Differences between Risk Factors for Truancy and Delinquency in Dutch Adolescents
Master thesis Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences Graduate School of Child Development
University of Amsterdam L.B. van der Woude 10868704
Under the guidance of: T. van der Stouwe Amsterdam, June 13
Abstract
The present study examined differences in risk factors for truancy and delinquency. Research questions were: (1) Which risk factors are significantly different between truants and
delinquents? (2) Which risk factors make the strongest distinction between truancy and delinquency? Participants were Dutch adolescents (N = 365) who received a penal sanction in the Netherlands. 83% (n = 304) of them violated the penal law, and 17% (n = 62) received the penalty for truancy. Differences in risk factors for truancy and delinquency were found for age and parental punishment. Binary logistic regression showed that only parental punishment retained its predictive effects when controlling for other differences. Truants experienced a higher amount of parental punishment, while parents of delinquent adolescents did not punish as much. The present study shows that addressing dysfunctional home circumstances could be more important for truants, indicating that existing interventions do not differentiate enough between truants and delinquents.
Differences between Risk Factors for Truancy and Delinquency in Dutch Adolescents Literature
Truancy is a key problem among adolescents, with many possible negative consequences (D’Amico, Edelen, Miles, & Morral, 2008; Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2012). It has been considered as either a mild form of delinquency or a determinant of delinquency (Kodama & Hess, 2010; Nolan, Cole, Wroughton, Clayton-Code, & Riffe, 2013). However, not all who skip school regularly will demonstrate delinquent behaviour, and not all delinquents
experience trouble attending school. There is clear indication of overlap between truancy and delinquency, although surprisingly, little is known about the differences in risk factors (Huizinga & Jakob-Chien, 1998).
Many studies describe truancy as a risk factor for delinquency. Notably, even though they share several risk factors, there are multiple differences between truancy and
delinquency, and their risk factors (Henry et al., 2012; Kodama & Hess, 2010; Nolan et al., 2013). This is especially visible in studies that individually review delinquency or truancy. The present study therefore considers truancy and delinquency as two different constructs. The term adolescent delinquent refers to minors who have violated the penal code (De Jonge & Van der Linden, 2013). Truancy will be defined as skipping school without a valid excuse (Henry & Thornberry, 2010).
Adolescents who regularly skip school violate the Dutch law. In the Netherlands the law requires children to attend school on a daily basis, from the age of five to 16. If
adolescents have reached the age of 16 without a high school diploma, attending school is obligated until the age of 18 (Art. 3 Compulsory Education). Every school has to record absences, whether they were excused or not. Adolescents with too many recorded absences will be reported to the attendance officer. An estimated 1% to 5% of all school-aged adolescents experience difficulties in attending school regularly (Kodama & Hess, 2010).
Truancy can be caused by multiple factors, and family, school and individual factors, are the three primary domains thought to contribute to truancy (Dimmick, Correa, Liazis, & McMichael, 2011; Baker, Sigman, & Nugent, 2001). According to different studies, the most influential risk factors are a poor living situation, low school competence, low parental education, and an authoritarian parenting style (Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989;
Ensminger Lamkin, & Jacobson, 1996; Henry, 2007; Henry & Huizinga, 2007; Nolan et al., 2013). Some of these risk factors are also known risk factors for delinquency, such as low parental education, and an authoritarian parenting style (Harris-McKoy & Cui, 2013). In addition, adolescents who do not feel connected to school are more likely to be skipping school frequently (Henry, 2007). This can be substantiated by Hirschi’s social control theory (1986), one of the dominant theories in explaining delinquency. This theory proposes that adolescents who have insufficient bonds with prosocial peers and institutions, like school and sport clubs, feel less restricted by prosocial norms and are therefore more likely to display problem behaviour, such as skipping school. Although this theory has received much empirical support, the included construct of self-control is difficult to define and contextual and situational opportunities should not be excluded (Vazsonyi, Roberts, Huang, & Vaughn, 2015). Moreover, the theory focusses mainly on nurture, while nature can be of influence as well and should not be underestimated (Vazsonyi, et al., 2015).
