Preliminary Cross-Sectional Validation of the CROPS 14-Item for Juvenile Offenders

Abstract

The Child Report of Posttraumatic Symptoms (CROPS) is an effective 26-item trauma assessment tool. Research has indicated a 14-item version of the CROPS for juvenile offenders with improved predictive accuracy for detecting trauma exposure among male offenders and commensurate accuracy for female offenders. However, the 14-item scale has yet to be validated for juvenile offenders with an established trauma measure. Cross-sectional retrospective data of 74 adjudicated youth (59.5% male) from the original CROPS 14-item psychometric study sample were used to examine the factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent and divergent validity of the 14-item scale. Findings indicated strong internal consistency and significant correlations with all scales of an established and more extensive trauma measure for children and adolescents. Findings also revealed a CROPS 12-item model explaining 36.9% of variance. Results supported both convergent and divergent validity, suggesting both the CROPS 14-item and 12-item may be used as valid trauma symptom screeners for juvenile offenders.

Keywords

trauma assessment juvenile offender CROPS TSCC

Juvenile offenders are highly susceptible to childhood maltreatment (Abram et al., 2004) and have likely been exposed to a multitude of traumatic experiences (Adams et al., 2013; Briere et al., 2016). Such experiences have been robustly established in the literature as a risk factor for juvenile delinquency (Malvaso et al., 2018; Onifade et al., 2014). Unequivocal findings establishing the empirical relation between extensive childhood trauma and higher rates of juvenile delinquency in the United States can be dated back to the 1960s (Silver et al., 1969). Since that time, rates of trauma within delinquent populations have been found to be upward of 90% (Abram et al., 2004; Ford et al., 2012; Ko et al., 2008; Lyons et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2002), with a majority percentage meeting full or partial criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Amatya & Barzman, 2012). Research demonstrates that the higher the frequency of trauma exposure, the more adjudicated youth report posttraumatic stress reactions, depression, and engage in delinquent behavior (Onifade et al., 2014). Current findings suggest that children with early trauma exposure regularly present with comorbid diagnoses—a substantial percentage of diagnoses include conduct-related disorders among juvenile offenders (Spinazzola et al., 2005; Teplin et al., 2002).

International research elucidates that rates of psychiatric disorders among adjudicated youth range from 70% to 90% (Colins et al., 2009). Other prevalence rates indicate juvenile offenders exhibit psychiatric disorders ranging from 40% to 82% (Cohen et al., 2010; Lyons et al., 2001) compared with the 9% to 33% found within the general population (Lyons et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2002). These rates of psychiatric disorder onset are 3 to 4 times higher than the general adolescent youth population (Merikangas et al., 2010). As a result, the past decade has seen an increase in the attention drawn to the unmet mental health needs of juvenile offenders (Becker et al., 2014).

Trauma exposure in childhood is associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress (Dembo et al., 2007; Kerig et al., 2016; Kerig et al., 2009), substance use, externalizing disorders (Ford et al., 2011), and affective disorders (King et al., 2011), respectively. Trauma exposure has also been linked to engagement in antisocial behavior and violent and nonviolent criminal offenses (Evans & Burton, 2013). Physical abuse in childhood directly relates to engagement in property crime, violent crime, and fraud (Shin et al., 2016) as well as proactive and reactive criminal thinking styles (Cuadra et al., 2014). In addition, Kopp et al. (2009) found that physical abuse is a predictor for total months of incarceration among delinquent offenders. Sexual abuse is associated with an increased risk for juvenile offending (Seto & Lalumiere, 2010) and adult criminality (Cuadra et al., 2014; Kopp et al., 2009). Neglect has been implicated in juvenile conduct problems (Ryan et al., 2013) and delinquency (Evans & Burton, 2013). Witnessing community violence is associated with delinquency and violent offending patterns (Baskin & Sommers, 2014) and predicts engagement in criminal behavior (Eitle & Turner, 2002).

The need to make meaning of exposure to trauma can influence ways in which youth process and cope with these experiences. The ability to accurately assess how youth interpret and process trauma is necessary for implementing interventions that build healthy processing skills and promote positive recovery (Simon et al., 2010). As such, it is imperative that practitioners are able to identify trauma symptoms and conceptualize how these symptoms inform the worldview of the adolescent to effectively provide treatment. Successful treatment provision thus necessitates appropriate evaluation utilizing instruments with the capacity to accurately detect trauma exposure and measure the severity of corresponding trauma symptoms (Grisso, 2005; Kazdin, 2006).

Understanding the implications of experiencing trauma for juveniles suggests a critical need for psychological instruments that can provide relevant information for practitioners. Decisions regarding the most appropriate evidence-based treatments to implement with juveniles who have experienced various forms of trauma, in part, rest on a foundation of valid and appropriate assessment (Dobson & Dobson, 2018). Sufficient assessment of juveniles is facilitated by the use of empirically validated measures, designed to assess specific factors associated with trauma. Administration of appropriate psychological measures yields data that can inform both diagnostic and treatment utility (Hunsley & Mash, 2008).

