Behavior ■ Problem scales are provided for children between the ages of 4 and 16. Data analysis in the present study employed correlational procedures, using scores from the three Social Competence scales to operationalize engagement in occupations, and the score from the Delinquent scale to operationalize delinquent behavior. Limitations and Assumptions This study investigated associations between engagement in occupations and the development of delinquent behaviors. Results obtained in this project are not intended to imply cause and effect relationships. One of the problems presented by this research project is that the choice of assessment as well as the implementation and collection of other relevant information from school records was done by someone other than myself. Information gathered was obtained through mailed questionnaires with no interview, and, consequently, I was limited to wha't had already been gathered. It was assumed that the implementation and the procedures undertaken to collect the data were done accurately and consistently. Additionally, the manner in which the Child Behavior Checklist was completed may have led to bias on the part of the parent. The assessment was completed by one of the parents. The questions in the Child Behavior Checklist which examine engagement in occupation asks the parent to rate the quality of participation in various activities, in relation to other children of the same age; therefore, the resulting scores are based on subjective responses. This allows the possibility of overestimating or underestimating a child's performance. Despite the fact that the consistency between the responses of a child's parents has been demonstrated to be statistically reliable, I believe that it is still possible for a bias to exist within the family that would involve both parents uniformly overrating or underrating their child. Because the assessment is completed by the caregiver rather than the child, the subjective meaning to the young adolescent is not taken into consideration. As previously noted, the importance of an occupation is determined by the meaning it holds for the individual. Despite the fact that the Child Behavior Checklist does not allow the child to indicate the meaning of an occupation, it does provide an opportunity for a parent, caregiver, or interviewer to indicate the quality of the child's participation in various occupations, as that person sees it. Finally, it is important to mention some assumptions that were made within this research project. First, I assumed that development of delinquent behavior is not determined by genetics alone. Second, it was assumed that experiences have an influence on the development of behavior. Third, it was assumed that experiences and interactions with others importantly affect an individual's patterns of occupation as well as his or her potential for developing delinquent behaviors. Next, it was assumed that the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist validly measures some aspects of occupation and delinquency. Finally, it was assumed that these students from the Fresno Unified School District were representative of larger populations. CHAPTER TW O: LITERATURE REVIEW The following literature review will examine engagement in occupations during adolescence and factors that influence the development of delinquent behaviors during this period. First, a brief look at the nature of occupational science, and its relationship to adolescent occupations, will be undertaken. Next, the problem of delinquency and theories of its origin will be discussed. This will include biological, economic, political, psychological, and sociological theories. Then the relationship of occupational therapy to delinquency will be examined, followed by an overview of the contexts of various occupations as they relate to delinquency. The contexts of occupations that will be discussed include social relationships, school performance, and participation in activities. Occupational Science Occupational science (Yerxa et al., 1989) is defined as the study of humans as occupational beings. The primary concern of this emerging discipline is with the substrates, form, function, meaning, and sociocultural and historical contexts of occupations (Clark, Parham, Carlson, Frank, Jackson, Pierce, Stein, & Zemke, 1991). Occupations encompass "chunks” of cultureilly and personally meaningful activities in which humans engage that can be named by members of a given culture (University of Southern California, 1989). The potential implications of how occupations may affect an individual's health, adaptation, and sense of well-being are tremendous. Throughout the human lifespan, many developmental changes within the individual occur. These changes are able to occur because humans are open systems with the unique ability to process information from our environment and act on this hew information. Preadolescence to adolescence is a developmental period characterized by a vast degree of changes. It would be expected that during this period, changes will occur in the form, function, meaning, and sociocultural I contexts of occupations. Adolescence is a time period of particular interest in this I j project because it is the developmental period which the subjects, who are j preadolescents, are preparing to enter. The following section will examine the types I of occupations in which adolescents engage and how they change during adolescence. Adolescent Occupations According to Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984), adolescent use of time is divided among three areas: productive activities, leisure activities, and self maintenance activities. Productive activities are primarily related to school and work. Leisure activities include sports, as well as nonsport activities such as games, listening to music, watching television, arts and crafts, reading, thinking, socializing, and resting. Maintenance activities include eating, grooming, chores, errands, and transportation. In a study by Csikszentmihalyi, Larson, and Prescott (1977), 25 adolescents reported their daily activities and the quality qf their experiences. Most of their time was spent in conversation with peers and watching television. With regard to activities that involved socialization into adult roles, negative effects were most often reported. For example, despite teenagers reporting that work made them feel quite strong and active, it also made them feel less happy, friendly, and sociable (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1977). The preference for talk with agemates over talk with adults supports the valuation of talk with others who are viewed as being on the ; same level, as opposed to those who are viewed as being of higher status or in an | authoritarian position (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). Also noteworthy was the finding that television viewing was experienced as affectless and was associated with deviant behavior and antisocial personality traits. The main social and spatial domains of occupations include family, peers, school, and public places (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). Additionally, the particular contexts in which occupations take place have significant influences on adolescents. The family serves as a means to shape the formative influences of building adult character (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). Peers provide an arena for reciprocal communication, sharing of ideas and feelings, receiving feedback, and conveying values, standards, and norms (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). At school, the focus is on establishing appropriate habits, maintaining attention, and learning to accept authority and abide by rules (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). Public places encourage both adult and peer interactions and allow for both supervised and unsupervised interactions. Through the various occupations in which adolescents participate, patterns of action are formed that carry into adulthood. Good habits must be established to fulfill the adult role in a positive manner. Adolescents must learn how much time to allocate to various occupations; when and how to engage in playing, socializing, working, studying, relaxing, eating, and grooming; and the prescribed manner acceptable to adults (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). If they do not achieve these tasks, they will not be able to function effectively as adults. A confident and 10 productive adult is nurtured through learning to deal with daily situations, as in mastering interactions with parents, achieving harmony with friends, learning to handle the pressures of school, and developing means to rise beyond everyday conflicts (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). Unfortunately, sometimes the transformation from childhood to adolescence does not go smoothly. The necessary tasks and skills toward becoming a productive adult are not always achieved, the result being that some children may begin to resort to delinquent occupations. The nature of the delinquent problem will be more fully discussed below. Explanations of Juvenile Delinquency Behaviors considered delinquent typically are those that are prohibited by law (Farrington, 1987). Commonly included in this definition are behaviors such as theft, burglary, vandalism, violence against others, drug use, disorderly conduct, and sexual offenses (Farrington, 1987). Similarly, in the Uniform Crime Reports (1989) for the United States, these behaviors are recognized and are further delineated by specific offense. For example, under the crime of violence against others, murder, manslaughter, and assault are recognized. The problem of juvenile delinquency steadily increases with age. According to the Uniform Crime Report (1989), in suburban areas in the United States, arrests for juveniles under the age of 15 totaled 195,410. In the same year, arrests of those under 18 years of age totaled 586,573 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989). Furthermore, within age categories, arrest rates were highest among 13 to 14-year- olds and 17-year-olds (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989). Similarly, the 11 prevalence of gangs and the increase of gang membership among young teens is steadily increasing. Additionally, males far outnumber ferhales in arrest for most offenses (Flowers, 1990). In 1960, the ratio of male to female arrests was 6:1 (Uniform Crime Reports, 1960). In 1986, this gap had closed to 3.5:1 (Uniform Crime Reports, 1986). Although there has been an increase in female delinquency, it continues to occur at a substantially lower rate than male delinquency. Factors contributing to delinquency have been under ongoing investigation. With juvenile delinquency on the rise, it seems imperative to develop an adequate understanding of its causes. If there were a simple explanation for the cause of delinquency, then possibly crime and delinquency could be controlled. Unfortunately, there is no single explanation that has been able to pinpoint the causes of delinquency. Many theories attempt to explain different aspects.of the problem. They sometimes appear to contradict each other, however, they may complement each other in that they seek to explain differing aspects of delinquency. Five predominant types of theories of criminality that appear in the literature are the biological, economic, political, psychological, and sociological theories. The biological perspective attributes antisocial behavior to genetic factors, implying that there is a biological predisposition for delinquency (Pollock, 1983). The economic theory explains delinquency in terms of the relative gains available from participation in legal and illegal activities, implying that there are incentives for crime and that crime is profitable (Witte, 1983). The political view blames the state for failing to exert the necessary degree of force to make citizens obey laws (Pepinsky, 1983). Psychological theory attributes delinquency to a variety of mental, emotional, and personality disorders (Flowers, 1990). Sociological theory I 12 ’ regards delinquency as a "normal" response to the social structure, environment, and social life (Flowers, 1990). Each theory will be examined more thoroughly in the following pages. Biological Theories Historical Perspectives Atavism. Cesare Lombroso (1876) proposed a theory that characterized criminals through physical features. Criminals were thought to resemble apes with protruding jaws, receding foreheads and chins, and asymmetrical facial features. Atavism is the belief that criminals were biological throwbacks to primitive genetic forms (Flowers, 1990). However, the characteristics proposed as being unique to criminals were never validated (Pollock, 1983). Body type. William Sheldon (1942) described different body types that : hypothetically relate to certain personality or temperamental traits. There were three ; body types identified: endomorphic, ectomorphic, and mesomorphic. The | endomorph is described as fat, soft, and round, extroverted, and desirous of i comfort. The ectomorph is thin, fragile, weak, introverted, shy, and sensitive. The ' I mesomorph is characterized as muscular, aggressive, assertive, and active. Of the : three body types, mesomorphs were posited as the most likely to engage in ^ delinquent behaviors. However, the methodology used in most of Sheldon's studies , has come into question (Flowers, 1990). Additionally, individuals exemplifying 13 ' each of the body types can be found among both delinquents and nondelinquents (Flowers, 1990). Genetic Theories i I Twin studies approach. To determine whether or not criminal tendencies are | inherited, researchers began looking at patterns and incidence of crime among twins | I (Flowers, 1990). It was believed that identical twins would be more alike in their | criminal behavior than fraternal twins (Flowers, 1990). Karl Christiansen (1977) studied twins bom in Denmark between 1870 and 1910 who reached the age of 15 and found that the concordance rate for criminality among identical twins was more than three times that of fraternal twins. Several other researchers have obtained similar results (Anastasi, 1958; Cohen, Dibble, Craive & Pollin, 1975; Rosanoff, A. J., Handy & Rosanoff, F. A., 1934; Vandenberg, 1976). Despite these findings, not all researchers were in agreement with the conclusion that a genetic basis was demonstrated. A study performed by Dalgard and Kringlen (1976) showed no significant difference in concordance rates between identical and fraternal twins. One of the problems that may not have been considered in Christiansen's study was the influence of the environment: that identical twins look so much alike that they may be treated more similarly than fraternal twins. Overall, the evidence produced by twin studies is mixed, leaving no conclusive evidence that criminal tendencies ctre inherited. Adoption studies approacli. Given the above noted problem, some researchers attempted to eliminate confounding environmental influences on 14 delinquency. The rationale for conducting adoption studies was that if children who were adopted exhibited behaviors more like those of their biological than adoptive parents, then this would offer strong evidence that the behavior is genetically transmitted (Flowers, 1990). Hutchings and Mednick (1975) studied 1,145 adoptees j and the same number of nonadoptees. They found that adoptees were twice as likely j to have criminal records than nonadoptees. Additionally, adoptees were three times ! more likely to have biological fathers who were criminal participants. When the I biological father had a criminal record and the adopted father did not, then the criminality of adoptees was twice as high as adoptees whose biological fathers did Ï not have a criminal record. Based on results such as these, Mednick et al. (1982) concluded that genetic transmission of deviant tendencies increased the probability of i children becoming delinquent. Several other researchers have found similar support j for a much greater resemblance between criminals and biological parents than between criminal and adoptive parents (Baker, 1986; Crowe, 1972, 1975; Eysenck, 1977). However, in each instance, researchers agree that biology alone does not i determine destiny. Depending on environmental circumstances, the predisposition j I for developing delinquent behaviors can lead to other types of behavior that are not ; delinquent. I Sex chromosome abnorm alities. In the 1960s, it was thought that men who had the rare abnormality of having an extra Y chromosome were disproportionately represented in maximum security hospitals (Kessler, 1970; Pollock, 1983). However, Witkin (1977) found that, although XYY males participated in more criminal behavior, there was no evidence that they were more prone to violence than | 15 XY males. It may be that these individuals are more reactive to an environmental trigger than just being innately more violent. Overall, the evidence is inconclusive. Brain disorders. Brain dysfunctions and learning capabilities have been the recent focus in biological approaches. Mednick, Gabrielli, and Itil (1981) have shown that the majority of criminals exhibit slower EEG frequencies than noncriminals. Other evidence indicates that delinquents have a higher rate of epilepsy (Mednick et al., 1981). Dysfunctions of the brain have also been linked to such learning disabilities as dyslexia^ aphasia, and hyperactivity, with some researchers contending that these individuals are predisposed to deviant behavior (Holzman, 1979). There has also been support for the existence of a relationship between low arousal levels and criminality. Several researchers have shown that lower resting arousal levels existed among individuals with serious criminal or psychopathic histories than in persons without such histories (Sayed, Lewis, & Brittain, 1969; Schalling, Lidberg, Levander, & Dahl in, 1973). Biochemical Theories Criminality is dominated by males and it is thought that the male hormone testosterone is responsible for inducing "super maleness" and increasing the likelihood of criminal behavior (Pollock, 1983). Several researchers have demonstrated evidence that supports an association between high testosterone levels and increased aggression (Olweus, 1987; Per sky. Smith, & Basu, 1971; Schalling, 1987). Opposing this view is the environmental position that sex role learning accounts for the reduced criminality in females (Pollock, 1983). Maccoby and Nagy (1980) suggest that greater male aggressiveness is present in children before social 16 learning occurs and that this may be due to the higher levels of testosterone in males, which increases aggression. Other opposers demonstrated evidence of an insignificant correlation between testosterone levels and aggressiveness (Doering, Bordie, Kraemar, Noos, Becker, & Hamburg, 1975; Kreuz & Rose, 1972; Meyer- Bahlburg, Beam, Sharma, & Edwards, 1974). Overall, the evidence appears to be mixed with support both for and against the presence of a relationship between testosterone and aggressiveness. Moreover, at least three brain chemicals have been identified in animals that relate to aggression. Norepinephriene and dopamine at high levels produce territorial and intermale aggression, and at low levels inhibit predatory aggression. Serotonin seems to inhibit aggression in general (Pollock, 1983). There are a variety of genetic, nervous system, and hormonal studies that I suggest that biological factors are useful in aiding our understanding of the origins of delinquent behavior. However, other factors such as social influences on delinquent behavior must be considered in combination with biological factors. Biological theories are limited in their usefulness if they are considered as the primary and single cause of delinquency because it would have to be assumed that certain individuals are predestined to becoming criminal regardless of environmental influences. Furthermore, by accepting biology as a determination of destiny, we are discounting human beings' capacity to learn and effect their situation. Economic Theories Becker (1968) proposed a model that assumes individuals allocate their resources to maximize their wealth. In this perspective, it makes no difference whether wealth is obtained legally or illegally. This model represents the individual 17 as a truly economic person who is purely motivated by the potential profit that can be gained. Overall, the economic perspective focuses on incentives. Individuals who commit criminal acts are characterized as having the expectation that they are better off if they commit a crime than if they allocated their time to an alternative activity. This perspective suggests that what is needed to deter crime is to change the incentives that face the criminal. Perhaps making crime less profitable by providing work situations that are both monetarily profitable as well as psychologically satisfying are suggested as a means to deter crime (Long & Witte, 1981). One failing of this perspective is that few empirical studies exist to support their hypotheses. Becker's research was important in that it stimulated the "deterrence hypothesis"— that criminal justice sanctions reduce crime (Witte, 1983). Heineke (1978) elaborated on this model to include the notion that the time allocated for illegal activities is affected by the following factors: how the criminal justice system functions; the severity of penalties; the gains from illegal activities, the individual's wage rate, level of wealth, and attitude toward risk; and the individual's law- abidingness and attitudes toward work. His theory pertained to the crimes of burglary, larceny, and robbery. So, for example, Heineke (1978) found that as an individual's wealth increased, the amount of time spent in an illegal activity decreased. This model proposes that the time allocated to illegal and legal activities is determined interdependently. Heineke's work takes into consideration some of the key aspects considered in the political theories. These perspectives will be discussed in the following section. 