Testing the three- and four-factor models of the Korean version PCL-R as predictors of two antisocial outcomes – recidivism and risk

Psychopathy has consistently been associated with antisocial outcomes. The three- and four-factor models have been best fitted to data relating to Korean serious offenders (N?=?451), offering construct validity of the Korean Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). However, no study has yet tested the predictive power of the Korean PCL-R to explain two different types of antisocial outcomes: (1) risk of inmates measured by correctional officers during incarceration and (2) recidivism after release. By exploring these two forms of antisociality, here we sought to establish the predictive and construct validities of the Korean version of PCL-R. We found that the deviant lifestyle (Factor 3) performed best for predicting both antisocial forms (risk and recidivism) and that the deficits in interpersonal (Factor 1) and affective (Factor 2) abilities also uniquely predicted one subtype of risk, which suggests the three-factor model is better than the four-factor model in predictions. These findings will be useful for criminal justice experts and practitioners in Korea.     

Evaluating the Juvenile Breaking the Cycle Program's impact on recidivism

This article presents findings from an evaluation of the Juvenile Breaking the Cycle (JBTC) Program, an intervention that was designed to provide criminal justice system monitoring and individualized treatment and services to substance-using youth who were assessed as high recidivism risks following an initial police encounter. Results from logistic and negative binomial regression models, using repeated data measures, indicated that JBTC participants, relative to baseline and a sample of comparison youth, were significantly less likely to be arrested and had significantly fewer arrests in the six to twelve months after entering the program. The JBTC Program appears to be one that jurisdictions should consider replicating in an effort to address the needs of juveniles who are at risk for delinquency and substance use in their communities.     

FAMILY COURT–UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP TO BENEFIT DIVORCING FAMILIES: THE EXPERIENCE OF MARICOPA COUNTY (ARIZONA) FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT AND ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY'S PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER*

Using evidence‐based methods to help divorcing families requires the combined best efforts of legal professionals, courts, judges and administrators, mental health oriented service providers, and university researchers. Collaborative program development, implementation, and evaluation involve a complicated process of negotiation between professionals, yet this process is hardly ever described. The current article describes the processes we underwent in forging an alliance of researchers from Arizona State University's Prevention Research Center with professionals from the Maricopa County (Arizona) Family Court, a collaboration that involved a true dialogue and cooperation from the earliest stages and continuing throughout the project. A Community‐Based Participatory Research model was the underlying basis for our partnership; its lynchpin device was a Joint Planning Committee.     

Testing Antemortem Blood for Ethanol Concentration from a Blood Kit in a Refrigerator Fire

The stability of ethanol in antemortem blood stored under various conditions has been widely studied. Antemortem blood samples stored at refrigerated temperature, at room temperature, and at elevated temperatures tend to decrease in ethanol concentration with storage. It appears that the stability of ethanol in blood exposed to temperatures greater than 38°C has not been evaluated. The case presented here involves comparison of breath test results with subsequent analysis of blood drawn at the time of breath testing. However, the blood tubes were in a refrigerator fire followed by refrigerated storage for 5 months prior to analysis by headspace gas chromatography. The subject’s breath was tested twice using an Intoxilyzer 8000. The subject’s blood was tested in duplicate using an Agilent headspace gas chromatograph. The measured breath ethanol concentration was 0.103 g/210 L and 0.092 g/210 L. The measured blood ethanol concentration was 0.0932 g/dL for both samples analyzed. Although the mean blood test result was slightly lower than the mean breath test result, the mean breath test result was within the estimated uncertainty of the mean blood test result. Even under the extreme conditions of the blood kit being in a refrigerator fire, the measured blood ethanol content agreed well with the paired breath ethanol test.