Data from appropriate assessment tools can inform selection and implementation of appropriate evidence-based treatments specific to the needs of clients (Chorpita et al., 2004; Kerig, 2013). Specifically, data acquired using appropriate psychological measures help identify characteristics and symptomology of juveniles, which allows for both accurate selection of evidence-based treatments for trauma (Chorpita et al., 2004) and the tailoring or modifying of treatments to match client idiosyncrasies (Stirman et al., 2013, 2017). Psychological measures are not only useful for identifying appropriate evidence-based treatments (e.g., Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapy, TARGET; Ford & Russo, 2006; Trauma Systems Therapy, TST; Brown et al., 2013; Saxe et al., 2006; Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Response to Chronic Stress, SPARCS; DeRosa & Pelcovitz, 2008; Habib et al., 2013), they can also be vital in determining the effectiveness of treatment throughout the process (Williams et al., 2005). Such attention to ongoing treatment effectiveness can allow for enhanced predictability of treatment outcome.

Contemporary rating scales for measuring psychological trauma contain several limitations when used with juvenile offender populations (Kerig, 2013; Perkins et al., 2014; Vergano et al., 2015). Copious valid and well-established psychological trauma questionnaires are designed to capture the severity of PTSD symptomology (Bremner et al., 2007; DiLillo et al., 2010). However, this narrow conceptualization of trauma symptomology can significantly constrain the measurement of the range of possible trauma symptoms not necessarily concomitant with typical PTSD presentations (Ford et al., 2008; Kerig, 2013). Given that youth offenders typically experience cumulative, chronic, and persistent stressors—adopting adaptive coping mechanisms accordingly (Bennett & Kerig, 2014; Ford & Russo, 2006)—these youth tend to exhibit symptoms consistent with complex trauma (Cook et al., 2005). Symptom clusters for juvenile offenders can manifest as callous-unemotional traits and emotional numbing (Allwood et al., 2011; Bennett & Kerig, 2014). Such strategies for regulating affect are not entirely consistent with PTSD diagnostic criteria. Consequently, psychometric detection and/or measurement of trauma symptomology can be difficult for the juvenile offender population (Perkins et al., 2016). Population-specific instruments therefore should increase the accuracy and sensitivity for detecting and measuring variation of trauma symptom manifest. Given the limited resources of forensic and community agencies, availability of valid and reliable assessment tools is paramount (Ford et al., 2008).

The Child Report of Posttraumatic Symptoms (CROPS; Greenwald & Rubin, 1999) is a 26-item measure that screens for a broad range of posttraumatic symptoms in children and adolescents and provides information about symptom severity. Numerous studies have established the validity, reliability, and internal consistency of the CROPS for juvenile offender populations (see Edner et al., 2017; Greenwald et al., 2001; Perkins et al., 2014, 2016). Recently, Edner et al. (2017) found support for an embedded 14-item factor within the CROPS specific for juvenile offenders (i.e., CROPS 14-item). The CROPS 14-item provided improved accuracy in detecting previous trauma exposure among male offenders (61.1% vs. 66.7%) and commensurate detection accuracy for female offenders (66.4%) compared with the CROPS total score. This abbreviated measure also demonstrated solid internal consistency for both male and female offenders, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .86 to .88 (Edner et al., 2017).

The CROPS 14-item was interpreted to measure affective symptoms commonly observed in trauma-related stress reactions (Edner et al., 2017; Kerig et al., 2016). Based on item content, high scores on this measure suggest feelings of anxiety oriented around the anticipation of negative future events. High scores suggest a youth who is experiencing a sense of inadequacy with depressive symptoms characterized by feelings of guilt, sadness, and isolation. Elevated scores could also indicate sleep problems (including nightmares) and concentration difficulties. Together, findings from Edner et al. (2017) suggest that the abbreviated 14-item CROPS measure could be a viable tool for measuring trauma symptoms among juvenile offenders. However, the CROPS 14-item has yet to validated with an established measure of trauma for children and adolescents. As the CROPS 14-item is a short and effective trauma screening tool specific for juvenile offenders, research is warranted for examining the psychometric validity of this instrument (Edner et al., 2017). This study contributes to the literature by providing such examination.

The objective of the current study is to examine the psychometric properties of the CROPS 14-item for juvenile offenders. The first aim of this study is to explore the factor structure of the measure. We hypothesized emersion of a one-factor structure consistent with Edner et al. (2017). The second aim was to examine the internal consistency of the CROPS 14-item. We hypothesized the CROPS 14-item will demonstrate good to excellent internal consistency (α > .80). The third aim is to establish convergent and divergent validity. For convergent validity, we hypothesized the CROPS 14-item will have positive moderate to high associations with the Anxiety, Depression, Anger, Posttraumatic Stress, Dissociation, and Sexual Concerns scales of a well-established trauma measure—Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC; Briere, 1996). For divergent validity, we hypothesized the CROPS 14-item will have nonsignificant associations with theoretically unrelated variables—participant age as well as scores on the Attitude to School and Attitude to Teachers subscales of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004).

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of a sample of juvenile offenders from the United States referred for clinical services by the Georgia State Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Participants were evaluated following conviction of an offense. Youth offense types included crimes against person, crimes against property, drug charges, public order violations, and status offenses. Caregivers provided consent for all participant data to be used for research purposes. Consent involved a complete discussion with potential participants regarding the research aims of the Juvenile Counseling and Assessment Project (JCAP); a written informed consent was obtained after this discussion. The Internal Review Board of the University of Georgia approved all research procedures.

