Psychometric evaluation of the Forensic Inpatient Observation Scale (FIOS) in youngsters with a judicial measure

Chinese Medicine

Ilja L Bongers¹  Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen¹ 

[1] GGzE Center for child & adolescent psychiatry, PO BOX 909, 5600 AX Eindhoven, the Netherlands

关键词: inpatients;    behavioral functioning;    juvenile delinquents;   

Others  :  791538
DOI  :  10.1186/1753-2000-5-30

 received in 2011-05-17, accepted in 2011-09-27,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

In this article, the psychometric properties of the Forensic Inpatient Observation Scale (FIOS) were examined. This instrument was developed to observe behavioral functioning of forensic psychiatric patients. Up till now, it has only been used among adult forensic psychiatric patients and this is the first study in which the FIOS is used with youngsters.

Methods

Data were gathered of 133 patients. The FIOS was routinely used to assess the psychiatric condition of youngsters at fixed intervals with a three-month time period between each measurement. Ward staff working in close contact with the patient conducted the assessments. Of these 133 patients, an YSR/ASR questionnaire was available for 96 of them and a TRF for 110 of the 133 patients. For the descriptive, reliability and validity analyses, SPSS version 16.0 was used. Factor analyses were performed by means of Mplus Version 5.2.

Results

A series of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses revealed a five-factor structure for the FIOS. The five-factor structure consisted of the following scales: self-care, social behavior, oppositional behavior, verbal skills and distress. The insight scale of the original factor structure could not be replicated in the youth sample. Cronbach's alpha's of the five scales ranged from .70 to .85. The self-care, verbal skills and oppositional behavior scales of the FIOS showed no relation with emotional and behavior problems reported by the patients themselves or their teachers. The distress scale of the FIOS did show a relation with the emotional problems reported by patients themselves and the social behavior scale with behavioral problems as reported by teachers.

Conclusions

The internal consistency of the FIOS was sufficient and the factor structure in the present sample of youngsters was in general comparable to the original factor structure in an adult sample. Its value lies in the focus on behavioral functioning of youngsters with judicial measures. What remains to be seen is whether this instrument is sensitive enough to register all aspects of behavioral changes, whether the interrater reliability is sufficient, and whether it has predictive validity to relapse and recidivism.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 van Nieuwenhuizen and Bongers; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Colins O, Vermeiren R, Vahl P, Markus M, Broekaert E, Doreleijers T: Parent-reported attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and subtypes of conduct disorder as risk factor of recidivism in detained male adolescents. Eur Psychiatry 2011, in press.
• [2]Hart-Kerkhoffs LA, Doreleijers TA, Jansen LM, Van Wijk AP, Bullens RA: Offense related characteristics and psychosexual development of juvenile sex offenders. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2009, 3:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Ward T, Brown M: The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychol Crime Law 2004, 10:243-257.
• [4]Whitehead E, Mason T: Assessment of risk and special observations in mental health practice: a comparison of forensic and non-forensic setting. Int J Ment Health Nu 2006, 15:235-241.
• [5]Van der Helm GHP, Stams GJJM, Van der Laan PH: Measuring Group Climate in a Forensic setting. Prison J 2011, 91:158-177.
• [6]Timmerman IGH, Emmelkamp PMG: The effects of cognitive-behavioral treatment for forensic inpatients. Int J Offender Th 2005, 49:590-606.
• [7]Timmerman IGH, Vastenburg NC, Emmelkamp PMG: The forensic inpatient observation scale (FIOS): development, reliability and validity. Crim Behav Ment Health 2001, 11:144-162.
• [8]Nijman H, Evers C, Merckelbach H, Palmstierna T: Assessing aggression severity with the revised staff observation aggression scale. J Nerv Ment Dis 2002, 190:198-200.
• [9]Hornsveld RHJ, Nijman H, Hollin CR, Kraaimaat FW: Development of the Observation Scale for Aggressive Behavior (OSAB) for Dutch forensic psychiatric inpatients with an antisocial personality disorder. Int J Law Psychiat 2007, 30:480-491.
• [10]Chakhssi F, De Ruiter C, Bernstein D: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Behavioral Status Index: A nurse-rated assessment tool. Assessment 2010, 17:58-69.
• [11]Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA: Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington: VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families; 2001.
• [12]Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA: Manual for the ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. Burlington: VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families; 2003.
• [13]Florsheim P, Shotorbani S, Guest-Warnick G, Barratt T, Hwang WC: Role of the working alliance in the treatment of delinquent boys in community-based programs. J Clin Child Psychol 2000, 29:94-107.
• [14]Derogatis LR: SCL-90: Administration, Scoring and Procedures Manual-I for R(evised) Version. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Clinical Psychometrics Research Unit; 1977.
• [15]Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE: STAI Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970.
• [16]Verhulst FC, van der Ende J, Koot H: Manual for the Youth Self Report (in Dutch). Rotterdam: Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus Medical Centre/Sophia; 1997.
• [17]Vanheusden K, Van der Ende J, Mulder CL, Van Lenthe FJ, Verhulst FC, Mackenbach JP: Beliefs about mental health problems and help-seeking behavior in Dutchyoung adults. Soc Psych Psych Epid 2009, 44:239-246.
• [18]Verhulst FC, Van der Ende J, Koot HM: Manual for the Teacher's Report Form (TRF). Rotterdam: Erasmus University/Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Sophia Children's Hospital; 1997.
• [19]Muthén LK, Muthén BO: Mplus Statistic Analysis with latent variables - User's Guide. 5th edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998.
• [20]Flora DB, Curran PJ: An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 2004, 9:466-491.
• [21]Bentler PM: Comparative fix indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990, 107:238-246.
• [22]Tucker LW, Lewis C: A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973, 38:1-10.
• [23]Steiger JH: A note on multiple sample extensions of the RMSEA fit index. Struct Equ Modeling 1998, 5:411-419.
• [24]Hu L-T, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999, 6:1-55.
• [25]Nunnally JC: Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill; 1978.
• [26]Delaney KR: Learning to observe in context: Child and adolescent inpatient mental health assessment. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs 2006, 19:170-174.
• [27]Salbach-Andrae H, Lenz K, Lehmkuhl U: Patterns of agreement among parent, teacher and youth ratings in a referred sample. Eur Psychiatry 2009, 24:345-351.
• [28]Van der Helm P: First do no Harm Living group climate in secure juvenile correctional institutions. Amsterdam: SWP; 2011.