18 An important point that the economists have contributed to our understanding of criminal behavior is the fâct that incentives play an important role in determining one's actions. However, more empirical research is needed to validate whether making crime less profitable and making legitimate endeavors more profitable are viable deterrents. Political Theories Three main theories dominate political perspectives on criminality: the state vacuum, the state dysfunction, and the state excess views (Pepinsky, 1983). In line with a key aspect of the economic theory,"the state vacuum presumes that crime and delinquency increase as the state fails to exert enough force to make citizens obey orders (Pepinsky, 1983). State vacuum theorists favor retribution and punishing offenders severely. Prospective punishment is thought to keep citizens law-abiding out of fear and respect for the state. The state dysfunction theory attributes crime and delinquency, not to the existence of the state itself, but rather to the unfair ways in which officials make and enforce the law (Pepinsky, 1983). This theory contends that if victimless crimes such as prostitution, gambling, and-drug use were decriminalized, then officials would be able to concentrate more effort on enforcing laws against criminals who injured other persons (Morris & Hawkins, 1970). Last, the state excess theory assumes that crime and delinquency occur because of the establishment of the state and the law (Pepinsky, 1983). It is assumed that people can maintain satisfactory social relations without state control. By establishing the laws and gi ving the power to the state to control crime, crime becomes a public rather than private problem. Therefore, crime is thought to exist because officials do too much by not allowing individuals in a society to handle disputes. 19 All three theories attempt to explain the cause of crime and delinquency in relation to some kind of failure in the relationships between citizens and the state. One failure of these theories is that they completely ignore the possibility of biological influences and assume that the problem is merely a social struggle for control. Psychological Theories Psychoanalytic Freud's psychoanalytical proposals paved the way for research that focuses on personality, crime, and delinquency. Aichorn is the theorist most responsible for applying Freud's perspectives to delinquency and crime (Flowers, 1990). Aichom (1935) studied a group of adolescents and concluded that they were psychologically predisposed to commit delinquent acts. He proposed that this was due to latent delinquency, which he believed to be present in their personalities and which compelled them to act instinctively, impulsively, and for self-satisfaction without guilt feelings. More recently, Schoenfeld (1975) has suggested that delinquent acts are not due to criminal tendencies, but rather to a weak, incomplete, or defective superego that is unable to control adequately the primitive and early childhood urges. The psychoanalytic perspective has not been accepted as a viable explanation for the development of delinquent behavior. The main reason for this is because it does not provide adequate room for the empirically well demonstrated role of environmental factors and the processes of learning (Quay, 1983). The basic idea of 20 humans being socialized by environmental influences has been carried over into the sociological theories. Personality Disorder Emotional problems. Studies have attempted to link emotionality with delinquency. Burt (1930), for example, found that 85% of the criminals he studied were emotionally impaired. Further, Bronner (1936) concluded that 90% of the 105 delinquents he studied were presently or previously unhappy, discontented, or extremely emotionally disturbed due to negative emotion provoking situations and experiences. Research in linking a causal relationship between mental illness and crime has been plagued by imprecision in defining and diagnosing mental illness and in determining what crimes persons have committed (Quay, 1983). Patients suffering from a major mental illness may be arrested for bizarre behavior even though they have committed no crime (Quay, 1983). Likewise, criminal behavior may contribute to a patient being defined as mentality ill in the first place (Quay, 1983). Although emotional problems cannot be completely disregarded, their degree of importance must not be overstated because of the inconclusive evidence. Frustration-aggression theory. The basic concept of this theory is that the occurrence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression (Quay, 1983). : Additionally, this theory views frustration as having a cumulative effect. When I there is a strong motivation for achieving a goal and there is repeated interference < with attaining that goal, frustration gradually increases. This theory attempts to j explain the link between economic conditions and violence (Quay, 1983). However, i 2 1 it falls short in assuming that frustration always leads to aggression because there are | incidences when this is not true, such as the case of a college applicant who may not have the resources to attend college. Although he may become frustrated, there are many options that are nonaggressive or noncriminal for obtaining the necessary resources to attend college. Additionally, this view does not account for those individuals who are able to obtain their goals, yet still indulge in delinquent acts. Psychopathy. Some attention has been given to the correlation between the psychopathic personality traits and delinquency (Flowers, 1990). For example, Robbins (1966) performed a follow-up study of children who were referred to a clinic for antisocial behaviors in their youth. He found that as adult males, more than 44% of the sample had been arrested for a serious crime early in life. This study is deficient in that the definition of psychopathic behavior was not clearly defined (Flowers, 1990). This seems to be a common problem among research done within this area. The definition of psychopathic behavior is not clearly or consistently defined. Crim inal personality. Yochelson and Samenow (1976) have conducted research designed to identify a particular criminal personality type. Based on their study of 255 male criminals who were incarcerated, they concluded that a deviant personality exists early in life. The criminals they studied tended to experience normal interactions as being dull, and consequently sought out excitement, with crime being the ultimate form of excitement. This perspective fits with the biological theory that links low arousal levels with criminality. 22 Intelligence At one time, it was believed that low intelligence was responsible for criminal behavior (Flower, 1990). However, today intelligence per se is regarded as having only a correlational, but riot causative, role. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977), in a study of juvenile offenders, observed a moderate correlation between delinquency and IQ. This was later substantiated by West and Farrington (1973) and further explained by relating IQ and delinquency through the variable of school performance. Loeber and Dishion (1983) contend that low IQ, in combination with other variables such as peer pressure and environment, is a more viable precursor of delinquency. Social Learning Bandura (1973) proposed the idea that through observing the behavior of others along with its consequences, others become models for which complex behaviors can be learned. Man is not thought to be born with a repertoire of aggressive behaviors, but rather all aggressive responses are thought to be learned (Quay, 1983). In this view, trial and error is not always necessary to learn behavior, although Bandura does not exclude this form of learning. According to this perspective, the origins of aggressive behavior are learned through the family, the subcultures, and the media. Through observing others, people abstract general strategies for conduct and apply them to new behaviors. For example, aggression might be frequently observed by a child at home and this may prompt the child to behave aggressively because of the positive consequences he anticipates. Social-learning theory distinguishes between two biological motivators of behavior (Bandura, 1973). They are the physiological response and the emotional 23 response. Frustrating events can be viewed as aversive. Aversive events produce both a physical and emotional responses which, in turn, elicit different forms of behavior which may include aggression. Responses actually used to deal with the arousal from aversive events depend on past learning and the reinforcement received by the subsequent reduction of the arousal state (Bandura, 1979). Social-learning theory has provided the most complete explanation of how social behavior is acquired and performed (Quay, 1983). It takes into consideration the immediate environment, the potential influence of individuals in the environment, and potential biological and psychological influences on behavior. Sociological Theories Social Control Theories The position of social control theories is that all persons have the potential and opportunity to commit delinquent acts (Flowers, 1990). However, fear and social constraints deter most individuals from breaking the law (Flowers, 1990). These theories explain delinquency in terms of inadequate external social control and internalized social values held by some delinquents that allows for delinquency to be an acceptable form of behavior. Social disorganization. Shaw and McKay (1969) approached delinquency from the standpoint of its distribution in space. They reported that within larger cities, delinquency rates are highest in the zones surrounding the central business district and declined (as did poverty, deteriorated housing, illness, and economic dependence) as one moved further towards the suburbs. As the central zone 24 becomes less desirable, those who can afford to move outward do. There is a continual redistribution of the population, which hampers people's efforts to establish a sense of community. This, in turn, breeds social disorganization in the inner city. According to this perspective, delinquency rates are inversely related to the amount of distance from the inner city. Furthermore, delinquents are not seen as abnormal or pathological in this perspective, as they are in the psychological theories (Shaw & McKay, 1969). Delinquents are thought to have the same desires of recognition from their fellows, need of stimulation, thrill and excitement, need for intimate companionship, and for security and protection (Shaw & McKay, 1969). The difference lies in that delinquents have their needs met in groups with delinquent patterns and traditions. The reliance on these groups to meet their desires forces them to learn and conform to the delinquent codes of behavior. The social disorganization perspective is one that has prevailed in contemporary criminological theoretical thinking. Social bonding. Hirschi (1969) states that delinquent acts are a result of an individual's weak bonds to society. These bonds consist of four components: attachment to others such as family, school or peers; commitment to conventional lines of action or social conformity; involvement in conventional activities such as sports, recreation, and hobbies; and belief in the norms that forbid delinquent and criminal conduct (Hirschi, 1969). According to Hirschi (1969), the less a person ■ I adheres to these bonds and conforms to social convention, the more likely he or she ! is to break the rules and break the law. Further, delinquents are without the 25 attachments, goals, and moral standards that bind people to the norms and values of society and which would prevent them from committing delinquent acts. A shortcoming in this model is that background factors of social class and ability are not considered. However, other researchers have attempted to elaborate on this model by including these factors (Wiatrowski, Griswold, & Roberts, 1981). They contend that social class and ability are crucial elements in establishing bonds to society. Containm ent. This theory, proposed by Reckless (1970), states that youth are restrained from committing delinquent acts through a combination of inner containment and outer containment. Inner containment consists of a positive self- concept, self-components, well developed superego, a high tolerance level, and a positive goal orientation. Outer containment consists of positive social ties, strong parental supervision, and institutional support of the individual's positive self concept. These containments act as buffers against the pressures of engaging in delinquent behavior. For example, a component of a person's identity may contain the image that they do not engage in that sort of thing and therefore, the self acts as an insulator from engaging in deviance and crime. The containment perspective has not largely been elaborated on. Strain Theories The concept of strain is a term used to refer to the shared problem of adjustment that originates from the social position common to a group of people (Flowers, 1990). The commonality among strain theories is that they explain juvenile delinquency as a response of adolescents to their lack of socially approved 26 opportunities (Flowers, 1990). In particular, the lack of ability to achieve material success is thought to produce strain in the lower class. Thus, these perspectives j provide explanations of delinquency as alternative adaptations to the strain of these ! individual's situation. ‘ ! Anomie. The contention that delinquent behavior is the result of anomic interaction between culturally defined goals and the structure for attaining them was introduced by Merton (1957). In other words, some individuals have unequal access j for obtaining resources and, to achieve societal goals, they must deviate from the , norms. Resorting to illegal means to achieve a desired goal may occur if legitimate I means are blocked. Therefore, it is the strain of not being able to obtain desired I goals that erodes attachment to the regulative norms (Merton, 1957). However, two ' adaptations to this situation may occur: one is to conform; the other involves modes I of deviance (Merton, 1957). This theory falls short in that Merton (1957) had little j ' to say about the determinants of choice among the disapproved adaptations. ' Deviant subcultures. The basic premise of this theory rests upon the concept j that there are delinquent subcultures that foster beliefs that legitimize delinquent | activities (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960). This delinquent subculture is ascribed to the lower class. Further, Cloward and Ohlin (1960) suggest that the lower class has its own lifestyles, traditions, and concerns. Conformity to this lifestyle suggests deviation from middle-class standards. Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) support the ; existence of a subculture of violence in which there is a set of norms that condone or * require recourse to violence when one’s courage, manhood, or honor are challenged ' by insults, threats, or displays of weapons. 27 Drawbacks of this perspective are that it does not explain the origins of the subculture, structural pressures are ignored, and the culture's persistence from one generation to another is explained only by association and exposure of the culture bearers (Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967). This theory also implies that those individuals who are in the lower class and who do not follow a deviant lifestyle are in the minority. C ultural Transmission Differential association. This theory is based on the concept that the more interactions a juvenile has with individuals who frequently violate the law, the 1 I greater the chance that the juvenile will become delinquent (Sutherland, 1939). This \ theory contends that delinquency is learned and represents a social rather than an ^ antisocial behavior pattern. During interactions with others, in an individual's , personal group, definitions of legal codes and rules that are to be observed and * definitions of what is favorable to be violated are presented. An excess of definitions favorable to violating the law over not violating the law causes the individual to engage in delinquent acts. This theory, however, does not account for exemplary juveniles who live within the same culture and who are exposed to | similar excesses in criminal definitions, but who do not choose deviant lifestyles. * Labeling. This perspective contends that there is a differential labeling of j youths as criminals based on how they are socially defined: what they are called and the connotations that their names evoke (Becker, 1963; Flower, 1990; Lemert, | 1972). Those who occupy the lower end of the socioeconomic scale have the least i I 28 amount of power and are more frequently stigmatized. Middle and upper-class juveniles are less likely to be labeled delinquent. By arresting, convicting, and incarcerating people, the criminal justice system aids in certifying a person as a criminal and therefore literally produces criminals (Becker, 1963). Assigning a criminal identity or label to individuals and treating them as if they hold this role may induce them to accept the identity of the criminal and behave in a manner that is expressive of that role (Tannenbaum, 1938). Additionally, those labeled as criminal or delinquent may associate with others who carry the same label. This theory has had a strong impact on the juvenile criminal justice policy. Juvenile offenders are being diverted more and more into nongovernmental, noncoercive treatment contexts, usually in the community. Radical Criminological Position This theory focuses on the relationship between capitalism and juvenile justice (Flowers, 1990). Radical criminologists attribute the high rate of crime among the lower classes to unemployment and underemployment. The offender is seen as the problem rather than the system because of the way the offender reacts to his or her situation (Cohen, 1983). Greenberg (1977) proposed three pressures that face adolescents and that account for delinquency: deprivation of employment necessary to finance social activities stressed in peer norms; stigmatizing and degrading school experiences resulting in hostile, rebellious responses; and fear of failure in achieving I j adult status positions. One of the failures of this theory is that it attributes these I possible reactions only to the lower class and consequently does not explain middle and upper class delinquency. Furthermore, it does not account for individuals 29 within the same socioeconomic group who do not react with rebellion to their I situation. I I I 1 Summary 1 I In the previous sections, an investigation of the many theories that attempt to j explain delinquency were presented. Each discipline is limited by its individual | focus and is able to deal only with information that fits within its conceptual ■ framework. Occupational science is a unique discipline that is interdisciplinary and j I therefore seeks to integrate information provided by the other disciplines previously ' discussed. As previously mentioned, occupational scientists draw from General Systems Theory, which employs the principles of an open system. From an open system perspective, environmental and sociological factors could be viewed as input, ; biological factors as the throughput, occupation with specific regard to delinquent I behaviors as output, and information from peers, family, the school or the juvenile justice system as feedback. Implications of an occupational science approach for occupational therapy with delinquents is discussed in the following section. | Role of Occupational Therapy ■ Occupational therapy, drawing upon occupational science, can be useful in dealing with the problem of delinquency. One of the primary contributions the occupational therapist can make when dealing with adolescents who exhibit delinquent behaviors is in assessing and identifying daily occupations that are not socially acceptable and areas in which the individual demonstrates deficiencies in skill acquisition. Once these areas are defined, the occupational therapist may begin to provide situations, knowledge, and skills that promote positive role behaviors, the 30 ; goal being to promote behaviors that will eventually transform the adolescent away from a delinquent lifestyle into productive adulthood. Several authors have described programs based on these principles. Paulson (1980) examined the relationship between the maturational and occupational choice process and how their progression can be supported or constrained by environmental factors. The occupational choice process referred to the choosing of a career. She concluded that for many delinquents environmental constraints exist that do not allow them to fully mature enough to make successful occupational choices (Paulson, 1980). Using the Occupational Behavior frame of reference which is a forerunner of Occupational Science, a program was developed that addressed the specific areas of deficits of delinquents at the California Youth Home in Inglewood, California in 1975. A safe environment was created in which tasks that promoted independent living skills in budgeting, shopping, cooking and, apartment hunting; personal care skills in grooming, laundering, and housecleaning; and basic knowledge about available health care and community resources were provided. At the end of 8 months, 80% of 60 residents who participated in the occupational therapy program were considered "positively placed" (Paulson, 1980). Positive placement was determined by any one of these criteria: graduation from the occupational therapy program and vocational training, graduation from the occupational therapy program and sustained participation in vocational training leading to graduation; graduation from the agency and continuation of educational or vocational training in the community; or graduation from the occupational therapy program and continuation in the agency school educational program (Paulson, 1980). 