Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376 – 392
Reading disability in adjudicated youth: Prevalence rates, current
models, traditional and innovative treatments
John Shelley-Tremblay ⁎, Natalie O'Brien, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
University of South Alabama, United States
Received 29 September 2005; received in revised form 23 March 2006; accepted 1 July 2006
Available online 2 October 2006
Abstract
This paper reviews current literature from two distinct but overlapping domains: juvenile delinquency (JD) and reading
disability (RD). In light of the substantial evidence that RD is both associated with, and causally involved in JD, it is alarming how
little extant research has systematically investigated remediation strategies for use in the juvenile corrections system. The paper
begins with a definition and a review of approaches for conceptualizing JD. RD is placed within the context of a large domain of
risk factors for JD. We then define RD and introduce studies that establish the link between RD and JD, and give estimates of its
prevalence within the JD population. We discuss briefly the role of attentional problems in mediating the relationship between RD
and JD, before exploring the tenets and some limitations of common theories of RD. This is followed by a brief review of the
literature that has begun to investigate the efficacy of various reading remediation approaches within the juvenile detention setting.
We conclude by previewing some promising new research employing computer-based training and highlight recommendations for
future research on RD in the JD population.
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Juvenile delinquency; Reading disability; Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Juvenile delinquency: definitions, risk factors, and links to reading problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reading disability: definitions, prevalence, and co-occurrence with attention problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reading disability: etiology, and treatment in the juvenile correctional system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. The phonological deficit hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-phonological aspects of reading disability: visual processing and attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ReviewofpastresearchtoremediateRDinthejuvenilecorrectionssystem:strengths,weaknesses,andrecommendations
Summary of recommendations for research and remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jstremblay@usouthal.edu (J. Shelley-Tremblay).
1359-1789/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.07.003
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
377
379
382
383
384
386
388
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
377
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
In light of the substantial evidence that RD is both associated with, and causally involved in JD, it is alarming how
little extant research has systematically investigated remediation strategies for use in the juvenile corrections system.
The paper begins with a definition and a review of approaches for conceptualizing JD. RD is placed within the context
of a large domain of risk factors for JD. We then define RD and introduce studies that establish the link between RD and
JD, and give estimates of its prevalence within the JD population. We discuss briefly the role of attentional problems in
mediating the relationship between RD and JD, before going on to explore the tenets and some limitations of common
theories of RD. This is followed by a brief review of the literature that has begun to investigate the efficacy of various
reading remediation approaches within the juvenile detention setting. We conclude by previewing some promising new
research employing computer-based training and highlight recommendations for future research on RD in the JD
population.
1. Juvenile delinquency: definitions, risk factors, and links to reading problems
The past several decades have seen an amplification of societal concern about violent, aggressive, and delinquent
acts committed by adolescents (Tarolla, Wagner, Rabinowitz, & Tubman, 2002). Attention has heightened in response
to a number of factors including: large increases in the number of violent acts committed by teenagers from the 1960's
to the 1990's, the sensational nature of some of the crimes committed by American youth (i.e., Columbine), and the
trend for horrendous acts of violence to be committed by younger and younger perpetrators (Deptula & Cohen, 2004;
Field & McNamara, 2003).
Researchers who have utilized self-report instruments with representative samples of adolescents have determined
that the prevalence of a variety of types of aggressive, risky, and/or delinquent behaviors is substantial among
American youth, and that a significant proportion of these behaviors occur without coming to the attention of juvenile
justice agencies (Puzzanchera, 2000). For example, even among 12 year olds, 24% reported that they had purposely
damaged property, 14% admitted to engaging in assaultive behavior, and 7% indicated that they had carried a handgun
(National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997). The majority of these self-reported acts had occurred within the
12 months prior to data collection. In response, the public has expressed both fear and anger about what has been
termed an epidemic of youth violence. This, in turn, has resulted in increased scrutiny of the success associated with
adjudication to the juvenile justice system, programs for adjudicated youth, and societal policies about adolescent
delinquency and crime (Scott & Grisso, 1998).
Even though recent data indicate that there has been a drop in juvenile violent crime arrests since 1996 (Children's
Defense Fund, 2003), efforts to reform the juvenile justice system continue with great intensity (Scott and Grisso,
1998). In particular, critics have challenged the court's success in rehabilitating delinquent youth. Originally, juvenile
justice interventions were predicated on the assumption that these youth, in contrast to adult offenders, were immature
and malleable. Therefore, the presumed purpose of the juvenile justice system was to intervene in ways (i.e., reeducation, daily skill building) that would divert these youth from a lifetime path of criminality. However, starting in
the mid-1970's, scholar's noted that there was a powerful tendency for juvenile offenders to continue in their criminal
behavior. This became known as the “nothing works” hypothesis (Martinson, 1974). Current researchers have
continued to note the stability of delinquency across time and the degree to which juvenile offending seems to be highly
resistant to change (Tarolla et al., 2002). However, a recent meta-analysis of treatment effects has demonstrated a quite
small but significant reduction in recidivism subsequent to intervention by the juvenile justice system (e.g., Grietens &
Hellinckx, 2004).
In contrast to the rehabilitation approach, and on the basis of data that traditional approaches to treating juvenile
offenders have been largely ineffective (e.g., Scott and Grisso, 1998; Tarolla et al., 2002), many are contending that
youthful offenders would be better served by experiencing a harsher lesson in accountability. Accountability would
involve punitive approaches such as institutionalization, incarceration, and stiffening penalties for juvenile
offenders. This trend is consistent with data demonstrating that the number of youth who have been remanded to
378
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
secure confinement or mandated to reside in alternative sentencing programs has continued to rise, even as the
overall rates of severe crimes among juveniles have been diminishing (Stahl, 2003).