A cross-sectional sample of the archival data used in Edner et al. (2017) was examined in the current study. Participants in this study (N = 74) consisted of 44 males (59.5%) and 30 females (40.5%). The self-identified racial breakdown consisted predominantly of African American participants (N = 45; 60.8%). Remaining sample demographics consisted of 16 White participants (21.6%), nine Latinx participants (12.2%), and four participants who identified as Multiracial (5.4%). Age of youth ranged from 13 to 17 years with a mean age of 15.20 (SD = 1.09). Youth offense types within the sample predominately consisted of crimes against person and/or property, drug and alcohol, public order violation, and/or status offenses.

Procedure

Trauma is defined as direct and/or vicarious exposure to violent or stressful event(s) early in life that exceed the dependable coping and/or defensive operations employed to counter the psychological impact of the event(s) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013; Terr, 1991). Trauma types were categorized by (a) exposure to physical and/or emotional abuse, (b) sexual abuse/assault, (c) emotional and/or physical neglect or deprivation, (d) grief reactions resulting from loss/separation from a loved one, (e) exposure to domestic or community violence, (f) experiencing two or more of the aforementioned trauma types, and/or (g) a single traumatic event as reported by Juvenile Tracking System (JTS) data.

Participant data were gathered through in-depth clinical interviews with both participant and caregiver(s) by graduate-level clinicians in training. Demographic information and legal history of participants was obtained via DJJ referral information and JTS data. Data of participants were included in the cross-sectional sample if they met the following criteria: (a) at least one reported traumatic event must have occurred prior to first legal offense(s), (b) information regarding the absence or presence of previous trauma exposure was obtained during the course of the clinical interview and/or psychological testing, and (c) both the CROPS and TSCC (Briere, 1996) were completed. Data were then excluded if scores on either TSCC validity scale exceeded the recommended invalidity cutoffs: Underresponse > T = 70 (reverse scored), Hyperresponse > T = 89 (Briere, 1996).

Principal author reviewed all documents to determine whether participants met inclusion criteria. To support the reliability of the data analysis process, team-based coding procedures were used. The principal author of this study conducted team-based coding with two other coders to increase validity of interpretation and discuss coding discrepancies in real time. Any identified discrepancies were discussed among the authors until consensus was achieved.

According to data, 42 (56.8%) participants were reported to have experienced at least one previous trauma. The majority of participants with trauma history endorsed experiencing multiple types of trauma (25; 59.5%). Remaining participants with trauma history reported only one trauma type. Five participants reported physical abuse (11.9%); four participants reported sexual abuse/assault (9.5%), five participants presented with single event traumas as reported by JTS data (11.9%), two participants reported witnessing domestic and/or community violence (4.8%), and one participant reported a history of grief and loss (2.4%).

Instruments

The TSCC (Briere, 1996) is a 54-item self-report questionnaire that measures trauma-related symptomology in children and adolescents (Briere, 1996). The TSCC was used as a measure of validity for the CROPS 14-item as it is one of the most commonly utilized trauma assessment tools for children and adolescents in clinical settings (Elhai et al., 2005). The TSCC is recommended for both brief trauma screenings and in-depth trauma assessments (Milne & Collin-Vezina, 2015) with high internal consistency across all scales—alpha coefficients range from .77 to .89 (Briere, 1996). The TSCC has been shown to demonstrate strong psychometric properties when used with juvenile offender populations (Butcher et al., 2015; Nilsson et al., 2008). The clinical scales of the TSCC include (a) Anxiety (ANX), (b) Depression (DEP), (c) Anger (ANG), (d) Posttraumatic Stress (PTS), (e) Dissociation (DIS), and (f) Sexual Concerns (SC).

The CROPS (Greenwald & Rubin, 1999) is a 26-item self-report questionnaire that screens for diagnostic symptoms of child trauma. The 14 items comprising the abbreviated measure were analyzed in this study. CROPS respondents are required to report symptoms experienced in the past week in a Likert-type scale (0 = none, 1 = some, 2 = lots). The full-scale CROPS has demonstrated good validity, reliability, and sensitivity across settings and populations (Greenwald & Rubin, 1999) and the 14-item version has demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency among juvenile offenders (Edner et al., 2017).

The Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd edition–Self-Report of Personality (BASC-2-SPR; Reynolds & Kamphaus) is a self-report rating scale that evaluates that children (ages 8–11) and adolescents’ (ages 12–21) adjustment and behavioral functioning. We used the BASC-2-SRP–Adolescent version (BASC-2-SRP-A) in the current study. The areas of functioning evaluated by the BASC-2 are as follows: School Problems, Internalizing Problems, Inattention/Hyperactivity, Emotional Symptoms, and Personal Adjustment. The BASC-2-SRP has generated internal consistency coefficients ranging from α = .61 to .90 and has exhibited sound psychometric properties with respect to convergent validity, discriminant validity, and test–retest reliability for individual and composites scales (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). The BASC-2-SRP scales used for this study included the Attitude to School and Attitude to Teachers subscales.