31 The craft group and a newspaper treatment group are other types of occupational therapy programs that have been used with delinquent females and adolescents with a conduct disorder diagnosis. Hardison and Llorens (1988) noted improvement in a group of teenage delinquent girls, ages 16 to 18, who participated in craft groups for 6 weeks. The individuals studied demonstrated improvement in occupational performance in five areas: sensory integration, motor, cognitive, psychological, and social functioning. Similarly, Baron (1987) described the use of engaging patients with a diagnosis of conduct disorder, ages 12 to 18, in publishing an in-hospital newspaper. The Model of Human Occupation was used as the theoretical model for this program. The patient treatment goals reflected the three subsystems of the Model Of Human Occupation: volition, habituation, and performance. Furthermore, the group was structured in three phases: exploratory, competence, and achievement. Through these phases patients were enabled to meet their treatment goals within these subsystems. The Model Of Human Occupation was also used in an exploratory study that examined the differences between a group of delinquent adolescent males ages 13 through 15 and a matched group of non-delinquent adolescents (Lederer, Kielhofner, & Watts, 1985). Of specific interest was the difference in values, internal/external locus of control, and perceptual motor skills between the two groups. No difference, however, was noted between the two groups along these dimensions. However, a difference was noted, in the assignment of values to roles. The delinquent subjects assigned less value to the roles that were highly valued by the non-delinquents. For example, student and worker roles were low valued roles for the delinquents. Furthermore, roles that were reflective of conventional participation in family, neighborhood, and society such as student, worker, 32 volunteer, worker, homemaker, and caregiver were all rated as less valuable by the delinquent subjects compared to the non-delinquents. Interestingly, the hobbyist role and other roles that stressed deviant behaviors such as drug-taking were more valued by the delinquents. Occupational therapists are familiar with looking at the everyday activities and roles in which individuals engage and in using occupations to alter functioning capabilities. This is a unique approach of occupational therapy that I believe can serve a valuable role in dealing with the problem of increasing delinquency. Through enhancing a child's quantity and quality of participation in various occupations simultaneously, occupational therapists can increase the adolescent's repertoire of skills, self-esteem, and his or her ability to make choices that better conform to the norms of society. Additionally, as adolescents are faced with challenging activities and are able to master them in a positive manner, they will be able to carry these successful experiences into their peer and family relations. Occupational therapists view individuals in a holistic manner. Thus, they are capable of taking into consideration a variety of factors. The treatment problem of delinquent behavior is best undertaken by individuals whose basic philosophical background encourages viewing the individual and his or her problems as resulting from a combination of influential factors and processes. As the problem of juvenile delinquency continues to increase and the traditional fields of practice are unable to curb the problem, I believe that society will be receptive to the field of practice of occupational therapy, which integrates knowledge from a variety of fields, to deal with the prevalence of juvenile delinquency^ However, much work needs to be done to provide a strong knowledge base for the practice of occupational therapy with delinquents. In particular, occupational . 33 science needs to address how daily occupations are related to delinquent behaviors. This is the focus of the proposed study. Contexts of daily occupation in relation to delinquency are discussed in the following section. The Context of Daily Occupations and the Development of Delinquency The assessment tool that will be used in this research project to measure engagement in occupation is the Social Competence scale of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). This scale is divided into three domains: activities, social, and school. The activities domain addresses participation in sports, hobbies, games, chores, and organizations. Within the social domain, relationships with family and peers in the context of everyday occupations is stressed. Performance at school tasks is the focus in the school domain. As mentioned previously, the main social and spatial domains of adolescent occupations that Csiksizentmihalyi and Larson (1984) have identified are family, peers, school, and public places. The domains of the Social Competence scale of the Child Behavior Checklist have been grouped somewhat differently, but still seem to correspond to the social and spatial domains identified by Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984). The following sections will examine what is known about the roles of social relationships, school performance, and activity participation in adolescent life, and, in particular, the relationship of these domains to the development of delinquency. Social Relationships The influence of the family on the potential development of delinquent behaviors in children has been an ongoing question. In a study by Walshe-Brennan 34 (1976), children who had been involved with the law and those who had never come in contact with the law were included. The factors investigated as potentially differing between the two groups were legitimacy, criminality in the family, alcoholism, and personal relationships. Walshe-Brennan (1976) concluded that the most significant influences on the child's behavior were parental example and the presence of discord in the family. It appears that having a happy home, pleasant relationships, and a good example contribute to the child developing positive behavior patterns. Weller and Luchterhand (1983) present contradictory findings. They concluded that it is not as clearcut as to whether "problem" youth have less favorable family relationships than "promising" youth. The differences they observed were not based on differential family treatment or less favorable family relationships. Rather the differences observed were based on "promising" youths' perceptions of opportunity. They perceived greater occupational opportunities, greater occupational motivation, less anomie, less frustration, and less deviant behavior norms than "problem" youth. In this study, the terms occupational opportunities and occupational motivation were used to refer to work related options. LeFlore (1988) examined the environmental dynamics of repetitive serious delinquents and of nondelinquents. He concluded that delinquents were more likely to come from lower socioeconmic strata and that other powerful variables were race, sex, number of siblings, family intactness, and system maintenance. In another study, Lipsitt et al., (1985) reported that the offense-prone juveniles they studied came from environments in which the attitudes and feelings of the parents were openly hostile, antagonistic, and rejecting. These attitudes constituted a well- 35 established style of family interaction, not simply one that occurred in relation to the youths' latest offenses. Furthermore, the communication pattern within the family was rated as secretive, distorting, and often hostile. Child abuse and psychopathology are two further factors that are also thought to influence delinquency patterns. Kratcoski (1982) reported that children who had abusive parents tended to come from families in which violence, disruption, and discord were everyday occurrences. Physical punishment was the major form of discipline used by these parents. Kratcoski's interpretation was that the parents ultimately prepared the children to respond violently to frustration. In conclusion, these youths were thought to be capable of committing violent crimes because, to them, violence was justifiable when there was a goal to achieve. Walker, Downey, and Bergman (1989) examined the effects of parental psychiatric disorder and maltreatment on child behavior. They found significantly greater aggression and delinquency among both boys and girls from maltreating homes. Those homes that had the multiple risk factor of schizophrenia and maltreatment, over time, showed increased acting out behavior as the environment became more stressful. The above studies strongly suggest that the family environment, as well as the interactions within the family, play an important role in influencing delinquent behaviors. Additionally, these less favorable family situations may have an impact on the types of occupations that these youth may engage in. For example, children who grow up in an environment that approves and fosters violence may become involved in play with their siblings that is violent or rough in nature or may commit acts that are harmful to other people or animals. Furthermore, in an atmosphere where family cohesiveness is discouraged, a child may not be encouraged to I 36 participate in the family occupations of doing chores, attending family meals, or joining family leisure pursuits. Perhaps if a youth chooses not to spend free time at home, he or she may alternatively engage in the occupations of hanging out on the streets, using drugs, socializing with deviant peers, and ultimately participating in vandalism, robbery, or gang violence. Peer association plays an important part in child development and may also play a role in influencing a child to engage in delinquent behaviors. It is thought that association with peers who advocate a delinquent behavioral style may influence a child to engage in similar behavior. Juveniles are particularly susceptible to peer pressure and are influenced by the anticipated reactions of their peers (Erickson & Jensen, 1977; Klein, 1969). Snyder et al. (1986) report that a family’s failure to teach a child social skills results in association with peers who similarly are lacking skills. This continued association contributes to the child's performance of antisocial, delinquent behaviors. ' With a prolonged lack of monitoring, persistent association with delinquent peers occurs. Bowker and Klein (1983), in studying female gang members, reported that the most important factor influencing gang membership and the seriousness of delinquency was the relationships with girlfriends. The gang members’ heterosexual relationships were found to be unrelated to delinquency. Consistent with these results, the effects of exposing delinquents to a positive peer culture, in a treatment setting, have been shown to positively enhance the self-concept of such youth ! (Hoffman & Quigley, 1988). The delinquent youth rated themselves as having a I I more positive self-concept and a higher level of psychological adjustment upon discharge. These studies fall in line with several of the sociological theories 37 previously presented. Noteworthy are the parallels between the containment, differential association, and deviant subculture perspectives. Peer status has been shown to affect social adjustment. In a study by Roff and Wirt (1984), low peer status children had a two to three times greater risk of mental health treatment than high peer status children. Furthermore, low status males involved in no high school activities were at six times the risk for mental health treatment than their counterparts. Parker and Asher (1987) assert that poor peer adjustment puts these children at risk for later life difficulties, especially for dropping out of school and engaging in criminality. The manner in which delinquents and.nondelinquents participate in games also appears to differ. Serok and Blum (1982) looked at rule violating behavior in games between these two groups of youth. Delinquent youth were found to violate rules more often, to react more aggressively to the rule violations of others, and to deny more often their responsibility for rule violations. Serok and Blum (1982) suggested that, for the delinquent youth, there remained a conflict between their desire to conform and their ability to conform. A variation in the patterns of trust for delinquents and nondelinquents also seems to exist. Austrin and Boever (1977) report that, while delinquents do not differ from nondelinquents in their degree of trust for institutions and interpersonal systems, they do have less trust for ordinary people and peers. Lack of trust is seen as a significant factor associated with antisocial behavior (Austrin & Boever, 1977). In particular, delinquents who committed misdemeanors rather than felonies are thought to demonstrate less trust for peers. An explanation for the difference is that felonies are usually committed by more than one child, whereas misdemeanors are 38 thought to be committed typically more by only one child. Felonies can be viewed as more of a group activity than a solitary activity. There are many implications of how peer influences may effect engagement in occupations. Peer pressure and the need to be accepted may influence a child to engage in an occupation that he or she might not otherwise engage in under a different circumstance. For example, engagement in the occupations of gang violence, robbing a house, setting a fire, or ditching school may be just a few of the pursuits that a child might not do when faced with the possibility of becoming an outcast, losing acceptance of his or her peers, or ending a friendship. Furthermore, j for a child who has difficulty following the rules in games, participating in delinquent endeavors with no rules and recruiting his or her peers to go along may be an attractive alternative to the frustration experienced while playing games with rules. I 1 School Performance The link between learning disabilities, school failure, and juvenile delinquency ■ I has been well established (Elliott & Voss, 1974; Empey, 1978; Groff & Hubble, | I I 1981; Phillips & Kelly, 1979; Wilgosh & Paitich, 1982). Juvenile delinquents are j far more likely that nonadjudicated youth to be classified as learning disabled (Lane, I 1980). Research on the link between learning disabilities and delinquency has been limited to studying adjudicated youth. Controversy exists over whether there is enough evidence to support a causal link between learning disabilities and delinquency. This is largely due to the fact that no studies to date have examined I i the prevalence of learning disabilities among adjudicated delinquents and I I nondelinquents (Broder, Dunviant, Smith, & Sutton, 1981). i 39 ' One explanation of the link between learning disabilities and delinquency is that learning disabilities lead to school failure, which in turn leads to a negative self- image, school dropout, and increased opportunities and incentives to engage in delinquent behaviors (Larson, 1988; Murray, 1976). Youths with learning disabilities may experience an increase in frustration resulting from school failure. This, in turn, may motivate the student to retaliate against society. Thus, the types o f occupations that the student may engage in may be more violent in nature. For example, a student's sense of failure or inability to achieve passing grades at school may lead to him retaliating by engaging in the occupation of vandalism in effort to satisfy emotional needs. Another result of school failure may be that the child becomes labeled as learning disabled or a problem child and may be grouped with other children who have behavior problems (Keiiitz & Dunviant, 1986). Grouping the child with a learning disability with other children in a labeled group may provide an opportunity for the child to be exposed to a deviant play group. Furthermore, the negative labeling and potential association with other delinquent peers may prompt the child to engage in delinquent acts (Keiiitz & Dunviant, 1986). Additionally, this negative labeling may also influence less positive treatment and a more uncaring attitude by j the teachers toward the students with learning disabilities, the result being that the child experiences less attachment to the institution of school or the potential role model of the teacher (Keiiitz & Dunviant, 1986). This is in line with social control theory that predicts that delinquency would increase as a student's attachment and commitment to school is diminished (Empey & Lubeck, 1971). Educational difficulties, particularly in the area of reading, have been noted among delinquents (Meltzer, 1984; Reiter, 1982; Winzer, 1981). These reading 40 déficits were similar to those noted in children with documented learning disabilities (Mulligan, 1969). Furthermore, Meltzer, Roditi and Fenton (1986), found that juvenile delinquents demonstrated the weakest educational skills in reading, spelling, written expression, and mathematics over learning disabled students and average achievers. Certain school environments may also contribute to promoting delinquent behaviors. Fiqueria and McDonough (1986) studied two high schools with students from the same socioeconomic background and community. They suggested that a highly competitive school environment is likely to produce higher levels of delinquency. Students showing greater academic promise will be given a disproportionate amount of attention. Thus, the more inept students will feel their lack of success, have restricted legitimate opportunities, and consequently will search for alternative careers. Paii*icipation in Activities Adolescents are thought to have a need for leisure or more generally thrills and excitement (Anson, 1976; Nye, 1958; Schafer, 1969; Segrave, 1983). Strain theorists have argued that if children are unable to satisfy these needs through socially acceptable channels, they may resort to deviant channels or strike out at others in their frustration. In line with the idea of individuals' needs for excitement, Riemer (1981) suggests that deviance for some is engaged in just for fun. He explains that all individuals deviate from the norms at least some of the time, which is considered normal. However, some choose to deviate beyond normative standards as an enjoyable and exciting alternative. 