According to Sickmund (2004), about 134,000 youth are confined in one of about 2900 juvenile justice settings on
any given day. The majority of these incarcerated individuals are boys rather than girls (78% boys, 22% girls;
Children's Defense Fund, 2003). Further, minority youth, in particular African Americans, are over-represented in all
stages of the juvenile justice system (i.e., likelihood of arrest, likelihood of detention, rate of conviction, severity of
sentencing, length of incarceration; Sickmund, 2004).
Youth can be incarcerated for index/delinquency offenses (i.e., they have committed acts that would violate criminal
law if committed by an adult) or status offenses. Status offenses consist of acts that would not be considered criminal if
committed by an adult (such as underage drinking or smoking, school truancy, curfew violations, running away from
home, or incorrigibility). The majority of incarcerated juveniles have committed either serious criminal offenses or
multiple status offenses (as reported by Rutherford, Bullis, Anderson, & Griller-Clark, 2002), with substantially more
youth incarcerated for index, rather than status offenses (81% versus 4%; Leone, Krezmien, Mason, & Meisel, 2005).
Other detained youth have not been formally charged; they may be waiting for mental health or related services to
become accessible. Among the index offenses committed by adolescents, crimes against property (breaking and
entering, extortion, car theft, larceny, violation of controlled substances) are often the ones that lead to incarceration
(Beebe & Mueller, 1993; Children's Defense Fund, 2003). However, considerable diversity in offenses can exist
among incarcerated youth as they can be detained for aggressive felonies, property felonies, crimes against people,
misdemeanors, and/or status offenses.
In keeping with the operational definitions put forward by the National Council on Disability (2003); in the current
review, a youth is considered to be an adjudicated delinquent regardless of whether he or she has committed a status or
index offense. Adjudicated youth in the juvenile justice system typically range in age from 12 to 18 years. After the age
of 18, or before, if circumstances warrant it, offenders are remanded to adult court. In this paper, youth who are
“involved in the juvenile justice system” refers to adolescents who are in short-term detention, on probation, in longterm secure custody, in a residential treatment facility, in an alternative sentencing program, or youth who are receiving
aftercare services or who have been paroled. Pertinent to the current review focusing on reading disabilities in
adjudicated youth, delinquents who have been incarcerated for committing an aggressive felony have been shown to
have poorer reading and math achievement scores than youth incarcerated for a variety of other types of offenses;
however, reading disabilities have been generally shown to be prevalent in many types of adolescents who are involved
in the juvenile justice system (Beebe & Mueller, 1993).
In 1993, Moffitt delineated two primary types of delinquent youth: “adolescent limited” and “life-course-persistent”.
Individuals with the adolescent-limited type of antisocial behavior are characterized as having non-problematic
childhoods, delinquent behavior in adolescence, and non-delinquent behavior in adulthood. According to Farrington,
Ohlin, and Wilson (1986), four fifths of men growing up in the United States have police contact, most of which has
occurred during adolescence. Moffitt concludes that for the majority of these men, their delinquent behavior was
actually gender-normative. He then proposes that the antisocial activities of this type of delinquent youth are primarily
due to a gap between their physical and social maturity; a gap that is typically more pronounced in boys than girls
(Moffitt, 1993).
In contrast, the life-course persistent antisocial individual is typically engaging in delinquent and/or aggressive
behaviors at a much younger age, perhaps as early as age three or four (Moffitt, 1993). By adolescence, the antisocial
behavior of this subtype is more frequent and severe and the deviant behavior is more likely to continue into adulthood.
According to Moffitt and Caspi (2001), life-course persistent antisocial individuals are characterized by greater
academic underachievement, more severe neuropsychological deficits, and a greater likelihood of co-morbid AttentionDeficit Hyperactivity Disorder in comparison to individuals with adolescent limited antisocial behavior. Persistent
antisocial behavior is also associated with lower IQ and greater substance abuse (Elkins, Iacono, Doyle, & McGue,
1997). This subgroup is an important group to direct interventions toward because, although they constitute only 5% to
8% of the offender population, they commit the vast majority of crimes (Bassarath, 2001). Life-course persistent
antisocial individuals are also a burden to society for longer periods of time as they are at increased risk of engaging in
rape, fraud, child abuse, neglect or abandonment, drunk driving, and intimate partner violence well into adulthood.
Just as there is diversity in the types of offenses that can precipitate a youth's involvement in the juvenile justice
system, and subtypes of violent offenders have been identified; there are also a variety of risk factors that have been
shown to relate to adjudication in adolescence. These risk factors include individual, familial, peer-related, school-
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
379
related, and neighborhood/community characteristics (for summaries see CDC, 2005; Kashani, Jones, Bumby, &
Thomas, 1999; Tarolla et al., 2002). At the individual level, risk factors for perpetrating delinquent or violent acts have
included low IQ, social–cognitive or information processing deficits, learning deficiencies, drug use (Belenko &
Dembo, 2003), and neuropsychological impairments including verbal, temporal lobe, or frontal lobe deficits (Hawkins
& Trobst, 2000; Teichner & Golden, 2000). Poor reading has been associated with delinquency, independent of
ethnicity and socio-economic status (Manguin, Loeber, & LeMahieu, 1993). Youth with attention-deficit disorder may
also be particularly at risk for subsequent adjudication (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Rebholz, O'Brien, O'Farrill-Swails,
& Ford, in press; Wasserman, Miller, & Cothern, 2000) and attention difficulties might underlie the association
between reading problems and delinquency (e.g., Manguin et al., 1993).