Data Analytic Strategy

This study utilized Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and JMP Statistical Discovery for data storage and statistical analyses. Validity indicators for TSCC indicated that 13 out of 87 participants had invalid profiles; invalid profiles were subsequently excluded from analyses. Prior to analysis, data were screened for univariate outliers. Z-score values that exceeded 3.2 SD above group means were excluded from analyses to improve accuracy estimates and reduce the probability of both Type I and Type II errors (Osborne & Waters, 2002). There were no missing data for completed CROPS protocols. For TSCC data, there were eight missing subscale scores across four of six TSCC subscales—ANX, DEP, PTS, and SC—suggesting values were missing at random. Missing data were evenly divided among seven participants (one participant had two missing scores). Missing data were replaced by multiple imputation procedures in SPSS with 10 iterations, allowing for approximation of real values (Patrician, 2002). No other data were subjected to multiple imputation procedures.

A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to explore the factor structure of the CROPS 14-item in this cross-sectional sample. To assess factorability, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was computed; this revealed a KMO statistic of .81, above the commonly recommended value of .60. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also significant, χ²(88) = 283.23, p < .001. Given these overall indicators, PCA was deemed to be suitable with all 14 items. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was not performed due to the nature of cross-sectional sampling (i.e., the cross-sectional sample used in the current study was included in the original PCA that elucidated the 14-item component of interest).

Internal consistency was calculated via coefficient alpha. Convergent validity was established with the TSCC and examined using Pearson product–moment correlations. The variables of participant age and participant scores on the Attitude to School and Attitude to Teachers subscales on the BASC-2-SRP were used to evaluate divergent validity of the CROPS 14-item. All coefficients were interpreted with 95% confidence.

Results

Factor Structure

A variety of factor retention methods were examined, per recommendation of Henson and Roberts (2006). The K1 method (eigenvalue >1; Kaiser, 1960) recommended retention of five factors; however, as the K1 method tends to overextract in cases of low saturation (Zwick & Velicer, 1986), additional methods were used. Visual examination of the scree plot, per criteria outlined by Cattell (1966), indicated that only one factor fell above the first inflection point and thus was retained. Parallel analysis with the raw data permutation at the 95th percentile of random data eigenvalues and minimum average partial analysis was used. Chi-square significance tests were also performed using maximum likelihood estimation factoring. Results revealed at least one common factor, χ²(91) = 279.1, p < .001, with no additional factors needed, χ²(77) = 81.2, p = .348. Examining all factor retention methods listed above resulted in the decision to retain a single factor, which had an eigenvalue of 4.59 compared with Factors 2 through 5 (1.39, 1.23, 1.09, 1.02). This unitary trauma factor reproduced 32.8% of the variance in the items. Coefficients were in the moderate to high range, indicating that most items were strongly associated with the extracted factor.

In contrast, Items 4 (r = .36) and 9 (r = .26) were weakly correlated with the extracted factor. A follow-up PCA was conducted to explore the 12-item factor structure of the CROPS using the aforementioned extraction methods. The K1 method recommended retention of three factors (eigenvalues = 4.43, 1.36, 1.10). Chi-square significance tests were performed using maximum likelihood estimation factoring. Results indicated at least one common factor, χ²(66) = 252.5, p < .001, with no additional factors needed, χ²(54) = 60.9, p = .217. This unitary trauma factor reproduced 36.9% of the variance in the items, with coefficients in the moderate to high range, indicating items were strongly associated with the extracted factor. Refer to Table 1 for the CROPS factor structure of the 14-item and 12-item models.

Table 1.

Summary of the Principal Component Analysis for the 14-Item and 12-Item CROPS Versions.

CROPS items (N = 74)	14-item factor	12-item factor
1. I find it hard to concentrate	.57	.57
2. I worry that bad things will happen	.76	.76
3. It is hard for me to go to sleep at night	.39	.38
4. I have bad dreams or nightmares	.36	—
5. I feel all alone	.67	.66
6. I feel strange or different than other kids	.57	.56
7. I feel like there’s something wrong with me	.68	.69
8. I feel like it’s my fault when bad things happen	.57	.58
9. I’m a jinx, or bad-luck charm	.26	—
10. I feel sad or depressed	.71	.71
11. I don’t feel like doing much	.66	.66
12. My future looks bad	.62	.63
13. I’m on the lookout for bad things that might happen	.43	.43
14. I am nervous or jumpy	.53	.54

Note. CROPS = Child Report of Posttraumatic Symptoms.

Internal Consistency

Reliability of the CROPS 14-item was analyzed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for intraclass correlations. CROPS 14-item demonstrated strong internal consistencies for the total sample (α = .83) and by gender, with alpha coefficients of α = .78 for male offenders and α = .87 for female offenders. All item total correlations were statistically significant (p < .001). When calculated using the 12-item structure, results were similar for the total sample (α = .84) and for both males (α = .79) and females (α = .87).

