OBJECTIVE: This study examined differences between juvenile offenders with AD(H)D (n = 1,348), with both AD(H)D and conduct problems (n = 933), and without AD(H)D or conduct problems (n = 2,180) in recidivism rates, prevalence of risk and protective factors, and strength of associations between risk/protective factors and recidivism. METHOD: Existing data were used, collected with the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment. ANOVA, Pearson correlations, and Fisher's z tests were calculated. RESULTS: Recidivism was highest in the AD(H)D-comorbid group, followed by the AD(H)D-only group and lowest in the comparison group. In offenders with AD(H)D, especially comorbid AD(H)D, the number of risk factors was considerably larger than the number of protective factors, whereas the number of risk and protective factors was the same in the comparison group. CONCLUSION: Juvenile offenders with AD(H)D may benefit most from interventions that focus on risk and protective factors in multiple domains.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined differences between juvenile offenders with AD(H)D (n = 1,348), with both AD(H)D and conduct problems (n = 933), and without AD(H)D or conduct problems (n = 2,180) in recidivism rates, prevalence of risk and protective factors, and strength of associations between risk/protective factors and recidivism. METHOD: Existing data were used, collected with the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment. ANOVA, Pearson correlations, and Fisher's z tests were calculated. RESULTS: Recidivism was highest in the AD(H)D-comorbid group, followed by the AD(H)D-only group and lowest in the comparison group. In offenders with AD(H)D, especially comorbid AD(H)D, the number of risk factors was considerably larger than the number of protective factors, whereas the number of risk and protective factors was the same in the comparison group. CONCLUSION: Juvenile offenders with AD(H)D may benefit most from interventions that focus on risk and protective factors in multiple domains.