Identified familial factors that have been shown to increase the risk of delinquent activities and/or subsequent
adjudication in the juvenile justice system include poor parental monitoring, low parental education and income; harsh,
lax or inconsistent discipline practices; and/or family dysfunction, non-traditional family structure, and frequent,
intense, violent, or child-focused parental conflict (CDC, 2005). Involvement in delinquent and/or antisocial behavior
has also been related to being a victim of child maltreatment (e.g., Dembo, Wothke, Shemwell, Pacheco, & Seeberger,
2000; Falshaw, Browne, & Hollin, 1996).
Peer-related risk factors for delinquent behavior include greater association with delinquent peers, gang
involvement, lack of involvement in pro-social and peer-related activities, and more frequent experiences of social
rejection. In addition, peer modeling of some violent and/or delinquent behaviors has been shown to have a contagious
effect among at-risk adolescents (Gifford-Smith, Dodge, Dishion, & McCord, 2005).
School factors related to juvenile delinquency and violence perpetration have included being educated in an unsafe,
failing, or dysfunctional academic environment, and/or experiencing failure, ridicule, or neglect in the educational
setting (e.g., Brier, 1993; Finn, Stott, & Zarichny, 1988). In a longitudinal study of 324 Canadian youth, poor
achievement was shown to be a necessary component of the pathway from disruptive behavior in first grade to a
delinquent personality at age 14 (Tremblay et al., 1992). This factor was essential for both boys and girls. Conversely,
both commitment to educational success and increased involvement in school activities have been shown to operate as
protective factors against engaging in delinquent and/or violent activities (CDC, 2005). More recently, it has been
argued that changing school policies and practices may be facilitating an “unnecessary and inappropriate flow” of
children and youth with educational disabilities, especially minority children, into the juvenile justice system (National
Council on Disability, 2003). These changing policies include zero tolerance discipline practices, increased emphasis
on all children performing at grade level regardless of their special education status, enhanced student surveillance
techniques, increased emphasis on school safety and security which may include metal detectors and random searches,
and greater information sharing of potentially confidential information with law enforcement personnel (National
Council on Disability, 2003).
Finally, there are neighborhood and/or community factors that have been shown to be associated with delinquency
and the perpetration of violence. These include living in an area with a large transient population, as well as
experiencing a community with high levels of poverty, dense living situations, ethnic diversity, lack of social
disorganization, and diminished educational and occupational opportunities (e.g., CDC, 2005; Salzinger, Feldman,
Stockhammer, & Hood, 2002). Thus, across multiple types of risk factors, learning disabilities in general and reading
problems in particular; social relationships established in the school setting; characteristics of the educational
environment; and youths' perceptions of the available educational and occupational opportunities, have all been shown
to have a direct bearing on the production of delinquent behaviors and the likelihood of an adolescent becoming
involved in the juvenile justice system.
2. Reading disability: definitions, prevalence, and co-occurrence with attention problems
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in conjunction with the United States Department of
Education, has recently stressed the necessity of addressing the needs of learning disabled and delinquent youth
(National Council on Disability, 2003). They noted that there are holes in what is empirically known about children and
adolescents with disabilities who are involved in the juvenile justice system. For example, the majority of research on
delinquent and learning disabled adolescents have been conducted in long term correction facilities, while much less is
known about learning disabled offenders who are involved in other parts of the juvenile justice system (i.e., probation,
short-term detention, and residential placement).
380
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
It is essential to research disabilities in adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system because proper
identification can help assure that these youth receive tailored services based on their individual needs. As
exemplified by Burrell and Warboys (2000, p.1), “Youth in the juvenile justice system are much more likely to
have both identified and undiscovered disabilities.” However, evidence suggests that juvenile correctional
facilities are often not complying with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (National Council
on Disability, 2003). According to the IDEA, individuals involved in the juvenile justice system are entitled to
receive the same services as youth in public schools. These services include “free and appropriate education in
the least restrictive environment” (National Council on Disability, 2003). Based on the IDEA, children who are
identified as needing special education services must be provided with an individualized education program
(IEP) that is made to fit the child's unique needs. According to Mears and Kelly (1999), few correctional
facilities have the capacity or training to effectively assess or treat these youth. In addition, even though the law
requires that youth involved in the juvenile justice system receive proper assessment and treatment for learning
disabilities, the law does not specify at which stage of the juvenile justice system the assessment has to occur
(National Council on Disability, 2003). Thus, a combination of factors has lead to a lack of compliance with
IDEA across many aspects of the juvenile justice system.
The seriousness of this situation is highlighted in a recent review by Leone et al. (2005), who state:
Although high-quality special education programs have been implemented in juvenile facilities, class action
litigation in more than 20 states has documented systemic failures to provide appropriate programs and services in
accordance with the IDEA (National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice, 2003). This oftenprotracted litigation suggests that many jurisdictions around the country do not receive prior school records and
have inadequate mechanisms to identify and serve youth with disabilities and to support their successful transition
to schools and communities following their incarceration (see Baltodano, Mathur, & Rutherford, 2005). It is
particularly disturbing that incarcerated youth with disabilities, who frequently do not receive appropriate
academic or behavioral accommodations in the correctional facility, typically spend more time in disciplinary
confinement (Leone, 1994; Leone, Bannon, & Buser, 1987) where their access to special education services is
even more limited.
It is also important to identify youth in the juvenile justice system with disabilities because youth with disabilities
appear to be more prone to recidivate (Rutherford et al., 2002). Thus, proper identification and treatment may help
reduce recidivism rates among delinquent youth (Malmgren & Leone, 2000). In addition, by understanding the types
of disabilities that are represented in the juvenile justice system, violence and crime prevention strategies can be
geared towards youth with a particular learning disability or with multiple types of disabilities occurring
concurrently.