Convergent and Divergent Validity

To examine relations between the CROPS 14-item and the TSCC, we performed two-tailed Pearson product–moment correlations with the CROPS 14-item and all TSCC scales. CROPS 14-item total score statistically correlated with the TSCC; p < .01 for all TSCC scales (see Table 2 for correlation matrix of the CROPS 14-item). For the total sample, CROPS 14-item most strongly correlated with the TSCC Anxiety (ANX) scale (r = .66, p < .001) and Dissociation (DIS) scale (r = .64, p < .001). For female offenders, the CROPS 14-item statistically correlated with all TSCC scales, most strongly correlating with the ANX (r = .79, p < .001) and Posttraumatic Stress (PTS) scales (r = .73, p < .001). For male offenders, CROPS 14-item most strongly correlated with the DIS (r = .67, p < .001) and ANX (r = .59, p < .001). In contrast, the Sexual Concerns (SC) scale did not correlate with the CROPS 14-item at the .05 level for male offenders.

Table 2.

Convergent and Divergent Correlations With the CROPS 14-Item and 12-Item Model Among Juvenile Offenders.

CROPS 14-item	Total (N = 74)	Males (N = 44)	Females (N = 30)
TSCC: Anxiety (ANX)	.69***	.59***	.79***
TSCC: Depression (DEP)	.52***	.55***	.59***
TSCC: Anger (ANG)	.39***	.33*	.44*
TSCC: Posttraumatic Stress (PTS)	.48***	.38**	.73***
TSCC: Dissociation (DIS)	.64***	.67***	.60***
TSCC: Sexual Concerns (SC)	.36**	.13	.58***
BASC-2: Attitude to School	.18	−.05	.39*
BASC-2: Attitude to Teachers	.10	.01	.28
Participant age	−.08	−.22	.09
CROPS 12-item	Total (N = 74)	Males (N = 44)	Females (N = 30)
TSCC: Anxiety (ANX)	.66***	.56***	.82***
TSCC: Depression (DEP)	.54***	.56***	.62***
TSCC: Anger (ANG)	.40***	.30*	.47**
TSCC: Posttraumatic Stress (PTS)	.46***	.35*	.76***
TSCC: Dissociation (DIS)	.65***	.65***	.64***
TSCC: Sexual Concerns (SC)	.34**	.08	.59***
BASC-2: Attitude to School	.20	−.01	.39*
BASC-2: Attitude to Teachers	.12	.03	.28
Participant age	−.09	−.25	.11

Note. CROPS = Child Report of Posttraumatic Symptoms; TSCC = Traumatic Symptom Checklist for Children; ANX = Anxiety; DEP = Depression; ANG = Anger; PTS = Posttraumatic Stress; DIS = Dissociation; SC = Sexual Concerns; BASC-2 = Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd edition.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

To establish discriminant validity, relations between the CROPS 14-item, participant age, and BASC-2 scores on the Attitude to School and Attitude to Teachers subscales were examined. The CROPS 14-item did not statistically correlate with participant age (r = −.09, p = .467), Attitude to School (r = .18, p = .137), or Attitude to Teacher (r = .10, p = .406) subscales, indicating no relationship between the CROPS 14-item and these variables. When exploring the 12-item model of the CROPS, results were similar with respect to statistical significance of convergent variables and nonsignificance of divergent variables. Results were also consistent with the magnitude of correlations with respect to TSCC subtests for the total sample and by gender. Refer to Table 2 for correlation matrix of 12-item CROPS model.

Discussion

Results reveal that the CROPS 14-item is a reliable instrument for measuring trauma symptoms among both male and female juvenile offenders. The CROPS 14-item significantly correlated with all TSCC scales, with paucity of correlation between this measure and theoretically unrelated variables (i.e., participant age and the Attitude to School and Attitude to Teachers subtests from the BASC-3). These findings were consistent with the additional 12-item model. Together, these results provide preliminary construct validation of the CROPS 14-item for juvenile offenders and support the use of the CROPS 14-item as a trauma screening measure for this population. Findings also indicate the potential utility of a further reduced 12-item version of the CROPS, which showed promising results for operating as a trauma screening measure for youth offenders.

The CROPS 14-item demonstrated strong correlations, primarily clustering around the ANX and DIS scales of the TSCC for both male and female offenders, with high relations between the CROPS 14-item and SC for female offenders. These statistical relations suggest that the CROPS 14-item largely relates to symptoms of anxiety and dissociative reactions for delinquents generally and sexual concerns for female offenders specifically.

Statistical relations between TSCC scales and the CROPS 14-item indicate commensurate item content, predominately measuring the affective and mood-based reactions consistent with trauma-related stress. When examined by gender, findings remained consistent with the exception of the SC scale. Specifically, CROPS 14-item scores correlated with the SC scale for female offenders, but not for male offenders. This relational difference is consistent with previous research indicating that sexual abuse/assault is more common in female offenders compared with their male counterparts (Dembo et al., 2007; Wood et al., 2002). Together, findings suggest that the CROPS 14-item is a reliable screening instrument for broad trauma symptomology for juvenile offenders, providing clinical and diagnostic information and, based on the findings of this study, could potentially operate as an abbreviated version of the CROPS specific for this population.

Although results suggest the CROPS 14-item is a reliable screening measure, two items demonstrated weak correlations with the one-factor model: “It is hard for me to go to sleep at night” and “I’m a jinx, or bad-luck charm.” Follow-up analyses revealed a 12-item version of the CROPS accounted for a larger portion of the variance than the CROPS 14-item (33% vs. 37%). In addition, the 12-item version significantly correlated with the TSCC and did not correlate with the divergent measures. The 12-item model also performed with commensurate internal consistency compared with the CROPS 14-item. These findings suggest a 12-item version of the CROPS may perform as well as, or better then, the cross-validated CROPS 14-item. Follow-up research investigating the diagnostic efficacy of this updated 12-item version of the CROPS is warranted.

