Page 117 - Age of onset of disruptive behavior of residentially treated adolescents -Sjoukje de Boer

respondents were five years of age. Contrary to nowadays practice in The Netherlands, professionals at that time did not specifically report on disruptive behavior, although
they had the opportunity to indicate any striking features of the child. The files of the subsample were compared to those of a control group matched on their date of birth
and sex, who in adolescence had no reported history of behavioral or psychiatric problems. Results indicated that both teachers and professionals made significantly
more remarks regarding disruptive behavior in the files of the future inpatients. The
area’s under the curve (AUC), indicating sensitivity (the probability that a child with disruptive behavior at the age of five will belong to the orthopsychiatric sample) and specificity (the probability that a child without disruptive behavior at the age of five
will belong to the control group) were significant. For the teachers’ remarks the AUC 7 was .79, and for the YHC professionals’ remarks the AUC was .73.
Next, chapter 3 aimed to examine whether participants admitted to the orthopsychiatric facility (n=203) with EO disruptive behavior (n=134) differed from individuals with AO disruptive behavior (n=69) on childhood characteristics. Results showed that the two groups differed on a number of childhood characteristics that previously have been associated with life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. Individuals with grade retention in primary school, childhood impulsive behavior, and a history of physical abuse, had the highest probability of being in the EO group.
The aim of chapter 4 was to examine the outcome (i.e., reduction of symptoms between admission and discharge) of individuals with EO (n=85) versus AO disruptive behavior (n=60). This was prompted by the suggestion that individuals with LCP antisocial behavior would be less susceptible to treatment (Moffitt et al., 2008; Moffitt et al., 1996). Outcome of the sample was determined using change in mean scores between admission and discharge as well as the Reliable Change Index (Hageman & Arrindell, 1999, 1999a; Jacobson & Truax, 1991) on the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90- R)(Arrindell & Ettema, 2003). Dropout was included because it indicates likelihood of being treated. The results showed that the EO group more often dropped out than the AO group (44.4% versus 24.7%). As regards outcomes on the SCL-90-R, improvements in both onset groups were similar.
115