Numerous studies have researched the prevalence rates of special education disabilities among youth in the
juvenile justice system and found that disabilities, especially learning and emotional disabilities, are overrepresented in this population (National Council on Disability, 2003). However, the estimated prevalence rates of
special education disabilities in juvenile delinquent populations have varied widely (30% to 50%, Rutherford et
al., 2002). Federal law establishes the minimum standards for special education disability definitions, but states
are allowed to refine the criteria, resulting in varying definitions and prevalence rates. Further, the definitions used
and the assessment techniques employed in the special education arena and the mental health field differ
(Rutherford et al., 2002). Thus, the National Council on Disability (2003), has called for researchers to conduct
studies that focus on establishing more accurate prevalence rates of disabilities in youth at all stages of the
juvenile justice system.
Among the various types of learning disabilities, reading disabilities are of particular interest to study in juvenile
correctional facilities because they are fairly prevalent, and because they are correlated with higher recidivism rates.
Brunner (1993) stressed the importance of studying reading disabilities and providing reading remediation to
delinquent youth. He reported that delinquent youth who do not have appropriate reading skills are more prone to
recidivate because they much less likely to be able to attain gainful employment.
A reading disability is commonly defined as a significant discrepancy between an individual's reading achievement and
his/her ability based on intelligence, education, and age (DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Reading
achievement is typically measured using reading comprehension, speed, and accuracy measures. As with learning
disabilities in general, there is no standard form of assessment used to determine if a significant discrepancy exists between
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
381
reading achievement and ability. Further, many researchers have criticized the discrepancy criterion because studies have
found that poor phonological decoding skills are the key component to reading difficulties. Thus, many poor readers with
or without IQ discrepancies have deficits in word decoding, and would be good candidates for remediation (Stanovich &
Siegel, 1994).
Regardless of these measurement concerns, reading disabilities are the most common form of learning disability in
the general population, with rates from 2.5% to 7.5% among school-age children (Kronenberger & Meyer, 2001). In
addition, reading disabilities are very prevalent among juvenile offenders. Studies of reading disabilities among
delinquent youth often assess the individual's years behind in reading based on their current grade level. Using this
operational definition, studies have reported various rates of reading problems among delinquent youth. For example,
Finn et al. (1988) studied 104 delinquent youth and found that 43% were reading two or more years behind grade level.
In addition, Project READ, a national project to improve reading skills among delinquent youth found that, on average,
the juvenile offenders read on a fourth grade level, but their mean actual grade level was ninth grade (Brunner, 1993).
Further, they found that 38% of the youth scored below the fourth grade level in reading. Although the prevalence rates
of reading disabilities among delinquent youth vary from study to study and according to different definitions of what
constitutes a disability, all estimates indicate that the rate of reading disabilities among juvenile delinquents is
significantly higher than rates of reading disabilities among the general school-aged population.
Further, reading disabilities are important to study in delinquent populations because higher recidivism rates have
been linked to youth with reading disabilities or reading problems (Archwamety & Katsiyannia, 2000). Katsiyannis,
Zhang, Barrett, and Flaska (2004) defined “… a recidivist as an adolescent who committed a crime and whose second
commitment date was less than 3 years after the first commitment date; a parole violator was defined as an adolescent
who was recommended for a parole violation within 3 years” (p.25). Archwamety and Katsiyannia (2000) found that
delinquent males who were in reading or math remedial groups were twice as likely to recidivate and/or have parole
violation than those who were not in the remedial groups. In addition, reductions in recidivism rates have been found to
decrease through educational remediation. Specifically, Brunner (1993) reported that recidivism rates decreased 20%
among delinquent youth who received reading remediation.
Even though reading disabilities are more prevalent in delinquent youth, and the presence of reading disabilities is
correlated with increased recidivism rates, the causal nature of this relationship is unknown. Rutter and Yule (1970)
proposed three different hypotheses to explain the relationship between reading disabilities and delinquency. The first
hypothesis proposes that behavior problems lead to reading disabilities. According to this theory, behavior problems
interfere with the child's motivation and ability to learn the appropriate skills in school, which, in turn, hinders reading
acquisition. The second hypothesis proposes that reading disabilities lead to behavior problems and subsequent
delinquency. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the RD causes school frustration, which results in low self-esteem
followed by aggressive and antisocial behavior. The third theory proposes that there is a third variable that is common
among youth that experience reading disabilities and behavior problems and that the third variable causes both problems.
Gellert and Elbro (1999) reviewed studies that attempted to test these hypotheses and found support for each of these
hypotheses. However, the studies used various samples with different age groups, varied in the inclusion or exclusion
of female delinquents, and represented different cultural and socioeconomic groups. In addition, the studies used
different reading and behavioral assessments. Thus, it remains difficult to determine the nature of the relationship
between RD and delinquency.
Nevertheless, Gellert and Elbro (1999) did find some common trends. First, they observed that reading problems
and behavioral problems are relatively stable over time, with both typically beginning in the preschool years and
persisting into the teenage years. Specifically, the correlations between reading problems at time one and reading
problems at time two are consistently greater than the correlations between early reading problems and later
delinquency or early behavior problems and later RD. Second, although less substantial in size, there are significant
associations both between early reading disabilities and later behavior problems as well as significant correlations
between behavior problems at school entry and later reading disabilities. Further, Gellert and Elbro (1999) stressed the
need to consider underlying factors that may cause both reading disabilities and behavior problems. Specifically, they
pointed to studies that found strong relationships between early language delay and later reading difficulties, behavior
problems, and low IQ (Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982; Silva, Williams, & McGee, 1987). Gellert and Elbro
concluded that these studies provide some support for the third-variable hypothesis.