Assessments for trauma and/or posttraumatic stress reactions are not routinely administered in standard mental health screenings for juvenile offenders (Kerig, 2013). With often limited funding, limited staffing, and limited resources, juvenile justice clinicians are frequently faced with the reality of making difficult decisions with a modicum of data. These decisions—whether a juvenile offender qualifies for this therapy group or that intervention—often have real and sometimes deleterious effects on the lives of some of our most vulnerable youth. As such, having a short and convenient questionnaire that can be quickly and efficiently administered can provide the necessary data to inform appropriate treatment planning.

While results indicate the CROPS 14-item to be a reliable measure of trauma-related symptoms among juvenile offenders, a number of limitations to the current study should be noted. The sample of adjudicated youth in this study was court referred from a small demographic area of the United States; this may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research continuing this line of study require a separate cross-validation sample as well as samples from more demographically diverse regions to investigate differences that may exist based on variables such as ethnicity/race, offense type, age, current detention status, and cultural influences, respectively. Moreover, reliance on youth self-report may introduce varying degrees of error as well as provide underestimates of symptom severity on trauma incidences (Vergano et al., 2015).

Youth may be resistant to report exposure to potentially stigmatizing events (Perkins et al., 2016). Ascertaining accurate knowledge of trauma can be further complicated by how youth define their experiences (Kerig et al., 2011) as well as by youth employing emotional avoidance processes in the manifestation of adolescent delinquency (Marsiglio et al., 2014). This concern is amplified given that the CROPS 14-item does not have imbedded validity/reliability items to help determine profile validity. There is currently no strategy for identifying response inconsistency or biased response styles such as acquiescence or nonacquiescence. Thus, there is a possibility that invalid profiles were included in the data analyses. Furthermore, as trauma symptoms can overlap with symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and obsessive compulsive behavior (APA, 2013), it is possible that the CROPS items tapped into other psychiatric symptoms not necessarily related to, or in absence of, previous trauma exposure(s).

Despite the aforementioned limitations, significant results were found. Overall preliminary findings provide support for the CROPS 14-item as a stable and reliable trauma measure for juvenile offenders. The CROPS 14-item is short, convenient, and user-friendly with respect to measure format and scoring procedure. The structure of the measure is conducive for various clinical applications for juvenile offenders, including but not limited to, trauma screening, psychological evaluation, provision of evidence-based psychological treatments, and response to intervention. Likewise, the 12-item version of the CROPS should perform commensurate functions. As there is need for trauma screening measures specific for adjudicated youth (Ford, 2011), the CROPS 14-item (or the 12-item version) may better aid mental health practitioners responsible for making such psychological and/or legal recommendations. It is recommended that prospective research explore appropriate avenues for application of the CROPS 14-item with emphasis on examining sensitivity to change in response to psychological treatment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Benjamin J. Edner

References

Abram

Teplin

Charles

Longworth

McClelland

Dulcan

M. K.

(2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 403–410.

Adams

McCart

Zajac

Danielson

Sawyer

Kilpatrick

(2013). Psychiatric problems and trauma exposure in non-detained delinquent and nondelinquent adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(3), 323–331.

Allwood

M. A.

Bell

D. J.

Horan

(2011). Posttrauma numbing of fear, detachment, and arousal predict delinquent behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), 659–667.

Amatya

P. L.

Barzman

D. H.

(2012). The missing link between juvenile delinquency and pediatric posttraumatic stress disorder: An attachment theory lens. International Scholarly Research Notices: Pediatrics, 2012, Article 134541. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/134541

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Baskin

Sommers

(2014). Exposure to community violence and trajectories of violent offending. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(4), 367–385.

Becker

S. P.

Kerig

P. K.

Lim

Ezechukwu

(2014). Predictors of recidivism among delinquent youth: Interrelations among ethnicity, gender, age, mental health problems, and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 5(2), 145–160.

Bennett

D. C.

Kerig

P. K.

(2014). Investigating the construct of trauma-related acquired callousness among delinquent youth: Differences in emotion processing. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(4), 415–422.

Bremner

J. D.

Bolus

Mayer

E. A.

(2007). Psychometric properties of the early trauma inventory–self report. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195, 211–218.

10.

Briere

(1996). Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC): Profession manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

11.

Briere

Agee

Dietrich

(2016). Cumulative trauma and current posttraumatic stress disorder status in general population and inmate samples. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(4), 439–446.

12.

Brown

A. D.

McCauley

Navalta

C. P.

Saxe

G. N.

(2013). Trauma Systems Therapy in residential settings: Improving emotion regulation and the social environment of traumatized children and youth in congregate care. Journal of Family Violence, 28(7), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9542-9

13.

Butcher

Kretschmar

J. M.

Singer

M. I.

Flannery

D. J.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children in an at-risk sample of youth. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6(2), 251–268.

14.

Cattell

R. B.

(1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.

15.

