Multiple Gating: A Multistage Assessment Procedure for Identifying Youths at Risk for Delinquency

A multistage screening device, called “multiple gating,” is presented to screen delinquent youths from nondelinquent youths. The concurrent validity of the screening device was tested on a sample of 102 12- to 16-year-old boys. The multiple-gating component consisted of three increasingly more expensive sequential assessments. Teacher ratings of the boys' problem behavior in the school constituted the first gate. A risk group derived from this first gate was then assessed again by means of the parents' telephone report of conduct problems at home. The risk group derived from this second gate was subsequently assessed by means of the most expensive screening, an interview with the child and parents about family-management practices. Results show that each successive gate improved the percentage of valid positives, from 24.5% to 56.3%. The three gates produced error rates of 43.8% false positives and 5.8% false negatives. The screening device correctly classified 86% of the recidivists. The average self-reported delinquency of the youths in the risk group was found to be significantly higher than that in the nonrisk group, suggesting the eventual predictive validity of the screening procedure. The multiple-gating procedure classified delinquent and nondelinquent youths as well as an optimal single-stage screening procedure; furthermore, the multiple-gating procedure was 58% less expensive.

[1]  R. Loeber,et al.  Early predictors of male delinquency: a review. , 1983, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  R. Loeber,et al.  The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: a review. , 1982, Child development.

[3]  P. Chamberlain,et al.  A comparative evaluation of a parent-training program. , 1982 .

[4]  Don M. Gottfredson,et al.  Screening for Risk , 1980 .

[5]  Bob Ross,et al.  Effective Correctional Treatment: Bibliotherapy for Cynics , 1979 .

[6]  G. Patterson,et al.  Maintenance of treatment effects: Some considerations concerning family systems and follow-up data. , 1979 .

[7]  C. Edelbrock,et al.  The classification of child psychopathology: a review and analysis of empirical efforts. , 1978, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  R. Forehand,et al.  Generality of treatment effects with parents as therapists: A review of assessment and implementation procedures* , 1977 .

[9]  William E. Wright,et al.  Community Prevention and Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency , 1977 .

[10]  G. Patterson Interventions for boys with conduct problems: multiple settings, treatments, and criteria. , 1974, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[11]  K. Polk,et al.  SOCIAL CLASS, SCHOOL EXPERIENCE, AND DELINQUENCY , 1974 .

[12]  G. Patterson,et al.  Intervention for families of aggressive boys: a replication study. , 1973, Behaviour research and therapy.

[13]  J. F. Alexander,et al.  Short-term behavioral intervention with delinquent families: impact on family process and recidivism. , 1973, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[14]  P. F. Briggs,et al.  An application of predicton tables to the study of delinquency. , 1961 .

[15]  P. Meehl,et al.  Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  A. Reiss, The Accuracy, Efficiency, and Validity of a Prediction Instrument , 1951, American Journal of Sociology.