Another study conducted by Maguin et al. (1993) explored the relationship between reading problems and
delinquency among males and found that attention problems were an underlying variable. Specifically, they reported
382
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
that reading problems failed to have a unique relationship with delinquency, but that the interaction between attention
problems and reading problems contributed significantly to delinquency. Thus, they urged delinquency theorists and
researchers to include attention problems as a predictor variable in their studies.
Based on the recommendations of Maguin et al. (1993), when studying the relationship between reading disabilities
and delinquency, it is important to include attentional problems as a variable in order to better understand their unique
relationships with delinquency and their interaction effects. In particular, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD) warrants particular interest because it is prevalent in juvenile delinquents and is highly co-morbid with other
psychological disorders. Specifically, ADHD is commonly co-morbid with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct
Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, and Learning Disabilities (Kronenberger & Meyer, 2001). It
is also important to study ADHD among youth in correctional facilities because youth with ADHD may qualify for
special education services. They will be eligible to receive these services if they are labeled with a “serious emotional
disturbance or other health related impairment.” In addition, they warrant special education services if they have a
comorbid learning disability (Rutherford et al., 2002). Thus, it is important to be able to correctly identify and treat
these youth.
Even though the prevalence rates of ADHD among delinquent populations vary between studies, the rate of ADHD
in delinquent samples has been found to be consistently higher than the rate of ADHD in school age children.
Specifically, the prevalence of ADHD among school age children in the United States ranges from 3% to 7% (DSM-IVTR, American Psychiatric Association, 2000), whereas the rate of ADHD in delinquent samples have been reported to
be as high as 46% (Otto, Greenstein, Johnson, & Friedman, 1992). Using structured clinical interviews, Otto et al.
(1992), identified between 19 and 46% of youth in the juvenile justice system as having ADHD. Further, Moffitt and
Silva (1988) reported a rate of 27.8% of ADHD among a sample of 13-year-old delinquent males. Similarly,
Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (in press), obtained a self-reported rate of 19.5% among a sample of delinquent male
youth.
In addition to high rates of ADHD among delinquent youth, the co-occurrence of ADHD and other diagnoses is very
common. Specifically, the co-occurrence of learning disabilities and ADHD has been consistently reported among
children and adolescents. For example, Barkley (1990) reported a range from 19% to 26% and Hinshaw (1992)
reported between 10% and 20% of children with comorbid ADHD and learning disabilities. Further, the specific
overlap of reading disabilities with ADHD has been reported to be between 9% and 33% (Pennington, 1991).
While it is important to determine the prevalence rates of ADHD among delinquent youth, it may also be essential to
examine casual relationships between ADHD and delinquency. Moffitt (1990) conducted a longitudinal study
examining the relationship between delinquency and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In this study, he compared 435
boys from age 3 to 15 with ADD and delinquency, ADD only, delinquency only, and neither ADD nor delinquency.
Moffitt found that the ADD and delinquent boys exhibited antisocial behavior that began earlier in life. Their
delinquent behaviors significantly increased as the boys aged. In addition, comorbid ADD and delinquency was
predictive of future criminal offending. Interestingly, Moffitt also found that the boys with ADD and delinquency
began life with more motor skill deficits and more family adversity. They also had lower IQ's at age five, which
persisted throughout their development. Further, once they began school, they frequently experienced reading failure,
which worsened in high school. Based on these findings, Moffitt theorized that there might be some underlying
physiological pathology that may account for the relationship between ADD, delinquency, and cognitive problems
(i.e., reading difficulties). As stated by Moffitt, “ Some common central nervous system pathology may underlie their
compounded problems of hyperactivity, inattention, aggression, poor motor skills, poor verbal abilities, and low
reading achievement ” (p. 906).
3. Reading disability: etiology, and treatment in the juvenile correctional system
Consequently, improving the reading skills of juvenile delinquents may be an important step toward preventing the
development of life-course persistent antisocial behavior. In a study of 26,000 inmates who were released from prison
in 1997 and 1998, the Criminal Justice Policy Council found that younger, uneducated prisoners were 37% less likely
to return to prison if they learned to read while incarcerated. Also, for younger inmates, improvements in reading and
other academic areas had a greater impact on recidivism than for older inmates (Susswein, 2000). Given this striking
statistic, it seems critical to develop specific, research-supported remediation strategies targeted at alleviating the
specific deficit within the juvenile that is causing the reading disorder. If we are to do this, we must first understand
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
383
what methods of reading remediation are currently available, which have been successful in the past, and which are
emerging as promising strategies for the future.
In many instances, incarcerated juveniles with RD are not receiving appropriate instruction that targets the effective
use of their strengths and the elimination of their deficits. In a recently published Review of Education Services in
Juvenile Justice Detention Facilities in the State of Florida (1998), the Florida State Legislature Office of Program
Policy Analysis and Government Accountability found that while the average incarcerated juvenile in Florida
correctional facilities does gain about one year in reading ability during his/her stay, most juveniles are released still
reading below grade level. This highlights the problem of RD students receiving traditional reading instruction which is
often based on worksheets, drill and practice, and other methods that have proven to be largely ineffective with these
students in the past (Leone et al., 2005).
In order to evaluate which programs have been most effective, or are likely to be most effective at treating reading
disabilities in the future, it is important to understand the nature of the underlying disorder. This review will focus on
two theories that are common in the literature about the etiological basis of reading disability: the phonological deficit
hypothesis, and the visual or magnocellular deficit hypothesis. Each of the theories will be briefly reviewed in turn,
followed by a review and analysis of the literature on remediating reading in the juvenile corrections system. Finally,
some promising new remediation strategies will be outlined, with recommendations for future research.