41 Alternatively, sports are accepted as a positive and enjoyable leisure activity for adolescents. The educational system has supported sports as serving an important function in children's education. This is evidenced by the many interscholastic sports available to school-aged children. Sports are thought to allow for the relief of tension and frustration (Landers & Landers, 1978; Schafer, 1969; Segrave, 1983). Strain theorists explain the relationship between leisure and delinquency in terms of leisure being a socially acceptable outlet for frustration from the nonleisure world (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1955; Merton, 1938). Involvement in sports is also thought to teach certain educational, social, and personal values that mitigate against the occurrence of delinquency (Educational Policies Commission, 1964). Most of the research on leisure and delinquency has focused on interscholastic sports (Buhrman, 1977; Buhrman & Bratton, 1978; Landers & Landers, 1978; Segrave, 1983). These investigators have demonstrated support for a negative association between interscholastic athletic participation and delinquency. Agnew and Petersen (1989) elaborated on the research of leisure and delinquency by focusing on both sports and hobbies. They argued that only noncompetitive sports, organized leisure activities, and passive entertainment were negatively related to delinquency, whereas peer-oriented social activities and "hanging out" demonstrated positive relationships to delinquency. Participation in sport activities to modify delinquency has also been examined. In one of the earliest known studies on recreation and delinquency, a 70% reduction in delinquency was achieved when a probation district in Chicago was supplied with adequate play facilities (Burns, 1907). Several other researchers support this idea that recreation serves as a powerful force in the prevention of delinquency (Sapora 42 & Mitchell, 1961; Sullivan, 1955). However, in a more recent study, no support was found for the use of sports to modify delinquency (Donnelly, 1981). Donnelly (1981) did report that athletes and juvenile delinquents were markedly similar with respect to body type, birth order, and stimulus-seeking behavior. He suggested that the difference between the two groups may be related to their degree of conformity. Evidence indicates that frequent use and abuse of illicit drugs is common among juveniles who engage in delinquent behaviors (Haggerty, Wells, Jenson, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1989). One implication of the increased incidence of drug use among juvenile offenders is that delinquents may spend more time involved in the occupation of drug use during their leisure time than nondelinquents. In one study, as many as 50% of the juvenile offenders were self-proclaimed drug users (Elliott, Huizinga & Ageton, 1985). In another study, as many as 40% of the juvenile offenders reported that they had used drugs immediately prior to committing their offense (Hartstone & Hansen, 1984). Furthermore, it is clear that early use of drugs and antisocial behavior in childhood increases the chance of drug abuse and high rate offending in adolescence (Brunswick & Boyle, 1979; Kandel et al., 1986; Loeber & Dishion, 1983). Despite the finding that the greatest emphasis of the research on adolescent activities and delinquency has been on participation in sports and drug use, we cannot assume that other areas of occupation are unrelated to delinquency. Such occupations as doing chores, participating in organizations, playing games, and doing hobbies have largely been overlooked. It is evident that research is lacking on how leisure occupations of delinquents and nondelinquents may differ, as well as whether there are leisure occupations outside the realm of sports or drug use that are related to the development of delinquency. The proposed study will contribute to a 43 better understanding of the role that engagement in occupation plays in relation to delinquent behaviors among preadolescents. 44 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Design A secondary analysis of an existing database, featuring a correlational research design, was employed to examine the association between engagement in occupation and delinquency. The data base was part of an earlier longitudinal research project headed by Dr. Diane Parham. This earlier study began in 1984, in the Fresno Unified School District, with a later follow-up in 1988. The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist was the tool used to operationalize engagement in occupations and delinquent behaviors. The data base for this research project consisted of scores on the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist obtained in 1988, when subjects were 10 to 13 years old. Subjects The subjects originally were recruited in 1984 through the Fresno Unified School District. A group of children, stratified by age, were randomly selected through a computer-generated list of student names and addresses from the Fresno Unified School District (FUSD). Consent forms were sent to parents of those children selected. If a consent form was not returned after a follow-up telephone call, a new child was randomly selected and the procedure was repeated. The final number of children who participated in the study in 1984 was 91. In 1988, the proposal for a follow-up study was accepted by the administrative personnel of the FUSD. A list was generated of those subjects who were still 45 enrolled in FUSD. Searches through Fresno telephone directories, post office forwarding addresses, and telephone contacts with relatives or family friends were made to locate those subjects who were not on the list supplied by the FUSD. Seventy of the original ninety-one children were located. However, three of the parents refused to allow their children to participate in the study; thus 67 participated in the follow-up. Parents of 53 of these children returned completed Child Behavior Checklists, which were used in this study. The sample for this study consisted of 53 subjects, 20 of whom were female and 33 were male. Of the 53 subjects, 27 were identified by the Fresno School District as learning handicapped and the remaining 26 were in regular classes and were not identified as having a disability. All subjects were between the ages of 10 and 13 years at the time of data collection. The ethnicity of the subjects was predominately white (n = 32, 60.4%) and fell into the middle socioeconomic level {n — 29, 54.7%). Table 1 summarizes the frequency and percent of distribution of the subjects in terms of the following variables: sex, educational placement, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Table 2 summarizes age and IQ of all of the subjects as a whole and the subjects in terms of LH and Non-LH status. Mean scores and standard deviations are provided. The range of ages was 10 to 13. The mean ages of the LH and Non- LH groups were very similar. The IQ ranged from 56 to 132. The LH group had substantially lower mean IQ scores than the Non-LH group. 46 Table 1 Dem ographic Characteristics of the Subjects Variable Frequency Percentage Sex Males 32 60.4 Females 21 39.6 Educational Placement Non-LH 26 49.1 LH 27 50.9 Ethnicity Black 5 9.4 Hispanic 14 26.4 White 32 60.4 Asian Indian 1 1.9 Hmong 1 1.9 SES Level I— highest 1 1.9 Level II 9 17.0 Level III 29 54.7 Level IV 11 20.8 Level V— lowest 3 5.7 Note. LH = learning handicapped; Non-LH = non-learning handicapped. 47 Table 2 Age and Intellectual Ability of the Subjects All Subjects (n = 53) LH (n = 27) Non-LH (n = 26) X SD X SD X SD Age 11.32 .97 11.37 .88 11.27 1.08 IQ 96.60 18.94 86.59 18.76 107.0 12.63 Instrumentation Assessment of Engagement in Occupation The Social Competence Scales of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) were used to assess engagement in occupations. For a copy of the form of the assessment, refer to Appendix A. This assessment can be used with males and females between the ages of 4 throughg 16 years. The scales are designed to be self-ad ministered by a parent, but can be administered by an interviewer if necessary. These scales summarize parents' reports of their child's participation and performance in three domains, designated as activities, social relationships, and school. There are 20 items on the Social Competence scales. The activities scale requires parents to list occupations of the child, including jobs, chores, sports, and nonsport activities such as hobbies, games, crafts, favorite activity, singing, playing with dolls, books, playing the piano, and organizations. The social relationships scale includes items related to participation in organizations, friendships, behavior 48 with others, and play/work by oneself. Included in the school scale are items addressing performance/functioning in school and school problems. An example of an item is: " 1. Please list the sports your child most likes to take part in. Compared to other children of the same age, about how much time does he/she spend in each? Compared to other children of the same age, how well does he/she do each one?" (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). When the Social Competence scales were scored, an individual scale score for each domain of occupation as well as a total social competence score were obtained. These scores were converted into normalized T scores which were derived from normative samples (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The T score represents how children compare with a normative sample of agemates of the same sex (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Table 3 is derived from data presented in the Child Behavior Checklist Manual (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983), and represents specific mean T scores and standard deviations for both males and females between the ages of 10 and 13 years in the normative samples {n — 600 10 to 11-year-olds, and 500 12 to 13-year-olds). The authors of the CBCL suggest that the normal range of T scores for the Social Competence scales falls within the T score intervals of 30 to 55 (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The normative samples are negatively skewed; therefore, those scores that fall on the low end in the T score intervals of 10 to 29 were considered within the clinical range (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The Social Competence scales have been shown to be reliable along several dimensions which include test-retest reliability, long-term stability, inter-parent reliability, and inter-interviewer reliability (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Test- retest reliability of item scores were based on the results obtained by a single 49 Table 3 Ratings on the Social Competence Scales for the Norm ative Sample Females Males Age 10-11, 12-13 10-11, 12-13 10-11, 12-13 10-11, 12-13 Mean Mean T score SD T score SD Activities 49.1, 49.1 6.7, 7.1 49.1, 49.1 7.4, 7.2 Social Relations 48.9, 49.0 7.1, 6.9 49.4, 49,0 6.8, 7.3 School 49.8, 49.7 6.8, 6.7 49.8, 9.5 6.8, 7.3 Total Soc. Comp. 51.1, 50.9 9.7, 10.0 51.0, 50.9 10.0, 10.1 Note. Total Soc. Comp. = Total Social Competence interviewer visiting the mothers of nonreferred children at a 1-week interval. The intraclass correlation coefficient obtained for the 20 social competence items was .996. For total social competence scores the median Pearson correlation for 1- week test-retest reliability of mother's ratings was .89. For long-term stability, the mean correlation coefficient range was from .47 to .76 over an 18-month follow-up period for social competence scores. The Pearson correlation coefficient between mothers' and fathers' ratings on scale scores was .66 and for item scores the intraclass correlation coefficient was .978. For inter-interviewer reliability, a Pearson correlation coefficient of .73 was obtained. The validity of the Social Competence scales has also been examined. Their content validity is viewed in terms of whether the items are related to the clinical 50 concerns of parents and mental health workers (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). All 20 of the social competence items were significantly associated with clinic status. Criterion-related validity was supported by the ability of the CBCL's quantitative scale scores to discriminate between referred and non-referred subjects after demographic effects were partialled out (Achenbach, 1991). In a study of demographically matched, referred and nonreferred subjects, all competence scales were scored higher for nonreferred than referred subjects (p < .01). According to Cohen’s (1988) criteria for effect sizes, the effects of referral status ranged from medium to large among all of the social competence scales after the other independent variables were partialled out. Evidence validating the social competence scale in terms of construct validity is lacking. Assessment of Delinquent Behaviors The Child Behavior Checklist has a section separate from the items of the social competence scales which assesses behavior problems (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). This section contributes to the Behavior Problem scales and is comprised of 118 behavior problem items that are scored on a three-step response scale. Similarly to the social competence section, the behavior problem section can be used with 4 through 16-year-old males and females. The assessment can be filled out by either the parent or an interviewer, if necessary. When all 118 items are scored, the resulting profile can be compared to a number of clinical profile types that have been generated from past research. For the purpose of this study, only scores that reflected the delinquent behavior profile type were used. The Behavior Problem scale scores for Delinquency were converted to a T score using the same normative sample used with the Social Competence scale 51 scores. The authors of the test suggest that the normal range of T scores for Behavior Problem scales falls within the T score intervals of 55 to 70 (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Unlike the Social Competence scales, the Behavior Problem scales are positively skewed. Therefore, a high score between the T score intervals of 71 to 100 on the behavior problems scale for delinquent behaviors was considered to be in the clinical range (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The specific mean T scores and standard deviations for males and females between the ages of 10 and 13 are represented in Table 4, which was derived from data presented in the manual of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983. Reliability has been established for the Behavior Problem scales (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Test-retest, inter-parent, inter-interviewer, and long-term stability were all found to be adequate for these scales. Since the delinquent scale was used in this study, its reliability was of particular interest. Test-retest reliability of the delinquent scale for 1-week ratings by mothers of non-clinically referred children (39 boys and 41 girls) aged 4 to 16 years yielded a Pearson correlation of .92. For inter-parent reliability on the delinquent scale, the Pearson correlation Table 4 Ratings on the Delinquency Profile for the Normative Sample Females Males Age 10-11, 12-13 10-11, 12-13 10-11, 12-13 10-11, 12-13 Mean Mean T score SD T score SD Delinquent 59.1, 57.3 4.3, 4.8 57.7, 57.4 4.6, 4.2 52 for a group of clinically referred children was .78. Long-term stability for 6 to 11- year-old boys {n = 14) in residential treatment was assessed by comparing parents' and child care workers' ratings. Over a 3-month period, the parents' and child care I workers' ratings were similar. The mean Pearson correlation coefficient for parents' i ratings on the Delinquent scale over the 3-month period was . 83 and for child care I : I workers was .51. ' ( I I Additionally, evidence supports the content, construct, and criterion-related ! validity of the Behavior Problem scales (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). In terms | of content validity, significant scale differences were found between clinically referred children (ji = 1100) aged 12 to 16 years and demographically matched nonreferred children {n = 1100). The clinically referred children scored significantly higher on the Behavior Problem scales, thus indicating these scales ^ relate to independently established mental health concerns. A series of studies provides evidence for the validity of the Delinquent scale, specifically. Construct validity was established by comparing the scales of the Child Behavior Checklist with the Conners (1973) Parent Questionnaire and the Quay- | ! Peterson (1983) Revised Behavior Problem. Checklist scales. When T scores were ^ compared in a group of 34 boys aged 6 to 11 years who were referred for evaluation of hyperactivity, a Pearson correlation coefficient of .61 was obtained between the i Conners Antisocial scale and the Delinquent scale (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978). In another study of 35 boys aged 6 to 11, a Pearson correlation coefficient of .77 was obtained between scores on the Conners (1973) Parent Questionnaire antisocial scale and the Delinquent scale of the Child Behavior Checklist. Similar results were : I obtained with the same sample when the Conduct Disorder scale of the Quay- Peterson (1983) Revised Behavior Problem Checklist was correlated with the 53 Delinquent scale of the Child Behavior Checklist. The Pearson correlation coefficient obtained was .77. Referral to mental health services was used to test criterion-related validity of the scales. Scores were compared between children referred for outpatient mental health services and demographically similar children who had no contact with mental health services for at least the preceding year. A large percentage of variance in the scores accounted for most of the effects associated with clinical status, after the effects of race, socioeconomic status, and age were partialled out. Procedure Data Collection As noted in the Subjects section, data collection was part of a follow-up study of 67 children. Retesting of the 67 children began in the fall of 1988. Following parental consent, a variety of instruments were administered. This was carried out with the aid of research assistants and professionals trained in testing. Some of the instruments included were the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT), the Kaufinan Assessment Battery fo r Children {K-ABC), and the Piers-Harris Self- Concept Scale. Arrangements were made with the schools to retest the children during school time. Beyond testings information was obtained through reviewing school records of the children. Specifically, data on California Achievement Test scores, school placement, referrals, medical conditions and treatment, provisions of special education and related services, parent occupation, school grades, and evidence of behavior problems were collected. Parents were also sent a one-page questionnaire to corroborate medical diagnoses and related services. 54 Several weeks after the follow-up testing was completed, a letter was sent to the children's parents with a copy of the Child Behavior Checklist {CBCL). A request was made asking one parent to complete the CBCL. The forms were sent out in both English and Spanish versions. If a form was not received back within 3 weeks, a second request letter was sent. If no response was yet received after 2 weeks, a phone call was made. An assistant who spoke Spanish telephoned those parents who were thought to speak Spanish as a primary language. A total of 54 forms were returned with one form incompletely filled out. When the latter parent was telephoned and asked to complete the form, she refused. The CBCL data collection effort was coordinated by Esther Huecker, OTR, a graduate student at the University of Southern California. Current Procedure For the purpose of this study, the previously collected CBCL data on the Social Competence scale and Delinquency scale were analyzed. First, the data were entered into a IBM-compatible personal computer using a software program that scores the Child Behavior Checklist. This yielded social competence scores from each of these areas: activities, social relationships, and school, as well as total social competence. In addition, the Delinquent scale score for each subject was obtained. Scores from both the Social Competence scales and the Delinquent scale were converted to normalized T scores by the computer scoring program. Data Analysis Once the initial data from the Child Behavior Checklist were scored, a variety of statistical procedures were undertaken using the Statistical Analysis System (&45). 