Other characteristics that influence truancy are age and socio-economic status (SES). There are more adolescents from low- and medium SES families among truants (Dahl, 2015). Older adolescents are more likely to skip school than younger adolescents, but differences in the occurrence of truancy in boys versus girls are still unclear (Henry & Thornberry, 2010; Caims, Caims, & Neckerman, 1989). A bigger male share in truancy would correspond with the fact that boys break the penal law more often than girls and show higher rates of antisocial behaviour (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001).
Attending school is important, because school absence can lead to poor life outcomes (Henry et al., 2012; Kodama & Hess, 2010; Nolan et al., 2013). Adolescents who attend school regularly are more likely to be successful in life than adolescents who do not (Henry et al., 2012). Moreover, adolescents who regularly skip school have fewer opportunities to learn and have lower achievement potential, because truancy often leads to school drop-out, and – indirectly – to delinquency (Henry et al., 2012; Kodama & Hess, 2010; Nolan et al., 2013). Furthermore, research shows that truancy is linked to different psychosocial deficits, such as low self-esteem, social isolation, social anxiety, educational failures and substance abuse (Dahl, 2015), which substantiates the social control theory (Hirschi, 1986). Moreover, adolescents who frequently skip school, are more engaged in substance use than adolescents that hardly skip classes (Henry & Thornberry, 2010), presumably because they are using drugs during truancy, mostly due to a lack of supervision (Dahl, 2015)
Recent studies indicate that truancy is part of the externalizing behaviour spectrum (Hirschfield & Gasper, 2011). Truancy has a direct effect on problem behaviour (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2012), which is a predictor of delinquency (Farrington, 1995). Like truancy, delinquency is a common problem in almost every country, and multiple programs and interventions try to reduce this phenomenon in order to create a safer society (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2012). Adolescent delinquency is a well-studied subject in social sciences, which aims to understand this kind of behaviour (Holton, Rutter, & Giller, 1985; Loeber & Farrington, 2000).
In the Netherlands adolescent delinquents are adolescents aged 12 to 17, who have broken the penal law. Since the beginning of the 20th century, adolescent delinquents are treated differently than adult offenders, because they are thought to be less accountable for their behaviour (De Jonge & Van der Linden, 2013). When adolescents have violated the penal code, they are not just punished like adult offenders, but are treated instead. The
pedagogical aspect of the treatment must dominate, although this treatment can still come with for instance, an exclusion from society in a detention facility for children and adolescents (Siegel & Welsh, 2014).
Although there are a lot of known risk factors for delinquency, most risk factor
primarily focus on five domains: community, school, family, peers, and individual (Murray & Farrington, 2010). In adolescence, substance use plays a big role in delinquency, similar to truancy. Numerous studies have found a relation between delinquency and substance use (e.g., D’Amico et al., 2008; Van der Put, Creemers, & Hoeve, 2014). Similar to truancy, the direction of the relation between delinquency and substance use is hard to identify, but the impact is substantial. For instance, substance using adolescent delinquents have more risk factors for and less protective factors against delinquency (Van der Put, et al., 2014), and they are at greater risk for recidivism (Hoeve, McReynolds, & Wasserman, 2014).
On the family level, parenting style plays an important role. Parenting style is a multidimensional characteristic, which explains why most questionnaires focus on different aspects of parenting (Baumrind, 1971). The most effective parenting style for a successful life is an authoritative style of parenting, which is characterised by a responsive and demanding style, but also leaves room for psychological autonomy (Steinberg, 2001). An authoritarian parenting style is known as a style with more negative consequences (Steinberg, 2001). Parenting is related to delinquency, especially when it consists of psychological control and negative aspects of support, like neglect, hostility and rejection (Hoeve et al., 2009).
Furthermore, research has shown that parenting style has a significant influence on school drop-out. Adolescents raised by more authoritative parents are more likely to graduate than adolescents with parents who have low acceptance and little supervision (Blondal & Adalbjarnardottir, 2009). Moreover, authoritative parenting is positively associated with
student engagement, which is known to reduce the chances of skipping school (Henry & Huizinga, 2007; Simons-Morton & Chen, 2009).
