American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 395–410 | Cite as

Continuous versus Categorical Models of Delinquency Risk

Article

Abstract

Two groups of participants, one a nationally representative sample with roughly equal numbers of male and female participants (N = 8,984) and the other a sample of mostly male adjudicated delinquents (N = 1,354), were used to test whether risk factors for delinquency are organized continuously or categorically. A continuous (variable-centered) model was created using factor scores from a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis and a categorical (person-centered) model was constructed using posterior probabilities from a two-class finite mixture modeling analysis. In both samples the continuous model correlated significantly better with subsequent offending than did the categorical model, a finding that was replicated in males from both samples and in females from the nationally representative sample. The current findings suggest that risk factors are better construed as points along a continuum rather than as properties of distinct groups or types. These results further suggest that the etiology of offending, in the form of risk factors, is general/additive rather than specific/selective. The implications of these results for theory development, clinical practice, and future research are discussed.

Keywords

Continuous Categorical Risk factors Delinquency 

References

  1. Bauer, D. J. (2007). Observations on the use of growth mixture models in psychological research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 757–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2003). Distributional assumptions of growth mixture models: implications for overextraction of latent trajectory classes. Psychological Methods, 8, 338–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., . . . Vitaro, F. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222–245.Google Scholar
  4. Center for Human Resource Research. (2009). NLSY79 user’s guide. Columbus: Ohio State University, Center for Human Resource Research NLS User Services.Google Scholar
  5. Chung, I.-J., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Gilchrist, L. D., & Nagin, D. S. (2002). Childhood predictors of offense trajectories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 60–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeLisi, M., Kosloski, A. E., Drury, A. J., Vaughn, M. G., Beaver, K. M., Trulson, C. R., & Wright, J. P. (2011). Never-desisters: A descriptive study of the life-course-persistent offender. In M. DeLisi & K. M. Beaver (Eds.), Criminology theory: A life-course approach (pp. 241–256). Boston: Jones & Bartlett.Google Scholar
  7. Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). Exploring the taxometric status of psychopathy among youthful offenders: is there a juvenile psychopath taxon? Law and Human Behavior, 35, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrington, D. P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from childhood: key findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 36, 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Some benefits of dichotomization in psychiatric and criminological research. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10, 100–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, J., & Ridder, E. (2005). Show me the child at seven: the consequences of conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 837–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haslam, N. (2011). The latent structure of personality and psychopathology: a review of trends in taxometric research. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 8, 17–29.Google Scholar
  13. Iselin, A.-M. R., Gallucci, M., & DeCoster, J. (2013). Reconciling questions about dichotomizing variables in criminal justice research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 386–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jennings, W. G., & Reingle, J. M. (2012). On the number and shape of developmental/life-course violence, aggression, and delinquency trajectories: a state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lanza, S. T., & Rhoades, B. L. (2013). Latent class analysis: an alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 14, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lanza, S. T., Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., Cox, M. J., & The Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2011). Modeling multiple risks during infancy: contributions of a person-centered approach. Infant Behavior and Development, 34(3), 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCord, J., Widom, C. S., & Crowell, N. A. (Eds.). (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice (Panel of Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  18. McGrath, R. E., & Walters, G. D. (2012). Taxometric analysis as a general strategy for distinguishing categorical from dimensional latent structure. Psychological Methods, 17, 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences in kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moffitt, T. E. (2007). A review of research on the taxonomy of life-course-persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 49–74). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulvey, E. P. (2012). The pathways to desistance study: Design and methods. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from 2013-06-03 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p574246_index.html.
  24. Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
  25. Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005). Developmental trajectory groups: fact or a useful statistical fiction? Criminology, 43, 873–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raine, A., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Lynam, D. (2005). Neurocognitive impairments in boys on the life-course persistent antisocial path. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). Seductions of method: rejoinder to Nagin and Tremblay’s “Developmental trajectory groups: Fact or fiction?”. Criminology, 43, 905–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shader, M. (2003). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  32. Skardhamar, T. (2009). Reconsidering the theory of adolescent-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behaviour. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 863–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.Google Scholar
  34. Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., Seguin, J. R., Zoccolillo, M., Zelazo, P. D., Boivin, M., . . . Japel, C. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood: trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics, 114, e43–e50.Google Scholar
  35. Vaughn, M. G., DeLisi, M., Gunter, T., Fu, Q., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., & Howard, M. O. (2011). The severe 5 %: a latent class analysis of the externalizing behavior spectrum in the United States. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 75–80.Google Scholar
  36. Vaughn, M. G., Salas-Wright, C. P., DeLisi, M., & Maynard, B. R. (2014). Violence and externalizing behavior among youth in the United States: is there a severe 5 %? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walters, G. D. (2011). The latent structure of life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: is Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy a true taxonomy? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walters, G. D. (2012). Developmental trajectories of delinquent behavior: One pattern or several? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1192–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walters, G. D. (2013). The latent structure of criminal persistence: A taxometric analysis of offending patterns from late adolescence to early adulthood. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  40. Walters, G. D., & Ruscio, J. (2013). Trajectories of youthful antisocial behavior: categories or continua? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiesner, M., & Capaldi, D. M. (2003). Relations of childhood and adolescent factors to offending trajectories of young men. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 231–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeKutztown UniversityKutztownUSA

Personalised recommendations