3.1. The phonological deficit hypothesis
The basic premise of the phonological deficit hypothesis is that due to some biobehavioral abnormality, children
have difficulty with phonological awareness (PA). Phonological awareness is the ability to discriminate between the
sounds of the child's natural language (and possibly other aspects of sound, such as pitch, rate, and others, see
Hämäläinen, Leppänen, Torppa, Müller, & Lyytinen, 2005). For example, in order to learn the proper name for a toy, a
young child sitting in front of a ball and doll must be able to detect and process the difference between the initial
consonants “b” and “d.” The major processes involved in the phonological awareness account of reading disability, and
their proposed sequence, are shown in Fig. 1. As outlined in the figure, it is hypothesized that some early delay or
impairment in the phonological system leads to deficits in speech sound discrimination, which are in turn associated
with problems developing the sound codes that form the basis of spoken language.
Fig. 1. Phonological model of developmental reading disabilities (dyslexia).Adapted from Scarborough (2005), p. 4.
384
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
Because much of our basic mental processing is mediated by our verbal codes, phonological deficits could
contribute to problems with verbal memory, naming, and a host of cognitive functions. As outlined in Shaywitz (2003),
the above problems could then translate into difficulties with word recognition, decoding, spelling, and other wordattack problems. On a secondary level, problems with comprehension of single words and passages would begin to
emerge as the reader began to struggle with more advanced material as (s)he ages. Finally, because the instrumental
purpose of reading within the academic context is to acquire information, deficits in verbal intelligence and general
knowledge could appear.
Many studies on the biological substrates of phonological processing have appeared in the last decade (Eden &
Zefiro, 1998; Pugh et al., 2001a,b; Simos et al., 2001; see Sandak, Mencl, Frost, & Pugh, 2004 for a recent review).
These studies provide abundant support for the important role of brain systems associated with the processing of
sounds in the execution of reading. Disordered phonological awareness clearly is an important contributor to RD for
many children. However, the phonological awareness deficit hypothesis of RD is in danger of becoming a monolithic
and overly narrow theory. In large part due to the success and diligence of the Shaywitz group, the phonological
awareness deficit hypothesis has been recently touted as “the” theory of RD/dyslexia. However, a number of problems
with that theory exist.
At the core of this hypothesis is the notion that phonological awareness deficits begin early, and as such are early
indicators of phonological awareness problems should be the best predictors of later RDs. Some evidence for the
predictive validity of measures of phonological awareness deficits exist, including recent cognitive neuroscience
studies employing behavioral tasks and brain imaging (Guttorm, Leppänen, & Poikkeus, 2005). However, as reviewed
by Scarborough (2005), at least 10 issues can be identified that challenge the validity and completeness of the
phonological awareness deficit hypothesis. A few of the most critical issues are summarized below:
1. Measures of phonological awareness are not the strongest nor the most consistent predictors of future reading levels
of beginning readers. Letter identification explains about 27% of the variance in reading level, whereas
phonological awareness explains about 21%.
2. Different measures predict RD at school age better at different points in early childhood. For example, speech
production is the best predictor of reading ability at the 2.5–3 year old age level, but vocabulary and other skills
outperform the predictive validity of this measure at the 3.4–4 year level.
3. The risk of RD in grade school remains higher for children who have been shown to recover from early receptive
and expressive language deficits. That is, the phonological awareness hypothesis frames RD as primarily a language
deficit, but even with no detectable language problems, reading problems develop more frequently.
4. RD develops in many children with no significant impairment in phonological awareness.
In addition to these problems with the phonological awareness deficit hypothesis, it has been shown by numerous
investigators that reading ability is highly correlated with non-phonological measures. It seems clear that, at least for
some people with reading disabilities, a deficit in phonological awareness is not necessarily the only or best way to
frame their learning problems. We turn now to some alternate conceptualizations.
4. Non-phonological aspects of reading disability: visual processing and attention
Recent research into reading disability (RD) has opened new avenues of understanding into the structure and
treatment of this problem. Instead of stemming exclusively from problems decoding, or “hearing” the sounds of the
words on the page, new research has shown that early problems with comprehension often co-occur with visual
motor deficits (Stein, 2001). In fact, visual tests have been shown to be as effective at distinguishing disabled from
normal readers as are tests of reading comprehension or phonological awareness (Eden, Stein, Wood, & Wood,
1995). In particular, poor readers show a marked difficulty in tracking moving visual stimuli in general, but in
particular, they have trouble adjusting their eyes as they read words across a page (Stein, 2001). Eye tracking refers
to the course that the eyes follow when scanning a sentence and the sequence in which the words are perceived. For
example, a child with a visual tracking problem might read the sentence “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy
dog” as “The quick brown quick brown fox jumped the over the lazy dog.” If an individual can read quickly,
efficiently, and with an appropriate degree of comprehension, then this is termed reading fluency (National Reading
Panel, 2000).
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
385
It is likely that errors in fluency are critically related to RD for at least some individuals. To explain, there are five
stages at which a disorder could take place. First, there could be a problem with visual acuity that precludes a child's
ability to see the letters on the page. Second, there could be a deficit in recognizing the images on the retina as letters.
Third, there could be a deficit in identifying the groups of letters as words. Fourth, there could be a difficulty in
comprehending the words, whether due to a deficit or lack of knowledge about the word. Fifth, there could be a deficit
in abstracting the meaning to the context in which it was used. All of these processes are potentially mediated by the
action of visual attention; from the perception of basic visual features (Mangun & Hillyard, 1991), to the processing of
words' semantic (meaning) properties (Deacon & Shelley-Tremblay, 2000; Shelley-Tremblay, 2003).