Chorpita

B. F.

Taylor

A. A.

Francis

S. E.

Moffitt

Austin

A. A.

(2004). Efficacy of modular cognitive behavior therapy for childhood anxiety disorders. Behavior Therapy, 35, 263–287.

16.

Cohen

Bukstein

Walter

Benson

R. S.

Chrisman

Farchione

. . .Stock

(2010). Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 414–430.

17.

Colins

Vermeiren

Schuyten

Broekaert

(2009). Psychiatric disorders in property, violent, and versatile offending in detained male adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 31–38.

18.

Cook

Spinazzola

Ford

Lanktree

Blaustein

Cloitre

. . .van der Kolk

B. A.

(2005). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390–398.

19.

Cuadra

L. E.

Jaffe

A. E.

Thomas

DiLillo

(2014). Child maltreatment and adult criminal behavior: Does criminal thinking explain the association? Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(8), 1399–1408.

20.

Dembo

Schmeidler

Childs

(2007). Correlates of male and female juvenile offender abuse experiences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16, 75–94.

21.

DeRosa

Pelcovitz

(2008). Group treatment of chronically traumatized adolescents: Igniting SPARCS of change. In Brom

Pat-Horenczyk

Ford

J. D.

(Eds.), Treating traumatized children (pp. 225–239). Routledge.

22.

DiLillo

Hayes-Skelton

Fortier

Perry

A. R.

Evans

S. E.

Messman Moore

T. L.

. . .Fauchier

(2010). Development and initial psychometric properties of the Computer Assisted Maltreatment Inventory (CAMI): A comprehensive self-report measure of child maltreatment history. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 305–317.

23.

Dobson

K. S.

(2018). Evidence-based practice of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Guilford Press.

24.

Edner

B. J.

Glaser

B. A.

Calhoun

G. B.

(2017). Predictive accuracy and factor structure of the Child Report of Posttraumatic Symptoms (CROPS) among adjudicated youth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(6), 706–713.

25.

Eitle

Turner

R. J.

(2002). Exposure to community violence and young adult crime: The effects of witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and other stressful life events. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 39(2), 214–237.

26.

Elhai

J. D.

Gray

M. J.

Kashdan

T. B.

Franklin

C. L.

(2005). Which instruments are most commonly used to assess traumatic event exposure and posttraumatic effects? A survey of traumatic stress professionals. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 541–545.

27.

Evans

C. B.

Burton

D. L.

(2013). Five types of child maltreatment and subsequent delinquency: Physical neglect as the most significant predictor. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 6(4), 231–245.

28.

Ford

J. D.

(2011). Assessing child and adolescent complex traumatic stress reactions. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 4(3), 217–232.

29.

Ford

J. D.

Chapman

Connor

D. F.

Cruise

(2012). Complex trauma and aggression in secure juvenile justice settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 694–724.

30.

Ford

J. D.

Hartman

J. K.

Hawke

Chapman

J. C.

(2008). Traumatic victimization posttraumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse risk among juvenile justice-involved youths. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 1, 75–92.

31.

Ford

J. D.

Russo

(2006). Trauma-focused, present-centered, emotional self-regulation approach to integrated treatment for posttraumatic stress and addiction: Trauma Adaptive Recovery Group Education and Therapy (TARGET). American Journal of Psychotherapy, 60, 335–355.

32.

Greenwald

Rubin

(1999). Assessment of posttraumatic symptoms in children: Development and preliminary validation of parent and child scales. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(1), 61–75.

33.

Greenwald

Satin

Azubuike

Borgen

Rubin

(2001). Trauma-informed multi-component treatment for juvenile delinquents: Preliminary findings [Poster presentation]. Annual meeting of International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Antonio, TX, United States.

34.

Grisso

(2005). Evaluating the properties of instruments for screening and assessment. In Grisso

Vincent

Seagrave

(Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 71–93). Guilford Press.

35.

Habib

Labruna

Newman

(2013). Complex histories and complex presentations: Implementation of a manually-guided group treatment for traumatized adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 28(7), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9532-y

36.

Henson

R. K.

Roberts

J. K.

(2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416.

37.

Hunsley

Mash

E. J.

(2008). A guide to assessments that work. Oxford University Press.

38.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.

39.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2006). Assessment and evaluation in clinical practice. In Goodheart

C. D.

Kazdin

A. E.

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapy: Where practice and research meet (pp. 153–178). APA Books.

40.

Kerig

P. K.

(2013). Trauma-informed assessment and intervention. National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.

41.

Kerig

P. K.

Bennett

Chaplo

Modrowski

McGee

(2016). Numbing of positive, negative, and general emotions: Associations with trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress, and depressive symptoms among justice-involved youth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 29(2), 111–119.

42.

Kerig

P. K.

Moeddel

M. A.

Becker

(2011). Assessing the sensitivity and specificity of the MAYSI-2 for detecting trauma among youth in juvenile detention. Child and Youth Care Forum: Journal of Research and Practice in Children’s Services, 40(5), 345–362.

43.

Kerig

P. K.

Ward

R. M.

Vanderzee

K. L.

Moeddel

M. A.

(2009). Posttraumatic stress as a mediator of the relationship between trauma and mental health problems among juvenile delinquents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(9), 1214–1225.

