Page 14 - Age of onset of disruptive behavior of residentially treated adolescents -Sjoukje de Boer

advance, therapists would for instance be able to adapt the treatment for this particular group.
During this same period, around the turn of the century the implications for clinical practice of the epidemiological research of Moffitt and colleagues concerning the age of onset of disruptive behavior received increasing attention (Moffitt, 1993, 2003; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001; Moffitt et al., 1996). In Moffitt’s dual taxonomic model, a distinction was made between two groups: individuals with Life-Course-Persistent (LCP) versus those with Adolescence-Limited (AL) antisocial behavior. A review indicated that in the decennia that followed, this distinction was (albeit roughly) replicated in many studies (Jennings & Reingle, 2012). The underlying mechanisms leading to LCP behavior are presumed to be different from those leading to AL disruptive behavior, with LCP behavior being more tenacious (Moffitt, 1993, 2003; Moffitt et al., 2008; Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002). This was probably one of the reasons why Moffitt initially suggested that, contrary to individuals with AL antisocial behavior, LCP individuals would not benefit from treatment once the conduct problems had persisted into adolescence (Moffitt et al., 1996). Of course, the assumption that the LCP individuals were untreatable was contrary to the view of most healthcare professionals and policy makers. A few decades later, these assertions have been revised and Moffitt stated that during adolescence, both LCP and AL groups need intervention. However, she stated that attrition rates would differ for both groups. Also, she argued that both groups require different intervention goals and approaches (e.g., Moffitt et al., 2008). This was in line with Frick (2016), who indicated that specific interventions may be particularly effective for youth on the adolescent onset pathway, while other interventions may be more effective for (a subgroup of) children with childhood-onset conduct problems. Interestingly, to our knowledge, thus far not much research has been conducted in clinical practice to support these assertions. Knowledge of the effectiveness of interventions specifically regarding childhood onset antisocial behavior in clinical practice is mostly based on studies with a younger population (Beauchaine, Webster-Stratton, & Reid, 2005; Hawes & Dadds, 2005; Houghton et al., 2017; Kolko et al., 2009; Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Hammond, 2004). These studies thus cannot be related to the assertions of Moffitt, because they do not target disruptive behavior in adolescence.
12