55 First, the description of the subjects was compiled. Then I examined the underlying variable distributions and transformed the data in order to facilitate parametric statistical analyses. Next, a correlation matrix was constructed to assess the inter associations among the four Social Competence T scores (activities, social relationships, school performance scores, and total social competence score) and Delinquency scores. This addressed the research question of whether engagement in occupation is related to the development of delinquent behaviors. In evaluating correlation coefficients, alpha was set at the .05 level (one-tailed) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983). This provided information on whether any one specific area of occupation was especially associated with the development of delinquent behaviors. Correlational analysis was followed by a series of multiple regression analyses including demographic, control, and theoretically relevant predictor variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983). The first model generated included the predictor variables of activities, social relationships, school performance, and total social competence scores; the dependent variable was delinquency. In the second model the demographic variables of age, sex, education, ethnicity, SES, and IQ were included, along with the dependent variable of delinquency. The final model included all previously mentioned predictor variables combined with the demographic variables of age and educational placement and the dependent variable of delinquency. This procedure determined whether a combination of different aspects of occupation, a combination of control variables or a combination of both aspects of occupation and control variables were particularly related to delinquent behaviors. The final procedure employed stepwise regression. Three different trials were made during this procedure, all with delinquency as the dependent variable. In the 56 first trial, I entered the control variables of socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity, IQ, sex, and educational placement as well as the independent variables that comprise engagement. This examined whether any combinations of different aspects of occupation and demographic variables were particularly related to delinquency after controlling for every other variable in the model. In a second trial, only the control variables of age, sex, educational placement, ethnicity, SES,and IQ were included as potential predictors. This examined whether any combinations of control variables were especially related to delinquency after controlling for all other variables in the model. In the final trial, age and educational placement were forced into the model first, then the predictor variables of social relationships, participation in activities, school performance, and total social competence were allowed to enter as potential candidates compared to delinquency. This examined whether a combination of different aspects of occupation was especially related to the development of delinquent behaviors after controlling for the demographic characteristics of age and educational placement. 57 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS This chapter describes the results from this study. First, the rationale and procedure for transforming certain variables will be explained. Next, an explanation and description of the correlation analyses will be provided, followed by multiple regression and stepwise regression results. Transformation of Data After observing the initial distribution of the data, it was noted that scores in the Activities category were negatively skewed, whereas Delinquency scores were determined to be severely positively skewed. In an effort to carry out parametric statistical analyses, the data in these two categories were transformed. Transformation of the scores in the Activities category entailed squaring each T score. By squaring each T score, the larger values become increased more than the smaller values. This reduces the negative skewness by moving the right end of the tail out further and faster than the left, thereby more evenly distributing the scores. The transformation of the Delinquency scores entailed subtracting 55 from each T score and taking the square root of the result. Fifty-five was chosen because this was the lowest T score obtained by any of the subjects and would bring the scores closer to zero than any number that was higher or lower. The square root was then taken to further reduce the positive skewness and spread the values out more evenly. 58 Social Competence and Delinquency Scores of Subjects Table 5 summarizes the mean T scores and standard deviations obtained on the Social Competence scales and the Delinquency scale. Also included in Table 5 are the mean T scores and standard deviations for the transformed Activities and Delinquency scores. All other tables in this chapter involving Activities and Delinquency scores utilize transformed scores only. Table 5 Ratings on the Social Competence Scales and Delinquency Profile All Subjects (/z=53) LH (n = = 27) Non-LH {n — 26) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Activities 46.79 8.47 45.41 9.70 48.23 6.85 Social 42.30 9.64 39.60 9.68 45.12 8.94 School 38.06 12.41 29.70 9.93 46.73 8.02 Total 40.98 11.05 36.0 9.98 46.15 9.79 Delinquency 60.38 5.81 61.37 6.14 59.35 5.37 Transformed Activities 2259.89 719.39 2152.52 795.65 2371.39 626.64 Transformed Delinquency 1.86 1.40 2.15 1.35 1.51 1.42 Note. Social = Social Relationships; School = School Performance; Total = Total Social Competence. 59 Correlation Analysis A correlation matrix was generated to assess the inter-associations among the four Social Competence T scores, the control variables, and Delinquency. The control variables included in the matrix were sex, age, educational placement, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and IQ. Educational placement referred to whether the subjects were school identified as learning handicapped or non-learning handicapped. Ethnicity was dichotomized into the two categories of White and ! other. The other category included the minority ethnicities of Black, Hispanic, , Asian Indian, and Hmong. The rationale for this was that the White group | comprised more than 60% of the subjects, making it feasible to dichotomize the ethnicity variable. Table 6 represents the Pearson correlation coefficients and p values with alpha , set at the .05 level (one-tailed). Three of the four Social Competence variables were among the most highly correlated variables with Delinquency (r = -.37 for Social, r — -.35, for School Performance, and r = -.33, for Total). The negative correlation is a confirming result because it was expected that the subjects who j I scored higher on the Delinquency scale would score lower on the Social Competence scales. Activities was the one independent variable that was not significant, with a correlation coefficient close to zero. With respect to the control variables, only age approached a correlation with Delinquency that was nearly as high as the three social competence variables aforementioned {r — .27, for age). Age, however, was positively correlated. This, ! too, would be in the expected direction in that, as age increased, so did the Delinquency score. Age was the only control variable that met the .05 criterion for 60 Table 6 Intercorrelations among Predictor, Control, and Dependent Variables Sex Age Ed Eth SES IQ Act Soc Sch Tot Age .05 Ed -.05 0.5 Eth .34** .19 -.02 SES - 30** .10 .09 .03 i i IQ -.10 .10 _ *** .10 -.03 Act -.18 -.02 -.15 .10 -.04 .19 1 Soc -.15 -.34** -.29* .12 -.05 .26* .46*** i Sch .09 -.10 -.69*** -.01 -.01 .70*** .26** .40*** ' Tot -.08 -.20 — 46*** .12 -.08 .83*** .65*** Del .11 .27* .21 .16 .08 -.14 -.08 -.37** -.35** .33** * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p <.001 Note. Ed = Educational Placement; Eth = Ethnicity; SES = Socioeconomic Status; IQ = Intelligence Quotient; Act = Activities; Soc = Social Relationships; Sch = School Performance; Tot = Total Social Competence; Del = Delinquency. 61 significance (r = 0.21, p = .03). Educational placement was very close to meeting the .05 criterion (r = 0.21, p = .06). Educational placement was negatively correlated with engagement in occupations, indicating that the LH subjects demonstrated less optimal engagement in occupations than the Non-LH subjects. Out of the four variables that make up engagement in occupations. School Performance was the most highly correlated variable with educational placement (r = -.69). This is an expected result because academic achievement was part of the criterion that determined whether a subject was classified as LH or Non-LH by the school system. Therefore, subjects who demonstrated poor school performance were also more often included in the LH group. Placement in the learning handicapped group was also associated with increased Delinquency scores (r = .21). Several of the variables were associated with IQ. School Performance was the strongest, as expected (r = .70). Out of the remaining variables that make up engagement in occupations, only the Social and Total variables were significantly correlated (r = .26, for Social; r = .45, for Total). The Activities variable was not significantly correlated with IQ. IQ was not found to be related to Delinquency. Interrelationships were found to exist among all of the four social competence variables. The Total variable was highly correlated with all of the three other variables (r = .75, for Activities; r-= .83, for Social; r = .65, for School Performance). This would be expected because the Total variable is a composite of the other variables. Activities and Social Relationships were the next most highly interrelated (r = .46). School Performance and Social Relationships were not far behind and were also found to be significantly correlated (r = .40). School and Activities were the least highly correlated of all the possible combinations (r = .26). 62 Multiple Regression Several multiple regression models were generated to determine how well different combinations of variables could predict Delinquency scores. First, the variables that represent engagement in occupation were examined. The predictor variables included were Activities, Social Relationships, School Performance, and Total Social Competence scores. The second model generated included the demographic variables of age, sex, education, ethnicity, SES, and IQ as predictors. Finally, the third model generated included the predictor variables of Activities, Social Relationships, School Performance, Total Social Competence, and the demographic variables of age and educational placement. Table 7 provides results from the first model generated. In this model all 4 of the social competence variables were used to predict Delinquency (F = 3.061; d f = 4,48; p = .025). These results indicate that, as a set, the 4 social competence variables significantly predict Delinquency scores. As a set, they predict approximately 14% of the variance in Delinquency scores. Table 7 Engagement in Ocçiipation as a Predictor of Delinquency (n=53. Adjusted =0.1368, F= 3.061, # = 4 , /j = .0252) Independent Variables Parameter Estimate Standard Error t value p value Activities Social School Total 0.000 -0.06 -0.037 0.027 0.001 0.050 0.028 0.078 0.155 -1.281 -1.306 0.349 0.44 0.10 0.10 0.36 63 Table 8 represents the results generated using the control variables to predict Delinquency. As a set, the control variables of age, sex, education, SES, and IQ do not significantly predict Delinquency (F = 1.24; d f = 6,46; p — .31). Based on the adjusted value, they jointly accounted for less than 3% of the variance in Delinquency scores. Table 8 Control Variables as Predictors of Delinquency {n=53. Adjusted R — 0.0267, F = 1.237, df= 6, /? = .3050) Independent Variables Parameter Estimate Standard Error t value p value Age 0.337 0.203 1.654 0.52 Sex 0.262 0.438 0.598 0.28 Education 0.449 0.460 0.977 0.17 Ethnicity 0.284 0.424 0.067 0.25 SES 0.116 0.247 0.469 0.32 IQ 0.006 0.012 -0.467 0.32 A final multiple regression model was generated that included the four social competence variables and the control variables of age and education to predict Delinquency. The rationale for including the variable of age was that it was the only control variable that approached a correlation coefficient with Delinquency almost as high as the highest correlation coefficients among the four social 64 competence variables. In the case of the educational placement variable, it missed the .05 criterion by only .01. Therefore, it was included because it was so close to meeting the .05 criterion. Table 9 represents the results generated from the combination of the four social competence variables, age, and educational placement to predict Delinquency (F = 2.208; d f = 6; p = 0.0591). As a set, the four social competence variables, age, and education just miss significance in predicting delinquency. This combination predicted about 12% of the variance in Delinquency. As compared to the model that included only the four social competence variables, this model’s strength of predicting the variance in Delinquency scores was reduced by 1 % by including age and educational placement. Table 9 Engagement in Occupation, Age, and Education as Predictors of Delinquency (n=53. Adjusted =0.1223, F= 2.208, d f = 6, p =0.0591) Independent Variables Parameter Estimate Standard Error t value p value Age 0.210 0.202 1.042 0.15 Educational Placement -0.156 0.505 -0.309 0.38 Activities 0.000 0.001 0.165 0.43 Social Relationships -0.051 0.052 -0.980 0.17 School Performance -0.040 0.031 -1.286 0.10 Total Social Competence0.020 0.079 0.247 0.40 65 : Stepwise Regression The previous section discussed the results from multiple regression analyses in which combinations of variables were entered simultaneously into the regression models. In this section, the results from stepwise regression analyses will be presented. Before proceeding, a distinction between these two types of regression analysis is necessary. In the initial multiple regression analyses, every variable that is included in an analysis is entered into the final model. The model generated represents a combination of variables that are selected by the researcher. However, in the stepwise regression model all variables included are potential candidates, but not all will enter into the final model. The variables that enter the final model are determined, based on their degree of significance after controlling for every other variable included. Therefore, the most significant variable will enter first and all proceeding variables will enter in order of significance. In order for any variable to enter the model after the first variable, it must be significant after controlling for the variance shared with the first variable. Various combinations of variables were used to generate several stepwise regression models, iln all instances, alpha was set at .05, one-tailed. Table 10 represents the results from the first model. In this model all independent and control variables were entered as potential candidates. Only the Social Relationships variable proved to be significant (F = 8.0387; d f = l ; p = 0.003). In a second trial, with only the control variables as potential candidates, no variable met the .05 significance level to be entered into the model. 66 Table 10 Stepwise Regression Results with All Variables Included as Predictors of Delinquency (»=53, /?^=0.1362, F = 8.0387, 6 ff= l,j9 =0.007) Independent Variables Parameter Estimate Standard Error t value p value Social - 0.054 0.019 8.04 0.003 Note. Variables included in the stepwise analysis were: social relationships, school performance, activities, total social competence, age, educational placement, sex, IQ, SES, and ethnicity. In the final model, the^ four social competence variables were entered stepwise after controlling for age and educational placement. Age and education were used as controls for the same reasons explained previously in the initial multiple regression section. The rationale was that age met the .05 criterion level of significance and education nearly met that level of significance, in the correlation analysis. Table 11 represents the results from this model. Both the Social Relationships and age variables meet the .05 criterion level to be entered into the model, after age and educational placement were forced to enter first as control variables {p = .03). As compared to the first model represented in Table 10, the social variable was not as strongly significant when age and education were controlled for, a result that was not surprising' However, age is now significant. 67 Table 11 Engagement in Occupation as a Predictor of Delinquency After Controlling for Age and Educational Placement Independent Variables Parameter Estimate Standard Error t value p value Delinquency (n = =53, =0.178, F = 3.53, # = 3 , ;?=.053) Age 0.332 0.187 3.13 0.04 Educational Placement -0.128 0.499 0.07 0.40 Social Relationships -0.041 0.020 3.98 0.03 68 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION This study was an investigation of engagement in occupations and its relationship to the development of delinquent behaviors in a group of 10 through 13- year-old subjects. In addition, it was a secondary analysis of an existing data base. The data base consisted of scores received on the Social Competence and Delinquency scales from the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and Behavior Profile (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Subjects were randomly selected non learning handicapped and learning handicapped subjects from the Fresno Unified School District, in 1988. The primary focus of this study was directed toward the predictor variables that comprised engagement in occupations and their value as determinants of delinquent behaviors. Engagement in occupation included the following variables: participation in activities, social relationships, school performance, and total social competence. The control variables examined were age, sex, educational placement, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and IQ. Intercorrelations Among Variables Results from Pearson correlations confirmed that engagement in occupations was associated with Delinquency scores. Three of the four variables that defined engagement in occupations were significantly correlated with Delinquency. The most highly correlated variables were Social Relationships, School Performance, and 69 Total Social Competence. These variables were more highly correlated with Delinquency than any other variables included in the analysis. The Social Relationships variable exhibited the most significant correlation with Delinquency over any of the other variables examined. A negative correlation existed, indicating that lower Social Relationships scores were associated with higher Delinquency scores. The Social Relationships score was determined by considering the following factors: quality of interaction with peers and family members, the number of friends and the amount of time per week the child spends with these friends, and how well the child is able to play by himself or herself. A low Social Relationship score suggests that fewer friends, a poorer quality of interaction among family and friends, and a lesser degree of autonomy contributed to the increase of delinquent behaviors present among some of the subjects in this study. Such influences as poor communication, hostility, antagonism, physical abuse, and discord within the family have been previously suggested as being powerful influences in the development of delinquent behaviors among juveniles (Kratcoski, 1982; Lipsitt, Lelos, & Gibbs, 1985; Walshe-Brennan, 1976). Furthermore, delinquent peer role models, peer pressure, and low peer status have also been suggested as powerful influences on the development of delinquent behaviors (Bowker & Klein, 1983; Hoffman & Quiqley, 1988; Roff & Wirt, 1984). One explanation for why social relationships make a difference may be attributed to their being the primary sources for modeling of values and behaviors for children. If negative values and behaviors are seen as acceptable among families and friends, then