44.

King

D. C.

Abram

K. M.

Romero

E. G.

Washburn

J. J.

Welty

L. J.

Teplin

L. A.

(2011). Childhood maltreatment and psychiatric disorders among detained youths. Psychiatric Services, 62, 1430–1438.

45.

Kassam-Adams

Wilson

Ford

Berkowitz

Layne

(2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child Welfare, education, first responders, healthcare, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 396–404.

46.

Kopp

Spitzer

Kuwert

Barnow

Orlob

Lüth

Dudeck

(2009). Psychiatric disorders and childhood trauma in prisoners with antisocial personality disorder. Fortschritte Der Neurologie-Psychiatrie, 77(3), 152–159.

47.

Lyons

J. A.

Baerger

Quigley

Erlich

Griffin

(2001). Mental health service needs of juvenile offenders: A comparison of detention, incarceration, and treatment settings. Social Policy, Research and Practice, 4, 69–85.

48.

Malvaso

C. G.

Delfabbro

Day

(2018). The maltreatment-offending association: A systematic review of the methodological features of prospective and longitudinal studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015620820

49.

Marsiglio

M. C.

Chronister

K. M.

Gibson

Leve

L. D.

(2014). Examining the link between traumatic events and delinquency among juvenile delinquent girls: A longitudinal study. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 7(4), 217–225.

50.

Merikangas

Burstein

Swanson

Avenevoli

Swendsen

(2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication—Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 980–989.

51.

Milne

Collin-Vezina

(2015). Assessment of children and youth in child protective services out-of-home care: An overview of trauma measures. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 122–132.

52.

Nilsson

Wadsby

Svedin

C. G.

(2008). The psychometric properties of the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC) in a sample of Swedish children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(6), 627–636.

53.

Onifade

Barnes

Campbell

Anderson

Petersen

Davidson

(2014). Juvenile offenders and experiences of neglect: The validity of the YLS/CMI with dual-status youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 46, 112–119.

54.

Osborne

Waters

(2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8(2).

55.

Patrician

P. A.

(2002). Multiple imputation for missing data. Research in Nursing and Health, 25(1), 76–84.

56.

Perkins

Calhoun

G. B.

Glaser

B. A.

(2014). An examination of the CROPS and BASC-2-SRP-A among adjudicated youth. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 14(3), 193–212.

57.

Perkins

Calhoun

G. B.

Glaser

B. A.

Kunemund

(2016). Identifying trauma symptoms among adjudicated youth using the BASC-2 SRP and CROPS. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27(5), 665–683.

58.

Reynolds

C. R.

Kamphaus

R. W.

(2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children (2nd ed.). AGS Publishing.

59.

Ryan

Williams

Courtney

(2013). Adolescent neglect, juvenile delinquency and the risk of recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 454–465.

60.

Saxe

G. N.

Ellis

B. H.

Kaplow

(2006). Collaborative care for traumatized children and teens: A Trauma Systems Therapy approach. Guilford Press.

61.

Seto

M. C.

Lalumiere

M. L.

(2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 526–575.

62.

Shin

S. H.

Cook

A. K.

Morris

N. A.

McDougle

Groves

L. P.

(2016). The different faces of impulsivity as links between childhood maltreatment and young adult crime. Preventive Medicine, 88, 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.03.022

63.

Silver

Dublin

Lourie

(1969). Does violence breed violence? Contributions from a study of the child abuse syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 152–155.

64.

Simon

V. A.

Feiring

Kobielski McElroy

(2010). Making meaning of traumatic events: Youths’ strategies for processing childhood sexual abuse are associated with psychosocial adjustment. Child Maltreatment, 15(3), 229–241.

65.

Spinazzola

Ford

J. D.

Zucker

van der Kolk

B. A.

Blaustein

(2005). Survey evaluates complex trauma exposure, outcome, and intervention among children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35, 433–439.

66.

Stirman

S. W.

Gamarra

J. M.

Bartlett

B. A.

Calloway

Gutner

C. A.

(2017). Empirical examinations of modifications and adaptations to evidence-based psychotherapies: Methodologies, impact, and future directions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24(4), 396–420.

67.

Stirman

S. W.

Miller

C. J.

Toder

Calloway

(2013). Development of a framework and coding system for modifications and adaptations of evidence-based interventions. Implementation Science, 8(1), 65.

68.

Teplin

Abram

McClelland

Dulcan

Mericle

(2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133–1143.

69.

Terr

(1991). Childhood trauma: An outline and overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 10–20.

70.

Vergano

C. M.

Lauriola

Speranza

A. M.

(2015). The Complex Trauma Questionnaire (ComplexTQ): Development and preliminary psychometric properties of an instrument for measuring early relational trauma. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1323.

71.

Williams

Ford

J. D.

Wolpaw

Pearson

Chapman

(2005). Not just child’s play: Mental health assessment in the juvenile justice system. Connecticut Child Health and Development Institute.

72.

Wood

Foy

Layne

Pynoos

Boyd James

(2002). An examination of the relationships between violence exposure posttraumatic stress symptomatology and delinquent activity: An “ecopathological” model of delinquent behavior among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 6, 127–147.

73.

Zwick

W. R.

Velicer

W. F.

(1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442.