Solan, Larson, Shelley-Tremblay, Silverman, and Ficcara (2001) carried out a remediation study designed to
compare the effectiveness of traditional comprehension strategy and reading passage practice to a remediation
technique designed to specifically train aspects of visual–spatial attention. Using Henderson's (1992) definition of
visual–spatial attention as being “the selective use of information from one region of the visual field at the expense of
other regions of the visual field’’ (p. 260), they proposed that attention modulates the relationship between the dual
visual systems of the magno and parvocellular (M- and P-Cell) pathways in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) of the
thalamus. Magnocellular integrity refers to the proper functioning of the magnocellular stream of the visual processing
system, which is responsible for detecting motion in the periphery and localizing objects in the visual field while
reading. They counterbalanced the treatments such that one group would receive visual training first, followed by
reading training. Reading training was first for the other group followed by visual training. Pre, between, and posttreatment reading tests were administered. They found no significant differences based on sequence of treatment or
type of treatment (visual training worked as well as reading comprehension training), but there were significant
findings for the two treatment groups: both improved in reading comprehension at rates far above the controls. The
finding that visual attention training could have an equivalent effect to more traditional reading instruction was
noteworthy, and prompted a series of additional studies.
The mechanism by which the visual–spatial attention training may have exerted its effect on reading was by
improving occulomotor readiness. In the process of occulomotor readiness, a word or letter is read by the P-Cell system
in the fovea when both attention and vision focus on it (fixation). These cells transmit information more slowly, and so
the image lingers in the pathway. In a normal reader, a process called previewing takes place where the separate
parafoveal (M-Cell) system begins to read ahead, prompting a shift in attention from the word being read. This
attentional shift may wipe the image from the P-Cells and prepare them for the shift of vision (called a saccade) to the
new word. In dysfunctional reading, this previewing may not take place, so the image remains in the P-Cell pathway
proactively interfering with the new word to be processed.
Solan, Shelley-Tremblay, Ficcarra, Silverman, and Larson (2003) investigated the hypothesis that disordered
attention could be a contributing cause to reading fluency dysfunction. These authors used a computer-based training
program that stressed the development of rapid, accurate, and efficient eye movements in conjunction with cognitive
processing of alphabetic stimuli (letters). After attention training using elements of the Reading Plus1 system and
Computerized Perceptual Therapy Programs2, Solan et al. showed that 6th graders achieved significant improvement
over controls on measures of attention/focus (mean attention score moved from the 41st to 77th percentile) and,
notably, reading comprehension as well (GE—Grade Equivalent; GE—4.1 to GE—5.2, or from the 23rd to the 35th
percentile).
In another investigation (Solan, Shelley-Tremblay, Hansen, & Larsen, in press) the authors identified a sample of 19
above average readers (mean reading grade level — 11.2) and 23 below average readers (reading grade level — 3.5)
from the 6th grade. Participants were tested for visual attention skills and magnocellular integrity. Visual attention was
defined as a mental process by which an individual selectively focuses on particular stimuli while inhibiting responses
to competing stimuli. Magnocellular integrity was assessed by the use of a Coherent Motion Threshold obtained from a
visually presented Random Dot Kinematogram (RDK, Hansen, Stein, & Orde, 2001). The RDK displays two fields of
dots that move back and forth in either a random or predictable motion. The ratio of predictable to random dots is
gradually varied until the lowest detectable amount of random motion is detectable by the participant. Both adults with
dyslexia (Talcott, Hansen, & Assoku, 2000) and adolescents with reading disabilities (Solan et al., 2003) have been
shown to have high thresholds (low sensitivities).
1
2
Taylor Associates, Inc, 200-2 East Second St.Huntington Station, NY 11746.
R.C. Instruments, P.O. Box 6028, Apache Junction, AK, 85278.
386
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
It was found that the individual correlations of dependent variables with reading comprehension level were
significant, and when combined, the two tests (attention plus coherent motion threshold) accounted for 61% of the
variance in reading comprehension. Additionally, the sensitivity of the two diagnostic tests was measured using a
logistic regression analysis. The attention tests correctly classified 95.7% of the poor readers and the coherent motion
index correctly classified 78.3% of the poor readers. When the data were combined, 91.3% of the poor readers were
correctly classified. The authors concluded that there is evidence for a common linkage among reading comprehension,
visual attention, and magnocellular processing. They also recommended that diagnostic test batteries for students who
have been identified as reading disabled should include magnocellular and visual attention tests.
Solan, Shelley-Tremblay, and Hansen (2004) furthered this line of research in a recent study that employed only
visual training. Results showed that visual training alone led to improved reading scores, even in the absence of
concurrent reading training. However, this does not mean that these authors espoused eye-movement training as a
principal cure for all reading disabilities. Rather, they agreed with the position of Rayner, Murphy, Henderson, and
Pollatesek (1989) who indicated that the cause of reading problems is multidimensional and rises from a confluence of
factors, which include visual, phonological, and motor deficits. This framework is illustrated in Fig. 2, which is based
on the views outlined first in Solan et al. (2001). Consistent with the model presented, a combination therapy for RD
should be most effective at addressing these problems and improving overall reading ability. As a result, an integrative
training therapy that includes improving comprehension, attention, and eye tracking should produce a consistent
pattern of maximal results in remediating poor readers.
