Page 59 - Age of onset of disruptive behavior of residentially treated adolescents -Sjoukje de Boer

Introduction
In an attempt to explain disruptive behavior, several theoretical models have
been posited, among which the developmental theory of Moffitt (1993). Compared to
others, this theory offers an extra dimension because it explains patterns of disruptive behavior over the course of an individual’s life. Several studies have, however, questioned the usefulness of the developmental theory for clinical practice (Fairchild 4 et al., 2013; López-Goñi, Fernández- Montalvo, Illescas, Landa, & Lorea, 2008; Vermeiren, 2003).
In epidemiological research, Moffitt (Moffitt, 1993, 2003) found that a small part of the population (6.2%) engaged in disruptive behavior at a very young age, which was likely to persist later on. This group was labeled life-course-persistent (LCP). A larger group (23.6%), labeled as adolescence-limited (AL), involved in disruptive behavior only during adolescence. During adolescence the groups did not differ in frequency and severity of criminal offending, although it was argued that they differed in etiology, developmental course, prognosis, and classification of their behavior as either normative or pathological (Fergusson et al., 2000; Moffitt, 1993, 2003; Moffitt et al., 2008; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). Most studies on trajectories of disruptive behavior were consistent with the taxonomy of Moffitt (Aguilar et al., 2000; Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Bongers, Koot, Van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2004; Broidy et al., 2003; Dandreaux & Frick, 2009; Fairchild et al., 2013; Fergusson et al., 2000; Fontaine et al., 2009; Jennings & Reingle, 2012; Kratzer & Hodgins, 1999).
Initially, it was suggested that LCP individuals were less likely to benefit from treatment once their conduct problems had persisted into adolescence (Moffitt et al., 1996). The assumption that LCP individuals are untreatable does not comply with the view of most therapists. More recently, Moffitt adjusted her assertions and argued that in adolescence both LCP and AL groups need intervention, although they require different intervention goals and approaches (Moffitt et al., 2008). Because individuals on the LCP antisocial behavior pathway have an increased risk to encounter social and mental health problems later in life (e.g., Bardone, Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, & Silva, 1996), developing effective interventions for this group carries clinical and societal relevance.
57