While the role of different factors in the onset and escalation of delinquency may vary across adolescents, the most influential risk factors are low IQ, low school achievement, poor parental supervision, parenting style, low family income, antisocial peers, and impulsiveness (Harris-McKoy & Cui, 2013; Murray & Farrington, 2010). It is known that truancy and delinquency share many similar demographic, contextual and relational risk factors, and that both are related to each other, although they aren’t the same (Henry et al., 2012; Kodama & Hess, 2010; Nolan et al., 2013; Vaughn et al., 2011). This difference can arguably be found in differences in risk factors between both. To our knowledge, to date, there are no studies, Dutch or foreign, that have identified differences in risk factors between delinquency and truancy. In practice, this means that there is no clear distinction between truants and delinquents, and because of a lack of knowledge, both groups receive the same or similar treatment.
This lack of knowledge about the differences between truancy and delinquency is undesirable, because according to the Risk Needs Responsivity principles (RNR; Bonta & Andrews, 2007) interventions are more effective when taking risk (factors) into account. More knowledge related to the interface between truancy and delinquency can lead to more effective interventions for the high-risk population. If the risks and needs of delinquents and truants are different, differential treatment is warranted. By knowing the differences in risk factors between delinquents and truants, treatment can measure up to the RNR principles and be more effective in treating truancy specifically.
The present study tries to fill the gap in existing research by investigating the differences in risk factors between truants and delinquents in Dutch adolescents. The following research questions will be examined:
1. Which risk factors are significantly different between truants and delinquents? 2. Which risk factors make the strongest distinction between truancy and delinquency? It is hypothesized that there is a difference in the influence of the risk factors age, educational level, antisocial peers, substance use, school competence and parenting style between truancy and delinquency, and that there is no difference between truants and delinquents on gender and ethnicity. Furthermore, we expect parenting style and school competence to make the strongest distinction between truancy and delinquency (Henry et al., 2012; Kodama & Hess, 2010; Nolan et al., 2013; Vaughn et al., 2011).
Method Sample
Participants were Dutch adolescents (N = 365) who received a penal sanction in the Netherlands. Of these adolescents 59% (n = 273) were male and 41% (n = 186) of the adolescents were female. Their age range was between 12 and 18 years old (M = 15.7, SD = 1.4). The adolescents were split into two groups, 83% (n = 304) of them violated the penal law, and 17% (n = 62) received the penalty for skipping school frequently. Adolescents received a 15 euro gift certificate for participation, while the parent received a 7.50 euro gift certificate.
Instruments
The current study used data obtained by Van der Stouwe, Asscher, Hoeve, van der Laan, and Stams (In press). A research assistant explained research procedures to the adolescents to obtain their informed consent. Selected risk factors were: gender, age,
ethnicity, educational level, antisocial peers, substance use, school competence, and parenting style. Educational level was used instead of IQ, because IQ measures were not available for all adolescents. Most data was collected by an assembled questionnaire. First, adolescents were asked to fil in the items for gender, age, ethnicity, and living situation. Information about
substance use and antisocial peers was retrieved through case file analysis. For the remaining risk factors, information from Routine Outcome Monitoring questionnaires was used. If face-to-face questionnaire administration was not possible, questionnaires were administered by phone.
Parenting style was measured by the Abbreviated Scale for Parenting Behaviour ([Verkorte Schaal Opvoedersgedrag], VSOG, Vermulst, Kroes, De Meyer, Van Leeuwen, & Veerman, 2011). This questionnaire contains 25 items with a 5-point scale ranging from 0 = almost never to 4 = almost always, which measures the scales positive parenting behaviour,
rules, punishment, harsh penalties and rewarding. The scale harsh penalties was removed
from the questionnaire, to prevent negative parental reactions to this scale. Cronbach’s alphas were α = .64 for positive parenting behaviour, α = .79 for rules, α = .86 for punishment, and α = .77 for rewarding.
School competence was measured by the Dutch version of the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents ([Competentie Belevingsschaal voor Adolescenten], CBSA, Treffers et al., 2002). It has 35 items, where the adolescents first have to choose which of two sentences fits them best, and then have to decide whether this sentence is either a little, or completely true for them. For the present study, the scale school competence was used. Cronbach’s alpha was α = .58.