the child may be influenced to adopt those negative values and behaviors. Consequently, a child who views negative values and behaviors as 70 acceptable may also be more prone to adopt a delinquent lifestyle as being acceptable. Activities was the only variable that did not have significant results. It is not clear why the Activities variable was not significantly related to Delinquency. The Participation in Activities score was determined by considering the following factors: type of activities which included sports, nonsports, and membership in an organization, club or team, amount of time spent in each activity, and how well the child does in each activity compared to other children of the same age. Interestingly, the examples given on the evaluation form for types of activities were all positive in nature. For example, some of the suggestions of sports activities were swimming, biking, baseball, and skateboarding. Examples of nonsports activities were reading books, singing, doing crafts, and playing with dolls. In addition, the informant was specifically instructed to exclude watching TV as an activity. Furthermore, there was no other category where watching TV could have been included. By providing examples that had positive connotations, the informant may have been influenced to not include negative or even aggressive activities. Such activities as hanging out, doing drugs, watching TV, wrestling, or boxing may have been intentionally not reported. Based on the examples provided, the informant may have interpreted these negative or aggressive activities as not acceptable or not what the researcher was evaluating. Other researchers have evaluated and noted a relationship between these less desirable activities and delinquency (Brunswick & Boyle, 1979; Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Kandel, I Simcha-Fagan, & Davies, 1986; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Petersen ,1989). Furthermore, Lederer, Kielhofner, and Watts (1985) found that delinquent 71 adolescents placed more value on the hobbyist role and other roles that stressed deviant behaviors than the non-delinquent adolescents studied. As previously mentioned, the Activities scale used in this study was limited to the considerations of type, quality, and quantity of participation in activities. Perhaps if where and with whom the child's activities occurred were examined, in addition to the information already provided by the social competence scale for activities, the results may have detected a relationship. By including the where and with whom aspects, the power of social and environmental influences would have been considered. Further consideration must be given to the possibility that participation in activities may not be related to the development of delinquent behaviors. It may be that there is no difference in type, quantity, or quality of participation in activities between delinquent and nondelinquent youth. Even if a difference exists among delinquents and nondelinquents, this difference in participation in activities may not be related to the development of delinquent behaviors. Despite the Activities variable not producing significant results when correlated with Delinquency, it was found to be highly interrelated with the three other variables that defined engagement in occupations. Furthermore, Social Relationships, School Performance, and Total Social Competence were also determined to be interrelated. Because of the strong interrelationships among the variables and the fact that three out of the four variables correlated with Delinquency, it was believed that, as a set, these variables would highly predict Delinquency. This contributed to the rationale for examining the four variables that comprised engagement in occupations in combination as potential predictors of delinquency in the subsequent regression analyses. 72 Age was the only control variable that produced a significant correlation with Delinquency. The Federal Bureau of Investigation gathers statistics on juveniles who break the law and compiles Uniform Crime Reports on a yearly basis. Their statistics support that juvenile delinquency steadily increases with age (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989). » Educational placement nearly met the .05 criterion level for significance. Despite the fact that other researchers have been able to substantiate a relationship between educational placement and delinquency (Groff & Hubble, 1981; Phillips & Kelly, 1979; Wilgosh & Paitich, 1982), no significant associations were identified in this study. Interrelationships existed between IQ and School Performance, IQ and Social Relationships, and IQ and Total Social Competence. However, IQ and Delinquency were not found to be related. It may be that IQ in combination with other variables such as peer pressure and environment may be a precursor to delinquency, but not IQ alone. The results from this study are in line with what other researchers have found. Overall, the literature has been mixed and intelligence has been regarded as having a correlational role when examined in combination with other variables (Flowers, 1990; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; West & Farrington, 1973). Predictors of Delinquency Multiple regression and stepwise regression procedures were used to determine how well various combinations of variables could predict delinquency. Out of the three multiple regression models, the first model, consisting only of engagement in occupations as independent variables, best predicted the variance in Delinquency. 73 Stepwise regression analysis was undertaken as a more stringent test for predictors of Delinquency. In the first model, all the independent and control variables were included in the analysis as potential predictors. However, Social Relationships was the only variable that was strong enough to enter into the model at the .05 criterion for significance. This can be interpreted to mean that once Social Relationships was entered into the model, no other variable significantly added power in predicting the variance in delinquency. This result is consistent with the Pearson correlational analysis in that Social Relationships produced the highest correlation coefficient. In a second model, only the control variables were allowed to enter the model as potential candidates. However, no variable met the .05 level to be entered into the model. Thus, age no longer produced a significant correlation when all of the other variables were controlled for. In the multiple regression analysis this same combination of the control variables did not highly predict the variance in Delinquency. Therefore, this stepwise regression model was consistent with the results obtained in the corresponding multiple regression model. In the final model, age and educational placement were forced into the model first, before allowing the engagement in occupations variables to entered in as potential candidates. By doing this, age and educational placement were then controlled for. In this model. Social Relationships still was the only variable of those measuring engagement in occupations that entered into the model. Social Relationships, however, was not as strongly significant when age and education were controlled for. Age became significant when allowed to enter before Social Relationships. This is not surprising because, during the Pearson correlation analysis, age was significant. However, the fact that Social Relationships was still 74 strong enough to enter the model even after age and education were controlled for is noteworthy. Overall, Social Relationships is the strongest variable contributing to predicting the variance in delinquency of all the variables studied in this research. Conclusion The findings in this study suggest that engagement in occupation is related to the development of delinquent behaviors. Three of the four variables that comprised engagement in occupations demonstrated significant correlations with Delinquency. These variables were Social Relationships, School Performance, and Total Social Competence. Participation in Activities did not demonstrate a significant relationship with Delinquency. However, when Participation in Activities was included in a set with Social Relationships, School Performance, and Total Social Competence, this combination was found to highly predict the variance in Delinquency scores using multiple regression analysis. The control variables, as a set, did not significantly predict Delinquency. Social Relationships was the most noteworthy of all variables studied because it was consistently found to be significant during each analysis. It produced the highest Pearson correlation coefficient over all other variables examined during this study. Furthermore, stepwise regression analysis supported Social Relationships as being the best predictor of Delinquency out of all the variables examined in this study, even after age and educational placement were controlled for. Therefore, occupational therapists who deal with children and adolescents must consider social relationships as an integral component in the evaluation and treatment process because of the crucial role social relationships play in the development of delinquent behaviors. 75 Future researchers may need to consider the possibility that social relationships are a separate dimension aside from occupations. However, social relationships do exist in the context of occupation. The reader jnay recall that in this study, social relationships was considered to be one component of engagement in occupation. The specific role that social relationships play in engagement in occupations may be of particular interest to future researchers. Future Implications This study is among the first studies in Occupational Therapy that has examined the problem of delinquency from an Occupational Science perspective. Replication of this study would further confirm the importance of considering engagement in occupations when examining the problem of delinquency. Another suggestion for research is to replicate this study using a clearly delinquent sample to evaluate whether or not social relationships are as important as the results of the present study suggest. Also, further analysis of subjects from this study who scored high on the Delinquency scale could be conducted in a qualitative study in order to gain insight into the meanings of specific occupations in the subjects’ lives. These potential studies may provide a better understanding of how occupations relate to delinquency. In this study, quality of experience was based on how well the subject performed in relation to other children of the same age, as reported by the parent. This was a limitation of this study because quality of experience was based on the subjective evaluation by the parent. In particular, it is recommended that objective factors that determine the difference in quality of experience during social relationships be examined. Examples of objective measures of quality of experience 76 during social relationships might be: how often a child shares with others during i social interactions, number of arguments the child is involved in weekly, whether | the child initiates social interactions with others, and whether the social interaction is ; interactive or parallel. This would also be recommended with participation in i activities and school performance. | The nonsignificant correlation between participation in activities and delinquency deserves more attention. As previously mentioned, the social and I environmental contexts in which participation in activities occurred were not | considered. Perhaps by examining these factors of participation in activities, the nonsignificant result may be diminished. | Because this was a secondary analysis, I was not able to interview the subjects. Interviewing the subjects may have provided insight into the different experience of , I engagement in occupation between those who demonstrated delinquent behaviors and ' those who did not. Furthermore, the meaning of the occupations and the quality of experience to the subject could be evaluated. In addition, interviewing the subjects may uncover information that has not previously considered. I 77 REFERENCES 78 Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual fo r the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Vermont: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M ., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual fo r the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Vermont: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Agnew, R., & Petersen, D. M. (1989). Leisure and delinquency. Social Problems, 36(4), 332-350. I Aichorn, A. (1935). Wayward youth. New York: Viking Press. Anastasi, A. (1958). Heredity, environment and the question of "how"? Psychological Review, 65, 197-208. Anson, R. H. (1976). Recreation deviance: Some mainline hypotheses. Journal o f Leisure Research, 8, 177-180. Austrin, H. R., & Boever, P. M. (1977). Interpersonal trust and severity of delinquent behavior. Psychological Reports, 40, 1075-1078. Baker, L. (1986). Estimating genetic correlations among discontinuous phenotypes: An analysis of criminal convictions and psychiatric diagnoses in Danish adoptees. Behavior Genetics, 16, 127-172. Bandura, A. (1973). A social learning analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Baron, K. B. (1987). The model of human occupation: A newspaper treatment group for adolescents with a diagnosis of conduct disorder. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 7(2 Summer), 89-104. Barris, R., Kielhofner, G., & Watts, J. H. (1988). Occupational therapy in psychosocial practice (pp. 15-17). New Jersey: Slack Incorporated. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal o f Political Economy, 76, 169-217. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders. New York: Free Press. Bowker, L. H ., & Klein, M. W. (1983). The etiology of female juvenile delinquency and gang membership: A test of psychological and social structural explanations. Adolescence, 18(1 Winter), 739-751. Broder, P. K., Dunviant, N ., Smith, E. C., & Sutton, P. L. (1981). Further observations on the link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 73(6), 838-850. Bronner, A. F. (1936). New light on delinquency and its treatment. New Haven: Y ^e University Press. 79 Brunswick, A. F., & Boyle^ J. M. (1979). Patterns of drug involvement: Developmental and secular influences on age at initiation. Youth and Society, 2, 139-162. Buhrman, H. G. (1977). Athletics and deviance: An examination of the relationship between athletic participation and deviant behavior of high school girls. Review Sports Leisure, 2, 17-35. Buhrman, H. G., & Bratton, R. (1978). Athletic participation and deviant behavior of girls in Alberta. Review Sports Leisure, 3, 25-41. Burns, T. (1907). Relation of playgrounds to juvenile delinquency. Charities, 21, 25-31. Burt, C. (1938). The delinquent youth. London: University of London Press. Christiansen, K. O. (1977). In S. A. Mednick & K. O. Christiansen (Eds.), Biosocial basis fo r criminal behavior. New York: Gardner Press. Clark, F. A., Parham, D ., Carlson, M. E., Frank, G., Jackson, J., Pierce, D ., Stein, C., & Zemke, R. (1991). Occupational science: Academic innovation in the service of occupational therapy’s future. American Journal o f Occupational Therapy, 45(4), 300-310. Cloward, R. A ., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory o f delinquent gangs. New York: Free Press. Cohen, D. J., Dibble, E., Craive, J. M ., & Pollin, W. (1975). Reliably separating identical from fraternal twins. Archives o f General Psychiatry, 52(Nov), 1371-1375. Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys. New York: Free Press. Cohen, A. K. (1983). Crime causation. In S. H. Kadish (Ed.), Encyclopedia o f crime and justice (pp 342-353). New York: The Free Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis fo r the behavioral sciences (2nd. ed.). New York: Academic Press. Conners, K. (1973). Rating scales for use in drug studies with children. Psychopharmacology Bulletin: Pharmacotherapy with children. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Crowe, R. (1972). The adopted offspring of women criminal offenders. Archives o f General Psychiatry, 27, 600-603. Crowe, R. (1975). An adoptive study of psychopathy. In R. Fieve, D. Rosenthal, & H. Brill (Eds.), Genetic research in psychiatry (pp. 115-134). Baltimore: Johns Hoplans University Press. 80 Csikszentmihalyi, M ., & Larson, R, (1984). Being adolescent. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Csikszentmihalyi, M ., Larson, R., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent activity. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 6(3), 281-294. Dalgard, O. S., & Kringlen, E. (1976). A Norwegian twin study of criminality. British Journal o f Criminology, 16, 213-233. Doering, C. H ., Bordie, H ., Kraemar, H. C., Noos, R. H., Becker, H. B., & Hamburg, D. A. (1975). Negative effect and plasma testosterone: A longitudinal study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 37, 487-491. Donnelly, P. (1981). Athletes and juvenile delinquents: A comparative analysis based on a literature review. Adolescence, 16(62 Summer), 415-432. Educational Policies Commission. (1964). School athletics: Problems and policies. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Elliott, D. S., Huizunga, D ., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Empey, L. T. (1978). American delinquency: Its meaning and construction. Illinois: Dorsey Press. Empey, L. T ., & Lubeck, S. G. (1971). Explaining delinquency: Construction, test, and reformation o f sociological theory. Massachusetts: Lexington Press. Erickson, M. L., & Jensen, G. P. (1977). Delinquency is still group behavior: Toward revitalizing the group premise in sociology of deviance. Journal o f Criminal Law and Criminology, 68, 262-73. Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Crime and personality (3rd. ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Farrington, D. P. (1986). The sociocultural context of childhood disorders. In H. C. Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders o f childhood (3rd ed., pp. 391-422). New York: Wiley. Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1981). The Cambridge study in delinquent development. In S. A. Mednick & A. E. Baert (Eds.), Prospective longitudinal research. New York: Oxford University Press. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1989). Uniform Crime Reports. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 81 Fiqueira-McDonough, J. (1986). School context, gender, and delinquency. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 75(1), 79-98. Flowers, R. B. (1990). The adolescent criminal: An examination o f today’ s juvenile offender. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc. Greenberg, D. F. (1977). Delinquency and the age structure of society. Contemporary Crises, 1, 189-224. Groff, M. G., & Hubble, L. M. (1981). Recategorized WISC-R of juvenile delinquents. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 14, 515-516. Haggerty, K. P., Wells, E. A., Jenson, J. M ., Catalano, R. F ., & Hawkins, J. D. (1989). Delinquents and drug use: A model program for community reintegration. Adolescence, 2P(94 Summer), 439-456. Hardison, J., & Llorens, L. A. (1988). Structured craft group activities for adolescent delinquent girls. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 8(3), 101-117. Hartstone, E., & Hansen, K. V. (1984). The violent juvenile offender. In R. A. Mathias, P. Demuro, & R. S. Allinson (Eds.), Violent juvenile offenders: An anthology, (pp. 83-112). San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Heineke, J. M. (1978A). Economic models of criminal behavior: An overview. In J. M. Heineke (Ed.), Economic models o f criminal behavior (pp. 1-33). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes o f delinquency. Berkeley: University of California. Hirschi, T ., & Hindelang, M. J. (1977). Intelligence and delinquency: A revisionist review. American Sociological Review, 42, 571-586. Hoffman, R. G., & Quigley, R. (1988). Symposium: Peer group treatment for troubled youth. (Child & Youth Care Quarterly, 17(3 Fall), 137-145. Holzman, H. R. (1979). Learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. In C. R. Jeffrey (Ed.), Biology and crime (pp. 77-86). Beverly Hills: Sage. Hopkins, H. L., & Smith H. D. (Eds.) (1988). Willard and Spademan's occupational therapy. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Hutchings, B., & Mednick, S. A. (1975). Registered criminality in the adoptive and biological parents of registered male criminal adoptees. In R. R. Fiene, D. Rosenthal, & H. Brill (Eds.), Genetic research in psychiatry, (pp. 134- 140). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 82 Kandel, D. B., Simcha-Fagan, O., & Davies, M. (1986). Risk factors for delinquency and illicit drug use from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal o f Drug Issues, 60,(1), 67-90. Keilitz, I., & Dunivant, N. (1986). The relationship between learning disability and juvenile delinquency: Current state of knowledge. Remedial and Special Education, 7(3), 18-26. Kessler, S. (1970). A review of chromosomal abnormalities. Journal o f Psychiatric Research, 7, 153-170. Klein, M. W. (1969). On the group context of delinquency. Sociology and Social Research, 54, 63-71. Kratcoski, P. C. (1982). Child abuse and violence against the family. Child Welfare, 61(1), 435-444. Kreuz, L. E., & Rose, R. M. (1972). Assessment of aggressive behavior and plasma testosterone in young criminal population. Psychosomatic Medicine, 34, 321-332. Landers, D. M ., & Landers, D. M. (1978). Socialization via inter-scholastic athletics: Its effects on delinquency. Sociology o f Education, 51, 299-303. Lane, B. A. (1980). The relationship of learning disabilities to juvenile delinquency: Current status. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 77,425-434. Larson, K. A. (1988). A research review and alternative hypothesis explaining the link between learning disability and delinquency. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 21(6), 357-363. Lederer, J. M ., Kielhofner, G., & Watts, J. H. (1985). Values, personal causation and skills of delinquents and nondelinquents. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 5(2 Summer), 59-77. LeFlore, L. (1988). Delinquent youths and family. Adolescence, 25(91 Fall), 629- 642. Lemert, E. M. (1972). Human deviance, social problems, and social control (2nd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lipsitt, P. D., Lelos, D., & Gibbs, M. P. (1985). A family-oriented alternative to pre-trial detention of juveniles. American Journal o f Family Therapy, 75(2), 61-66. Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 68-99. 83 Long, S. K., & Witte, A. D. (1981). Current economic trends: Implications for crime and criminal justices. In K. N. Wright & A. D. Witte (Eds.), Crime and criminal justice in a declining economy (pp. 69-143). Cambridge: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Main. Lombroso, C. (1972). Criminal man. New Jersey: Patterson, Smith. Originally titled L'Uomo Delinquente in its 1876 publication. Maccoby, E. E., & Nagy, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and reprise. Child Development, 51, 964-980. I Mednick, S. A., Pollock, V. E., Volvaka, J., & Gabrielli, W. F. (1982). Biology and violence. In M. E. Wolfgang (Ed.), Criminal violence. California: Sage. Mednick, S. A ., Gabrielli, W. F., Jr., & Itil, T. M. (1981). EEG as a predictor of antisocial behavior. Criminology, 19, 219-229. Meltzer, L. J. (1984). Cognitive assessment and the diagnosis of learning problems. In M. D. Levine & P. Saltz (Eds.), Middle childhood: Development and dysfunction (pp. 131-152). Baltimore: University Park Press. Meltzer, L. J., Roditi, B. N., & Fenton, T. (1986). Cognitive and learning profiles of delinquent and learning-disabled adolescents. Adolescence, 27(83), ■581-591. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe: Free Press. Meyer-Bahlburg, H ., Beam, B. A., Sharma, M ., & Edwards, J. A. (1965). Aggressiveness and testosterone levels in man. Psychosomatic Medicine, 36, 269-274. Morris, N., & Hawkins, G. J. (1970). The honest politician’ s guide to crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mulligan, W. A. (1969). A study of dyslexia and delinquency. Academic Therapy Quarterly, 4, 177-187. Murray, C. A. (1976). The link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency: Current theory and knowledge. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. New York: Wiley Press. Olweus, D. (1987). Testosterone and adrenalin: Aggressive antisocial behavior in normal adolescent males. In S. A. Mednick, T. E. Moffitt, & S. A. Stack (Eds.), The causes o f crime (pp. 203-282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 84 Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357-389. Paulson, C. P. (1980). Juvenile delinquency and occupational choice. American Journal o f Occupational Therapy, 54(9), 565-571. Pepinsky, H. E. (1983). Crime causation. In S. H. Kadish, (Ed.), Encyclopedia o f crime and justice (pp. 323-329). New York: The Free Press. Persky, H., Smith, K. D. , & Basu, G. K. (1971). Relation of psychological measures of aggression and hostility to testosterone production in man. Psychometric Medicine, 32, 265-274. Phillips, J. C., & Kelly, D. H. (1979). School failure and delinquency: What causes which? Criminology, 17, 194-207. Pollock, V. (1983). Crime causation. In S. H. Kadish (Ed.), Encyclopedia o f crime and justice (pp. 308-315). New York: The Free Press. Primeau, L. A., Clark, F., & Pierce, D. (1989). Occupational therapy alone has looked upon occupations: Future applications of occupational science to pediatric occupational therapy. In J. A. Johnson & E. J. Yerxa (Eds.), Occupational science: The foundation fo r new models o f practice (pp. 19-32). New York: The Haworth Press. Quay, H. C. (1983). Crime causation. In S. H. Kadish (Ed.), Encyclopedia o f crime arid justice (pp. 330-342). New York: The Free Press. Quay, H. C., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Interim manual fo r the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Applied Social Sciences. Reckless, W. C. (1973). The crime problem (5th ed.). Santa Monica: Goodyear. Reilly, M. (1974). Play as exploratory learning. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Reiter, M. (1982, May). School achievement and juvenile delinquency: A review of the literature. Resources in Education, 515-523. Riemer, J. W. (1981). Deviance as fun. Adolescence, 75(16 Spring), 39-43. Robbins, L. N. (1966). Deviant children grown up. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins. Roff, J. D., & Wirt, R. D. (1984). Childhood social adjustment, adolescent status, and young adult mental health. American Journal Orthopsychiatry, 54(4), 595-602. i 85 Rosanoff, A. J., Handy, L. M ., & Rosanoff, F. A. (1934). Criminality and delinquency in twins. Journal o f Criminal Law and Criminology, 24(b), 923- 934. Sapora, A. V., & Mitchell, E. D. (1961). The theory o f play and recreation. New York: Ronald Press. Sayed, Z. A., Lewis, S. A., & Brittain, R. P. (1969). An electroencephalographic and psychiatric study of thirty-two insane murderers. British Journal c f Psychiatry, 115, 1115-1124. Schafer, W. E. (1969). Participation in interscholastic athletics and delinquency: A preliminary study. Social Problems, 17, 40-47. Schalling, D. (1987). Personality correlates of plasma testosterone levels in young delinquents: An example of person-situation interaction? In S. A. Mednick, T. E. Moffitt, & S. A. Stack (Eds.), The causes o f crime (pp. 283-291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schalling, D ., Lidberg, L., Levander, S. E., & Dahlin, T. (1973). Spontaneous autonomic activity as related to psychopathy. Biological Psychology, 1, 83- 97. Schoenfeld, C. G. (1975). A psychoanalytic theory of juvenile delinquency. In E. P. Peoples (Eds.), Readings in correctional casework and counseling. California: Goodyear. Segrave, J. O. (1983). Sports and juvenile delinquency. In R. L. Terjung (Ed.), Exercise and sport sciences reviews, (pp 181-209). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute. Serok, S., & Blum, A. (1982). Rule-violating behavior of delinquent and non delinquent youth in games. Adolescence, 27(66), 457-464. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sheldon, W. H. (1942). Varieties o f temperament. New York: Harper & Row. Snyder, J., Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1986). Determinants and consequences of associating with deviant peers during preadolescence and adolescence. Journal o f Early Adolescence, 5(1), 29-43. Sullivan, K. (1955). Physical education and juvenille delinquency. Scholastic Coach, 25, 62-69. Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles o f criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row. 86 Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Boston: Ginn. Uniform Crime Reports (I960). Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports (1986). Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. I I Uniform Crime Reports (1989). Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington, DC: I U.S. Department of Justice. I University of Southern California (USC) Department of Occupational Therapy. (1989). Proposal fo r a doctor o f philosophy degree in occupational science. Unpublished presentation. Vandenberg, S. G. (1976). Twin studies. In A. R. Kaplan (Ed.), Human behavior genetics (pp. 90-150). Illinois: Thomas. Walker, E., Downey, G., & Bergman, A. (1989). The effects of parental psychopathology and maltreatment on child behavior: A test of the diasthesis- stress model. Child Development, 50,15-24. Walshe-Brennan, K. S. (1976). Community roots of delinquency. Community Health, 8(74), 74-78 Weller, L., & Luchterhand, E. (1983). Family relationships of "problem" and "promising" youth. Adolescence, 28(69), 93-100. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London: Heineman. Wiatrowski, M. D., Griswold, D. B., & Roberts, M. K. (1981). Social control theory and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 46, 525-541. Wilgosh, L ., & Paitich, D. (1982). Delinquency and learning disabilities: More evidence. Journal o f Leaming Disabilities, 15, 137-149. Winzer, M. (1981). Juvenile delinquency: Educational perspectives. Journal o f Special Education, 5(4), 293-302. Witkin, H. A. (1977). XYY and XXY: Criminality and aggression. In S. A. Mednick & K. O. Christiansen (Eds.), Biosocial basis o f criminal behavior (pp. 165-187). New York: Gardner Press. Witte, A. D. (1983). Crime causation. In S. H. Kadish (Ed.), Encyclopedia o f crime and justice (pp. 316-322). New York: The Free Press. Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture o f violence: Towards an integrated theory in criminology. London: Tavistock. I I I 87 Yerxa, E. J., Clark, P., Frank, G., Jackson, J., Parham, D ., Pierce, D., Stein, C. & Zemke, R. (1989). In J. A. Johnson & E. J. Yerxa (Eds.), Occupational science: The foundation fo r new models o f practice (pp. 1-16). New York: The Haworth Press. Yochelson, S., & Samenow, S. E. (1976). Criminal personality. In S. E. Samenow (Ed.), Inside the criminal mind. New York: Time Books. 88 APPENDIX'A The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and Behavior Profile 89 CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST FOR AGES 4 - lt For ctlice uee œ h me C M IL S-S N A M E PARENTS TYPi OF W O R K (W HM C o mecdlc— A p r exam pN .- cM o mechanic, high achoa N M ch er, hom enw W r. laC orer. I#Ihe cperalcr. ahop xaW w nan. ermy awgowit e% en ifrw ram r deer no r Me wm e/nv.) wo. A Q E PA C E FATHERS T Y P E O F W O nX ' s o _ O Ù U 1 U O TH ER'S 1C0AVS D A T E Ifr. C H IL D SeiRTM D A TE TH IS F O R M F IL L E D O V T B V : D M oiner O Father □ Other itoeciW , OUOE IN «CH O O C PIm m IUi Am ip em your child meet Hk#c 14 Ukc pert in. For cxcmpl#; cwlmming, bcccboll, akaling, ahato Pocrtfino, blh« hdlr>o, llchlng, #tc. □ None Compâtod 10 ether ehlUlron el Ihe Mm* ego, about how much tkrno Ooifi K now □ □ □ Compered to ether ehlldron ti the eeme ego. how well doee hefehe do 'aha apend to each? each one? leee fhiR Arwag» «we 1 T m « Dont K now Mew Average Average Above Aveiega □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ o □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ □ □ II. Pleeee W et your oM KTe tevorlte hobMce, •ciMlles, end gem**, ether then eperts. For exemple: eiempe, dotle, booKa, piano, crefu, elnging, etc. {Co nol Include T.Vj Q None Compered to ether ehPdren at the eeme ego, about how much time doee he/ehe epend in eechf Compered to ether ohlldran el the eeme age, how well doee hetoho de each one? D on’t K now T h m # Avenge «ore thin Average Dont Knew selow Average Average A bove Average D □ □ □ □ o □ n □ □ o □ □ a □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ D □ m. Ftoeee Hat any organluttoiie, dube. teama, or groupe your child betomge t& O None Compared lo other cMMren ol Ihe came age. how active le he/eh# In aaeb? Own K now Law Acew Average M om Aodve □ □ □ o □ □ o o □ □ □ IV. Pteeee le t eny lobe or charte yeur child hae. For example: paper route, trabyelltlng, making bed, elc. O Nctw Compared lo other children r> * the eeme age, how w eW doee hefehe carry Utetn out? Denn K a c m v Below Average Average A bew e A M T «g* □ □ □ □ □ □ o □ □ □ □ □ PMf 1 n1,ewnnWM,VT«e«aS 90 V. 1. Aboul hew many e ie u Irtond* d«M y«ur chUd h m ? D Non* G 1 G 2 o r 3 O 4 or more & About how d w ^ Mmoo o week deoo your ohM do thing# with thorn? Q teea then i o 1 or 2 G 3 c* more VL Comporod to olhor eMMran ol htohor ago, Itow woH doom your chIM: W ono About1 thaaam e Better A . d o t otong with hlafhor brothoro & elotora? O G □ b. d o t atone with Mhar chi Id ran? G G G c. Behove wlih htaihar paroniaT O □ □ d Play and work by himaalfmaraoll? O □ G Ml. 1. Coitoiil oehool parlornwnca—lor ohildren aged B and oMoi: Q D ooonol g o to achod Falling Beiew average Average Above average a. noading or Engllah □ .□ □ O b . Wrtllog □ □ G □ e. Arlthnnailc or Math Q □ G □ d. SpeMng □ O O □ Other academic Kub. a. D O O G Jacta—for o aomplc No- torv. icioneo. forehin i. D O U G language, geography. g □ G u G 2, lo your nhiid In a apeciai daaa? O No Q Yea—what kind? 3. Ha# your ohlld ever rapeatad a gnadot G No O Yea— grade and raaaoh A. Me# your (MM had any academic or other problema In achool? G No O Yet—piaaae deacrtbe Whan did thaaa problema atartT Have thee# problème ended? G No O Yea—when? 91 VIL Below IB a list of Items thst descflb# childfwi For each Hem thst dêacflbw yixtf child now or wW iln Iw pest 6 mon»#, pieeee oiroie th»2lf lh«Hainl«MrylnitaroflwilnMo(yourcM(dCirol*th*1 wmmilmwlmeofyourëWkl W M w W w i I# MU tnn of your cNid, ckcW <he (L PImm antwor mllkom*#» *» you can, wmn If «omodo not M«m to «ppÿ to yourcNld. 0 m NotTrutftofiriiyouknoN) 1 ■ SomowtiatorSomotlmaoTnw (twHain «ppbr to yourcNld. Very Trvo or Oftan Truo 0 1 a 1, 0 t 2 2. 0 1 2 3. 0 1 2 4. 0 1 2 5. D 1 2 6. 0 1 2 7. 0 1 2 a. 0 1 2 9 0 t 2 10. 0 1 2 11. 6 1 2 12. D 1 2 13. 0 1 2 14. 0 1 2 15. 0 1 2 16. 0 1 2 17. 0 1 2 IB. 0 1 2 19. 0 1 2 20. 0 1 2 21. 0 1 2 22. D 1 2 23. 0 1 2 24. 0 12 0 1 Acts too young for Ms/twr mg* 16 Argues a lot Asthma Behaves like opposite Bowel movements out: Bragging, Imastlng Can't concentrate, can'l Can't gat his/her mind (^sesalons (dssertbe^ 20 Can't all still, resUaaa, or hyparacilve 25 Clings to adults or too dependent Complains of loneliness Confused or seems to be in a fog Cries a lot Cruel to animals Cruelty, bullying, or meanness to others 90 Day-dreams or gels lost In his/her thoughts Oellt>erately harms self or attempts suicide Demands a lot of attention Destroys his/her own things 35 26. 26. 27. 2 B. Destroys things belonging to his/her family or other children Disobedient at home Dis6t>edl«nt at school Doesn't eat well Doesn’t get along with other cNidren 40 Doesn't seem to feet guilty after misbehaving Easily lea to us Eats or drinks things that are not food (descritie):____________________________ 29. Pears certain animals, situations, or places, otiier than school (describe); ____________ 90. Fears going to school 45 0 1 a 31. Fears heistw might think or do something bad 0 1 a 32. Feels hs/sha has to be taerfeot 0 1 a 33. Feels or complains that no one loves hlm/tter 0 1 a 34. Feels others are out to get him/her « 1 a 35. Faala worthless or Inferior 50 0 1 2 36. Gets hurt a lot, accldent prone 0 1 2 37. Gets In many fights 0 1 2 35. Gets teased a lot 9 1 2 38. Hangs around with children who get In trouble « 1 2 40. Hears things that aren't there {describe^ 55 0 1 2 41. impulsive or acts without thinking 0 1 2 42. Likes to be alone 0 1 2 43. Lying or cheating 0 1 2 44, Bites fingernails 0 1 2 46. Nervous, Mghatrung. or tense 80 0 1 2 46. Nervous movements or twitching (descrlbek 0 1 a 47. Nightmares 0 1 2 45. Not liked by other childran 6 1 2 48. Constipated, doesn’t move bowels 6 1 2 55 Too fearful or anxious 65 0 1 2 41. Feels dizzy 0 1 2 52. Feels too guhty 0 1 2 53. Overeating 0 1 2 54. Overtired à 1 2 55. Overweight 70 56, Physical problems without known medical cause: 0 1 2 a. Aches or pains 0 1 2 b. Headachaa 0 1 2 e. Nausea, feels sick 0 1 2 d. Problems with eyes (describe); 0 1 2 e. Bashes or other skin problems 75 0 1 2 f. Stomachaches or cramps 0 1 2 9 Vomiting, throwing up « 1 2 h. Other (describe); Please see other side L 92 0 ■ NalTniefMlarssyoukncnii) l ■ So*nMftMlarSe(mrtlm«sTnM Sf. Physically à ttad o people 55 Picks nose. akin, or other pads of txxty (describs): - 3 m Very Tfue or Often Tfiie Strange behavior (describe):^ 0 13 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 a 80 so. Plays with own sex paxts in public 10 80. Plays with own sax parts too much 61. Poor school work 83. Poorly ooordlnated or clumsy 63. Prefers playing with otder children 64. Prefers playirtg with younger children 65. Refuses to talk 66. Repeats certain acts over and over; compulsions (desorlt»); ... 2 0 67. 69. 70. Runs away froth home Screams a lot Secretive, keeps tfilngs to self Sees things that aren't there (descrltw): 2 5 0 1 2 71. 0 t a 73. 0 1 2 73. Seif-conselous or easily embarrassed Sets fires Sexual problems (describe): 30 0 1 2 74 Strawing off or clowning 0 1 2 75. Shy or timid 0 1 2 76 Sleeps less than most children 0 1 3 77. Sleeps more tlian moat children during day andfor nloht (da «entra): 78. 76. Smaara or plays with bowel movements 35 Speech problem {describe}:__________ __ 0 1 2 80. 0 1 3 81. 0 1 3 82. 0 1 2 83. Stares blankly Steals at twme Steale outside the trama Stores up things hefsha doesn’t rraad (describe): 40 0 1 84. 0 1 2 85 Strangs Ideas (dascrlbeX 0 1 2 86. Stutibom, sullen, or Irritable Û 1 3 87. Sudden changes In mood or feelings 0 1 a 85 Sulks a lot 46 0 1 2 80. Suspicious 0 1 3 80. Swearing or olieeene lar^uage 0 1 2 91. Talks atiout Killing self 0 1 3 92. Talks or walks In steep (deecrllM): t 1 2 83. Talks too much 90 8 1 3 94. Teases a lot 0 1 2 85. Tamper tantrums or hot temper 0 1 3 86. TNnks about sex too much 0 1 2 87. Threatens people 0 1 3 9& Thumb-sucking 56 0 1 2 89. Too concerned with neatness or cleanliness 0 1 2 100. Trouble sleeping (describe): 6 1 2 101. Truancy, skips scfraol 8 1 2 102. UnderactIve. slow moving, or lacks energy 0 1 2 103. Unhappy, sad, or depressed 60 0 1 2 104. Unusually loud 0 1 2 105. Uses alcohol or drugs (desertt/e): 8 1 2 106. Vandalism 0 1 2 107. Wets self during ttw day 0 1 2 106. Wets the bed 85 9 1 3 108. Whining 0 1 2 110. Wishes to t>e of opposite sex 9 1 2 111. WIttidrawn. doesn't get Involved with others 0 1 2 113. Worrying 113. Please write In any problems your child Itas tlial were not listed above: n 1 2 70 0 1 7 0 1 2 Pl£A8E BE SURE YOU HAVE ANSWERED ALL ITEMS. UNDERLINE ANY YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. 93 APPENDIX B Definition of Terms 94 — I Definition of Terms Adolescence: The stage in life between the onset of puberty and psychological and biological maturity (Hopkins & Smith, 1988). In this study, children at the threshold of adolescence will be studiW (See Definition of Preadolescence). Delinquency: Exhibition of behaviors that are antisocial in nature or that could be considered in violation of the law. For the purpose of this study, delinquency will be operationally defined by scores on the Delinquent scale of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Engagement in occupations: The amount and quality of participation in every day activities that are purposeful, self-directed, and meaningful to the person who performs them. For the purpose of this study, engagement in occupations will be operationalized by the 4 scale scores on the SociM Competence Scales of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The 4 scale scores measure engagement in occupation in the contexts of specific activities, social interactions, and school performance, as well as a total score summarizing these areas. Occupations: "Chunks" of human activity that are purposeful, self-directed, and meaningful to the person who performs them (Primeau, Clark, & Pierce, 1990). See engagement in occupations for operational definition. Preadolescence: The transition period between childhood and adolescence. For the purpose of this study preadolescence will be operationally defined by males and females aged 10 to 12 years old. 95

