Recidivism
In the study conducted by Latimer (2001), recidivism was measured by the success or failure on parole. Recidivism was defined as “any post-commitment adjudicated referral or offense resulting in a re-referral to the Department of Corrections”, (Latimer, 2000, p. 238).
Risk
The risk of re-offending has been measured using the aggregate sample approach to coding risk. This approach is normally used in cases where the within-sample approach is not applicable. Using this approach, the risk of participants of re-offending is determined by the frequency with which they have come into contact with the juvenile justice system and correctional facilities.
Need – Criminogenic versus non-criminogenic family interventions
Programs that are aimed at enhancing family affection/relations or monitoring/supervision have been described as clinically suitable types of family intervention. Family intervention programs can either be criminogenic or non-criminogenic hence it is important for studies to identify the targets for the programs. Studies in which the target has not been mentioned were considered to be inappropriate.
General responsivity
Studies that deal with behavioral programs for reducing recidivism code the programs as suitable if the programs address general responsivity. General responsivity has been measured if there is the presence of programs that utilize modeling, role-play, and reinforcement.
Type of treatment
This variable is considered to be a composite variable which measures the extent to which the risk, need, and responsivity variables were present in a specific treatment program. In addition to having scores for the three different variables mentioned above, this variable also has a measure to determine the number of principles that have been properly addressed by the treatment program. The rating for this variable ranged between 0 and 3 where the score 0 reflected a treatment program that does not address any of the three principles while the score for 3 reflects a treatment program that adequately address all of the three principles. Based on this rating, treatment programs were categorized into four groups namely: inappropriate service; weak service; promising service; and most promising service. To illustrate the categorization, a program that addresses none of the principles is categorized as “inappropriate service”, while a treatment program that addresses all the three principles is categorized as “the most promising service” (Dowden, 2003, p. 332).
Measurements Used in the Present Study
Recidivism
Recidivism will be measured by the frequency with which participants re-enter the juvenile prison after their initial incarceration.
Risk behavior
The risk behavior of participants will be measured using different socio-economic factors such as the family structure (is the family intact or dysfunctional?), the household income (is the participant’s family an upper-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income or low-income household?), the level of education (is the participant doing well at school, lagging behind, or a school drop-out?)
Effectiveness of juvenile prisons
This variable will be measured in a similar manner as recidivism. A high frequency of re-offending shows the ineffectiveness of the juvenile prison and vice versa.
Effectiveness of alternative programs
The alternative programs that will be studied in this study include: a family intervention program, an alternative literacy education program, and relapse prevention program. The effectiveness of these programs will be measured by the frequency with which the participants re-enter the juvenile prison after successful completion of the programs. A low frequency will show the effectiveness of these alternative programs and vice versa.
Addressing Validity and Reliability Issues in the Study
In qualitative research, validity is measured in different ways and includes: face validity, construct validity and translation validity among others. Face validity is realized if the operationalization of the variables seems to appropriately measure the constructs in appearance. Construct validity refers to the accuracy with which the operationalization of the variables reflects the constructs (Trochim & Donnelly, 2006). One method of increasing the validity of qualitative measures is to increase as many constructs and measures as possible so as to ensure that the variable is well covered. Reliability on the other hand is gauged by measures such as credibility, conformability, consistency and dependability. Credibility and conformability are measured by the degree of the truth with which the researcher reported the data collected from the informants (Golafshani, 2003).
Qualitative research requires that the researcher should have an open view towards the opinions of the informants even when their outlook contradicts the researcher’s outlook. It is not his duty to report what he thinks should be the responses of the informants but rather what exactly the responses are. This requires the researcher to identify with the informants and actually empathize with them by sharing in their own world. The two methods that will be used to conduct the study – interview and focus group discussions – will provide the researcher with this opportunity because the researcher will have time to actively interact with the informants. This will ensure the credibility and conformability of the study. On the other hand, consistency and dependability of a qualitative research depend on the procedures used to code and analyze the data (Patton, 2002). In this study, the same technique will be used to code and analyze all the data collected by the different instruments to ensure that the results of the study are consistent and dependable.
Reference List
Dowden, C. (2003). Does Family Intervention Work for Delinquents? Results of a Meta-Analysis1. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45(3), 327.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8, no. 4, pp. 597-607.
Latimer, J. (2001). A meta-analytic examination of youth delinquency, family treatment, and recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 237-254.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base. Mason, OH: Thomson Custom Learning.