Of all adolescents, only one was not included in the analyses, because of missing items on the parenting questionnaire. In order to perform chi-square analyses, continuous variables were transformed into dichotomous variables. The variable age was split based on the median. School competence and parenting style were split by ranking them, followed by splitting them by the mean. Educational level was split based on a lower or higher educational level.
Ethnicity was split into native Dutch and ethnic minority. Statistical analysis
Statistical program IBM SPSS Statistic version 20 was used to analyse the data. In order to examine differences between truancy and delinquency, chi-square tests were performed to find a difference on the variables between truants and delinquents. Binary logistic regression analyses was used to examine the multivariate correlations.
Results
Chi-square tests were conducted to examine the differences between delinquents and truants. Table 1 shows a significant difference between delinquency and truancy in age (χ2 (1)
= 4.08, p = .043). Truants were generally older than delinquents. Furthermore, there was a difference between groups on parental punishment (χ2 (1) = 9.90, p = .002). Parents of truants
used more punishment than parents of delinquents. No significant differences between truants and delinquents were found for gender, ethnicity, antisocial peers, substance use, school competence, educational level, and the remaining scales of parenting style: positive parenting behaviour, rules, and rewarding.
Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the unique effect of the significant predictors, controlling for the other predictors. Variables were included into the model if they turned out to be significant in the chi-square analyses. The logistic regression model correctly classified 83% of participants, which is significantly better than the model without predictors (χ2 (3) = 13.11, p = .004). Table 2 shows that parenting style – punishment
has the strongest association with truancy and that there is no interaction effect between age and parents using more punishment. Although truants were significantly older, this does not have a predictive value in predicting delinquency versus truancy.
Discussion
The present study examined the differences in risk factors between truancy and delinquency in Dutch adolescents, and the value of these risk factors in predicting
style, will have a greater risk at skipping school frequently than at becoming delinquent. Although older adolescents were more often truants, and younger adolescents more often delinquents, age was not predictive of delinquency versus truancy. No differences between truants and delinquents were found with regard to gender, ethnicity, antisocial peers, substance use, school competence, educational level, and the remaining scales of parenting style; positive parenting behaviour, rules, and rewarding.
The difference in parental punishment could indicate that truancy is a consequence of too much discipline and punishment. This is in contrast to delinquency, where low discipline and weak parent-child bonds are indicators of early adolescent behavioural problems and criminal activities (Halgunseth, Perkins, Lippold, & Nix, 2013). Moreover, adolescents who experience a lot of parental punishment and supervision could skip school more often to get away from this supervision and discipline. However, we would expect at least one of the other scales of parenting styles: positive parenting behaviour, rules and rewards, to be predictive of truancy too. For instance the scale rules, related to discipline, should have made a difference then, which was not the case in the present study. Although the influence of parenting style was expected, because an authoritarian parenting style is known to be an influential risk factor (Nolan et al. 2013), the influence of only parental punishment is rather unexpected.
Because causal effects could not be examined in current study, a second explanation for this relationship could be that parents take more disciplinary measures after finding out about truancy. When truancy is recognized, the adolescent is strongly monitored by an attendance officer. This attendance officer supports the adolescent to attend classes and, moreover, will discipline the student when skipping classes (https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/). These disciplinary actions could reflect on the parents, who would want their children to attend their classes even more. Subsequently, the parents could get frustrated, which might lead to more discipline and punishment, in particular because solving ambivalence towards
school participating is harder when the adolescent is used to skipping school (Enea & Dafinoiu, 2009). Moreover, negative parental behaviour is known to be counterproductive, while a motivational and solution-focused approach is more effective in reducing truancy (Enea & Dafinoiu, 2009). Conclusively, the chances of truancy increase instead of decrease when parents have a more punishing parental style. Moreover, the influence of parental punishment on truancy is in line with the growing recognition that truancy is not solely a school related issue, but may originate from other factors, such as dysfunctional home circumstances (Van Breda, 2014).
A third explanation is the time it takes to experience the consequences of truancy. It is widely known that consequences that quickly follow the act will have a greater impact than indirect and later consequences (Kwakman, 2012). After the first report of skipping classes it takes an average of 300 days to get disciplined for truancy. In contrast, it only takes around 100 days to get disciplined for delinquency (Van der Stouwe, Asscher, Hoeve, van der Laan, & Stams, 2016). It could be possible that adolescents who are used to direct punishment by their parents, are more inclined to deviate from the direct and clear punishment that comes with delinquency, the indirect and unclear punishment for truancy does not discourage them as much.
Another notable finding is the difference in age between truants and delinquents. However, this difference was not predictive when controlling for parental punishment. Truancy is known to increase during adolescence, which explains why the truants are older than the delinquents (e.g., Henry & Huizinga, 2007; Nolan et al., 2013). This can be substantiated by Moffitt’s delinquency theories (1993), that distinguish two types of
offenders: “life-course persistent offenders” and “adolescent limited offenders”. For the small group of life-course persistent offenders antisocial behaviour emerges in the early childhood, while the majority, the adolescent limited offenders, show antisocial behaviour starting in late
childhood or early adolescence. Adolescent limited offenders start their delinquent behaviour in early adolescence, and quit in later adolescence. This is mostly experimental behaviour, which suits their developmental stage (Moffitt, 1993). In contrast to truancy, which is constructed like an upward trend, increasing during the years, delinquency shows a more curvaceous trend, which could explain the differences in the present study.
The present outcomes confirm the hypothesis that gender and ethnicity do not differentiate between truancy and delinquency. Previous research has shown there are some gender effects that correspond with specific social groups within gender. For instance, popular high school girls, are less likely to drop out of school, and disadvantaged boys with high status in violent groups, who are more likely to drop out of school (Staff & Kreager, 2008). Including social status in addition to gender, would have had more predictive value (e.g., Henry & Thornberry, 2010; Moffitt et al., 2001). The same principle applies to ethnicity. When splitting ethnicity in more specific groups, based on country of origin, instead of splitting them into native Dutch and ethnic minority, some studies show that Moroccans and Antilleans are overrepresented in delinquency (Jennissen, Blom, & Oosterwaal, 2009). This overrepresentation is explained by the fact that these groups are not as well integrated or even culturally assimilated (Jennissen, et al., 2009). Although the general assumption is that
cultural assimilation has negative effects on delinquency, studies that explored this relation often failed to support this assumption (Bui, 2012; Schmitt-Rodermond & Silbereisen, 2008).
The lack of difference between the influence of antisocial peers and school
competence on truancy and delinquency in the present study was unexpected. We expected antisocial peers to differentiate as a risk factor, because of its’ known influence on
delinquency (Harris-McKoy & Cui, 2013; Murray & Farrington, 2010). A recent study, however, suggests that the influence of peer behaviour on delinquent adolescents is relatively modest, and that the importance of antisocial peers might have been overestimated in previous
studies (Weerman, 2011). Furthermore, it seems that general mechanisms, which occur in social networks, primarily influence friendship choices, while delinquent behaviour or attitudes are of lesser significance (Weerman, 2011). As for school competence, research suggests that a low level of competence is a strong risk factor for truancy (Cairns et al., 1989; Ensminger, Lamkin, & Jacobson, 1996). In the present study school competence seems to have a stronger influence on delinquency than predicted. When looking into school engagement, three types can be distinguished; emotional, behavioural, and cognitive (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Research shows that emotional and behavioural school engagement decreases delinquency, while cognitive school engagement is associated with an increase in delinquency (Hirschfield, & Gasper, 2010). The questionnaire used in the current study is mainly focused on the self-perception of engagement (Ledoux, et al.,2013), and does not take the different types of engagement into account, which might explain the current outcomes.
Interestingly, substance use did not differentiate between truancy and delinquency. Because existing research suggests that the relation between truancy and substance abuse is mediated by the time these students spend unsupervised (Henry, 2007), we expected
substance use to have a significant influence. According to different studies, there is a strong association between substance use and truancy (Flaherty, Sutphen, & Ely, 2012; Henry, 2007). Adolescents who skip school frequently are more likely to report higher drug and alcohol usage than adolescents who do not skip school regularly (Chou, Ho, Chen, & Chen, 2006; Vaughn, Maynard, Salas-Wright, Perron, & Abdon, 2012). The present lack of difference in substance use between truants and delinquents is therefore hard to explain.
Some limitations of the current study need to be mentioned. A considerable limitation of the current study is a selection bias. All the adolescents, truant or delinquent, were legally disciplined for their behaviour. Therefore, it could be possible the current studies’ sample
consists of some of the worst cases, which might be an inaccurate reflection of the population. Furthermore, it is possible that adolescents who were disciplined for truancy, also were
disciplined for delinquency, or the other way around. For future research it is advised to form larger, mutually exclusive groups, to confirm the current results. A second limitation is the sample specific construction of competence and parenting style groups. This would limit the generalization of the present results to other target populations.
The present study has several strengths. The main strength of the current study is the fact that it is the first of its’ kind. To our knowledge, the differences in risk factors between truancy and delinquency have not been researched in previous studies. As a result, an unexpected difference in the risk factors between truancy and delinquency has been found. Moreover, no previous research has focussed on the association between truancy and parental punishment. Consequently, the current study supports the growing recognition that truancy may originate from other factors compared to delinquency, such as dysfunctional home circumstances, and is not solely a school related issue (Van Breda, 2014).
An important clinical implication of current findings is that the impact of parental punishment on truancy should not be underestimated when creating interventions to reduce truancy. There have been some useful and promising interventions, but substantial
methodological shortcomings result in limited effectiveness (Sutphen, Ford, & Flaherty, 2010). Future research needs to focus more on the relationship between dysfunctional home circumstances and truancy, in order to create interventions that reduces truancy effectively, and do not solely rely on knowledge about risk factors for delinquency.
In sum, truancy is a key problem among adolescents, with extensive consequences. Truancy shares risk factors with delinquency, although not all truants become delinquent and not all delinquents become truant. Existing interventions suffer a lack of knowledge about this difference, which leads to limited treatment effects. The present study shows that a difference
in risk factors for truancy and delinquency is made by parental punishment. Parents who use a lot of punishment, raise adolescents who are more likely to skip school than become
delinquent. More research is needed on the predictive value of parental punishment for truancy. Unexpectedly, truants were not more often involved in substance use than delinquents, and there were no differences on other demographic, school and parenting characteristics. The present study shows that addressing dysfunctional home circumstances could be more important for truants compared to delinquents, indicating that existing interventions do not differentiate enough between truants and delinquents
References
Baker, M. L., Sigmon, J. N., & Nugent, M. E. (2001). Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in School. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 9, 1-16. doi:10.1037/e527782006-001
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 1-103. doi:10.1037/h0030372
Blondal, K. S., & Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2009). Parenting practices and school dropout: A longitudinal study. Adolescence, 44, 729–749.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6, 1-22.
Breda, M. J., van (2014). Truants’ Perceptions of Family Factors as Causes of School Truancy and Non-attendance. Journal of Psychology, 5, 47-53.
Bui, H. N. (2012) Immigrant generational status and delinquency in adolescence:
Segmented assimilation and racial–ethnic differences. In C. G. Coll, & A. K. Marks (Eds), The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a
developmental risk? (pp. 135-158). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, H. J. (1989). Early school dropout: Configurations and determinants. Child development, 60(6), 1437-1452. doi:10.2307/1130933
Compulsory Education. (1969). Retrieved from
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002628/geldigheidsdatum_09-11-2015#2 Dahl, P. (2016). Factors Associated With Truancy Emerging Adults’ Recollections of
Skipping School. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31, 119-138 doi:10.1177/0743558415587324
D’Amico, E. J., Edelen, M. O., Miles, J. N., & Morral, A. R. (2008). The longitudinal
association between substance use and delinquency among high-risk youth. Drug and
alcohol dependence, 93, 85-92. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.09.006
Dimmick, J., Correa, Y., Liazis, A., & McMichael, H. (2011). "Playing hooky": Examining factors that contribute to adolescent truancy. Sociological Viewpoints, 27, 15-23. Enea, V., & Dafinoiu, I. (2009). Motivational/solution-focused intervention for reducing
school truancy among adolescents. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral
Psychotherapies, 9, 185-198.
Ensminger, M. E., Lamkin, R. P., & Jacobson, N. (1996). School leaving: A longitudinal perspective including neighbourhood effects. Child development, 67, 2400-2416. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01864.x
Flaherty, C. W., Sutphen, R. D., & Ely, G. E. (2012). Examining substance abuse in truant youths and their caregivers: Implications for truancy intervention. Children & Schools,
34, 201-211. doi:10.1093/cs/cds008
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74, 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
Halgunseth, L. C., Perkins, D. F., Lippold, M. A., & Nix, R. L. (2013). Delinquent-oriented attitudes mediate the relation between parental inconsistent discipline and early adolescent behaviour. Journal of family psychology, 27, 293. doi:10.1037/a0031962 Harris-McKoy, D., & Cui, M. (2013). Parental control, adolescent delinquency, and young
adult criminal behavior. Journal of child and family studies, 22, 836-843. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9641-x
Henry, K. L. (2007). Who’s skipping school: Characteristics of truants in 8th and 10th grade.
Henry, K. L., & Huizinga, D. H. (2007). School-related risk and protective factors associated with truancy among urban youth placed at risk. The Journal of Primary Prevention,
28, 505-519. doi:10.1007/s10935-007-0115-7
Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., & Thornberry, T. P. (2012). School disengagement as a predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 156–166. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3
Henry, K. L., & Thornberry, T. P. (2010). Truancy and escalation of substance use during adolescence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 115.
doi:10.15288/jsad.2010.71.115
Hirschi, T. (1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice
perspectives on offending, (pp. 105-118). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hirschfield, P. J., & Gasper, J. (2011). The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 40, 3–22. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9579-5
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Laan, P. H., van der, Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal
of abnormal child psychology, 37, 749-775. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8
Hoeve, M., McReynolds, L. S., & Wasserman, G. A. (2014). Service referral for juvenile justice youths: Associations with psychiatric disorder and recidivism. Administration
and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41, 379-389.
doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0472-x
Holton, J. K., Rutter, M., & Giller, H. (1985). Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives.
Huizinga, D., & Jakob-Chien, C. (1998). The contemporaneous co-occurrence of serious and violent juvenile offending and other problem behaviours. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious & violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful
interventions, (pp. 47-67). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Jennissen, R., Blom, M., & Oosterwaal, A. (2009). Geregistreerde criminaliteit als indicator van de integratie van niet-westerse allochtonen. Mens en maatschappij, 84, 207- 233. doi:10.5117/MEM2009.2.JENN
Jonge, G. de, & Linden, A. P., van der, (2013). Handboek Jeugd & Strafrecht. Deventer: Wolters-Kluwer
Kodama, N., & Hess, R. (2010). Truancy. In C.S. Clauss-Ehlers (Ed.), Ecyclopedia of
Cross-Cultural School Psychology (pp. 1005-1011). New York, Philadelphia: Springer US
Kwakman, N. J. M. (2012). Snelrecht en de ZSM-aanpak. Delikt en Delinkwent, 17, 188-205.
Ledoux, G., Meijer, J., Veen, I., van der, Breetvelt, I., Dam, G., ten, & Volman, M. (2013).
Meetinstrumenten voor sociale competenties, metacognitie en advanced skills. Een inventarisatie (pp. 71-73). Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications.
Development and Psychopathology, 4, 737-762. doi:10.1017/S0954579400004107
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological review, 100, 674.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial
behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: key findings from longitudinal studies. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 633.
Nolan, J. R., Cole, T., Wroughton, J., Clayton-Code, K. P., & Riffe, H. A. (2013). Assessment of risk factors for truancy of children in grades K-12 using survival analysis.
Journal of At-Risk Issues, 17, 23-30.
Put, C. E., van der, Creemers, H. E., & Hoeve, M. (2014). Differences between juvenile offenders with and without substance use problems in the prevalence and impact of risk and protective factors for criminal recidivism. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,
134, 267-274. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.10.012
Schmitt-Rodermund, E., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2008). The prediction of delinquency among immigrant and non-immigrant youth unwrapping the package of culture. International
Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49, 87-109. doi:10.1177/0020715208088906
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2014). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Simons-Morton, B., & Chen, R. (2009). Peer and parent influences on school engagement among early adolescents. Youth & Society, 41, 3–25. doi:10.1177/0044118X09334861 Staff, J., & Kreager, D. A. (2008). Too cool for school? Violence, peer status and high school
dropout. Social Forces, 87, 445-471. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0068
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1–19.
doi:10.1111/1532-7795.00001
Stouwe, T., van der, Asscher, J. J., Hoeve, M., Laan, P. H., van der, & Stams, G. J. J. M. (in press). Social skills training for juvenile delinquents: Post-treatment changes. Journal
Stouwe, T., van der, Asscher, J. J., Hoeve, M., Van der Laan, P. H., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2016). Follow-up of a Social Skills Training (SST) for Juvenile Delinquents: Effects
on Reoffending. Manuscript in preparation.
Sutphen, R. D., Ford, J. P., & Flaherty, C. (2010). Truancy interventions: A review of the research literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 161-171.
doi:10.1177/1049731509347861
Treffers, D. A., Goedhart, A.W., Van den Bergh, B.R.H., Veerman, J.W., Ackaert, L., & De Rycke, L. (2002). Competentie-belevingsschaal voor adolescenten (CBSA):
Handleiding CBSA, voor het meten van emotionele en/of gedragsproblemen bij adolescenten. Amsterdam: Pearson.
Vaughn, M. G., Maynard, B. R., Salas-Wright, C. P., Perron, B. E., & Abdon, A. (2013). Prevalence and correlates of truancy in the US: Results from a national sample.
Journal of Adolescence, 36, 767-776. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.015
Vaughn, M. G., Wexler, J., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., Roberts, G., & Fu, J. (2011). Psychiatric correlates of behavioural indicators of school disengagement in the United States. Psychiatric Quarterly, 82, 191–206. doi:10.1007/s11126-010-9160-0 Vazsonyi, A. T., Roberts, J. W., Huang, L., & Vaughn, M. G. (2015). Why focusing on
nurture made and still makes sense: The biosocial development of self-control. In M. DeLisi, & M. Vaughn (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of biosocial
criminology (pp. 263-279). New York: Routledge
Vermulst, A., Kroes, G., De Meyer, R., Leeuwen, K., van, & Veerman, J.W. (2011).
Vragenlijst Gezin & Opvoeding (VG&O): Voorlopige Handleiding. Nijmegen:
Weerman, F. M. (2011). Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology, 49, 253-286. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00223.x
Appendix
Table 1. Differences in risk factors between truants and delinquents.
Truants Delinquents χ2 Gender 1.05 Boy 43 (69%) 229 (76%) Girl 19 (31%) 74 (24%) Age 4.08* 12-15 19 (31%) 135 (45%) 16-18 43 (69%) 168 (55%) Ethnicity .24 Native Dutch 29 (47%) 152 (50%) Ethnic minority 33 (53%) 151 (50%) Antisocial peers .02 Yes 38 (61%) 183 (60%) No 24 (39%) 120 (40%) Substance use 3.41 Yes 32 (52%) 118 (39%) No 30 (48%) 185 (61%) School competence 1.53 High 25 (42%) 149 (51%) Low 34 (58%) 142 (49%) Educational level 1.72 High 21 (34%) 78 (26%) Low 41 (66%) 225 (74%)
Parenting style – Positive parenting behaviour 3.18
High 39 (63%) 153 (51%)
Low 23 (37%) 150 (49%)
Parenting style – Rules .01
High 30 (48%) 149 (49%)
Low 32 (52%) 154 (51%)
Parenting style – Punishment 9.90*
High 41 (66%) 134 (44%)
Low 21 (34%) 169 (56%)
Parenting style – Rewards .15
High 34 (55%) 158 (52%)
Low 28 (45%) 145 (48%)
Note: * p < .05
Table 2. Result binary logistic regression to examine the multivariate correlation for
significant results from the chi-square analyses.
95% CI for Odds Ratio
Included B (S.E.) Odds Ratio Lower Upper
Constant 1.79 (.29)
Age .71 (.49) 2.02 .78 5.27
Parenting style - Punishment -.73 (.36) .48* .23 .978 Age * Parenting style - Punishment -.34 (.62) .71 .21 2.41 Note: R2 = 12.53 (Hosmer & Lemeshow), .04 (Cox & Snell), .06 (Nagelkerke). * p < .05.