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of fifth finger position in a precision task

PDF

An occupational therapy ego oriented treatment model

PDF

Psychometric analysis of the MacQuarrie test for mechanical ability using the Torrance adolescent normative data and the comparison with visual-perceptual-motor performance of delinquent-prone adolesc

PDF

A cineradiographic and electromyographic study of muscles used in glossopharyngeal breathing

PDF

The application of Martin Heidegger's philosophy to occupational therapy and occupational science

PDF

A qualitative study on the relationship of future orientation and daily occupations of adolescents in a psychiatric setting

PDF

Fine motor skills of two- to three-year-old drug exposed children

PDF

A model for integrating occupational therapy procedures

PDF

Hand function in older adults: the relationship between performance on the Jebsen Test and ADL status

PDF

The effects of rhythm and music on the learning and performance of a motor task

PDF

The use of occupational therapists or interdisciplinary teams in the evaluation of assistive technology needs of children with severe physical disabilities in Orange County schools

PDF

The relationship of demographic status, educationl background, and type and degree of disability to transition outcomes in young adults with disabilities: a quantitative research synthesis

PDF

Synthesis of alkyl esters of 4-amino-2-sulfamoylbenzoic acid

PDF

Delinquency and occupational choice

PDF

Keratinizing cysts of the oral cavity

PDF

A follow up study of adapted computer technology training at the High Tech Traning Center of Santa Monica College

PDF

Role accommodation: A study of optometrists in a prepaid medical group as perspective for viewing relations between two professiosl occupations

PDF

Relationship between perceptions and post-discharge nonadherence to an occupational therapy range-of motion exercise regimen among cerebrovascular accident patients

PDF

Assistive technology for clients with visual impairments of the Alaska Division of Vocation Rehabilitation: a qualitative evaluation

PDF

The application of Sarbin's theory of emotions as narrative emplotments to stories of two men diagnosed with cancer

Asset Metadata

Creator Adler, Bonnie (author)

Core Title Engagement in occupations and its relationship to delinquency scores among 10 to 13-year-olds

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Occupational Therapy

Degree Conferral Date 1992-12

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag health and environmental sciences,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c38-501996

Unique identifier UC11307292

Identifier EP62645.pdf (filename),usctheses-c38-501996 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP62645.pdf

Dmrecord 501996

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Adler, Bonnie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA