OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to propose and examine a pathway to emotional distress in African Americans with juvenile court contact (N = 213; Male = 71%; MAge = 15, SDAge = 1.47). METHOD: The model included direct and indirect effects of parent attachment and empathy, as well as the direct effects of pro-social and aggressive behavior, on emotional distress, CFI = .99, TLI = .95, χ²(1) = 2.60 p = .11, and RMSEA = .09. RESULTS: This model explained 49% of variability of scores for emotional distress. Overall, aggressive behavior had the strongest relationship with emotional distress (β = .63), followed by parent attachment (β = -.38). In contrast, empathy (β = .12) and pro-social behavior (β = .17) were not related to emotional distress scores. A second model that included males and females simultaneously, without equality constraints, revealed substantive gender differences, CFI = .99, TLI = .91, χ²(2) = 4.63 p = .10, and RMSEA = .11. CONCLUSIONS: Results are discussed in the context of therapeutic jurisprudence, and recommendations are proposed for providers of court-ordered interventions (i.e., therapy and probation supervision). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to propose and examine a pathway to emotional distress in African Americans with juvenile court contact (N = 213; Male = 71%; MAge = 15, SDAge = 1.47). METHOD: The model included direct and indirect effects of parent attachment and empathy, as well as the direct effects of pro-social and aggressive behavior, on emotional distress, CFI = .99, TLI = .95, χ²(1) = 2.60 p = .11, and RMSEA = .09. RESULTS: This model explained 49% of variability of scores for emotional distress. Overall, aggressive behavior had the strongest relationship with emotional distress (β = .63), followed by parent attachment (β = -.38). In contrast, empathy (β = .12) and pro-social behavior (β = .17) were not related to emotional distress scores. A second model that included males and females simultaneously, without equality constraints, revealed substantive gender differences, CFI = .99, TLI = .91, χ²(2) = 4.63 p = .10, and RMSEA = .11. CONCLUSIONS: Results are discussed in the context of therapeutic jurisprudence, and recommendations are proposed for providers of court-ordered interventions (i.e., therapy and probation supervision). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).