5. Review of past research to remediate RD in the juvenile corrections system: strengths, weaknesses, and
recommendations
Considering the size of the problem, very few published studies have attempted to deliver evidence-based
remediation for RD to youth in the juvenile justice system. In a recent review paper, Leone et al. (2005) found only
four research articles reporting on the effects of experimental reading programs on incarcerated youth. The present
authors have identified some additional studies by including papers referenced in educational and sociological
databases. This emphasizes the truly multi-disciplinary nature of this type of research. Limitations were noted in each
of the four studies reviewed by Leone et al. (2005). For example, none of the studies selectively identified juveniles
with RD, let alone administered tests to determine the nature of any particular teen's RD (phonological, visual,
general cognitive, etc.). Moreover, of the four research investigations identified by Leone et al. (2005), two of the
Fig. 2. Tripartite Model of reading and RD, stressing phonological, attentional, and functional visual components necessary for normal reading.
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
387
studies were judged not to be sufficiently experimentally rigorous to merit further review. The two remaining studies
were judged to be more methodologically sound (Drakeford, 2002; Malmgren & Leone, 2000).
Both Malmgren and Leone (2000), and an extension of Malmgren and Leone (2000) by Drakeford (2002) used the
Corrective Reading curriculum from Science Research Associates (SRA)3. This curriculum was designed to remediate
basic literacy skills for older struggling readers. The program stresses development of an Orton-Gillingham-like sound/
symbol correspondence system, followed by classroom teachers drilling fluency and comprehension skills. The
effectiveness of this curriculum at helping high-risk juveniles was independently assessed by Grossen (2004). Gains
were demonstrated both within and across academic years for teens using the program. Malmgren and Leone (2000)
reported significant growth in the areas of reading rate and accuracy, but mean post-test scores did not reach grade
level. In contrast, Drakeford (2002) used a multiple baseline design to assess the effect of the SRA curriculum on verbal
fluency. While the participants in this study did show improvements, the research design can be criticized for failing to
include a no-treatment control group. Further, reading level estimates were not reported, and so it is not possible to
examine the degree to which participants' (n = 17) oral reading fluency gains corresponded to overall reading
improvements, or to determine whether any of the participants had moved away from meeting criteria for a reading
disability.
In a related study, Simpson, Swanson, and Kunkel (1992) used the Orton/Gillingham approach with wards of the
court in two different facilities: a detention facility where the average length of stay was 92 days, and a residential
facility where the average length of stay was 37 days. The Orton/Gillingham method is one of the oldest and most
frequently used methods to remediate reading. It stresses individual and small group practice, with an initial emphasis
on developing phonological skills. This technique is time intensive. It also is predicated on a conventional instruction
model involving a classroom teacher in a traditional classroom environment. These assumptions might not translate
well to many components of the juvenile justice system.
For juveniles assigned to the Orton/Gillingham treatment, a multiple regression analysis showed an improvement in
reading scores of .3 academic years for every 10 h of training, while the comparison group experienced only small
positive or even negative changes in their reading scores. In addition, the rate of recidivism for the reading treatment
group was significantly lower (41%) than for either the comparison group (63%) or the general population (66%).
Therefore, a significant relationship was evident between reading growth and rate and frequency of recidivism for the
treatment group in this study (Simpson et al., 1992). While the additional studies which were reviewed here all
demonstrated significant gains in various aspects of reading ability, each did so by utilizing resource and time-intensive
educational strategies. These may not be practical for large-scale adoption by many types of juvenile corrections
facilities.
Rozalski and Engle (2005) recently stressed some of the difficulties faced by both educators and researchers when
they are attempting to work in the juvenile corrections environment. Specifically, these authors emphasized that
problems caused by limitations on physical space, lack of financial resources, and restrictions in instructional time were
compounded by constant interruptions due to visits from outside service providers such as social workers, chaplains,
and probation officers. Other environmental obstacles that the current authors have observed include frequent changes
in funding, staff, facilities, available educational facilities and even the daily schedules of the detained juveniles. All of
these are in addition to the interruptions in education that occur as a result of a behavioral problem in the classroom, or
when a penalty for misbehavior precludes normal participation in scheduled education periods. Thus, the critical
features of a successful RD remediation effort in the juvenile justice system would be that the program was fairly
resistant to disruption, self-paced, flexible, space and time efficient, and inexpensive. In fact, this type of program
would be desirable in any educational setting. In 2005, Rozalski and Engle suggested that the most likely candidate for
this kind of remediation program would involve the use of computer-assisted instruction (CAI). In CAI, students work
individually at their own pace through a series of exercises. Ideally, the CAI program would be specifically chosen by
the educational staff to remediate the deficient skill set of any particular learner.
While many research studies document the relative strengths and weaknesses of a large array of CAI educational
software that is currently available, such software has rarely been experimentally evaluated in samples of juvenile
delinquents. Since the publication of Leone et al. (2005), we could find only one additional published research article
that focused on the effectiveness of a CAI remedial program with incarcerated juveniles (Rozalski & Engle, 2005).
These authors used the Real Achievement Solutions: Reading and Language Arts software as a component of an
3
SRA/McGraw-Hill, 220 East Danieldale Road, DeSoto, TX 75115-2490.
388
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
intensive tutorial program within the correctional facility. The software contained modules such as, “Reading and
Writing in the Workplace,” and “How to Read and Write for Everyday Living,”. Based on the article, the target
participant for their remediation strategy would not be juveniles with severe reading disabilities. More probably, they
would be normal ability readers who were working to enhance their reading-related skills in order to improve their
individual and prospective workplace functioning. The authors indicated that while some aspects of comprehension
ability did not change, overall reading level did. Unfortunately, the remediation program involved just two juvenile
detainees. While their results are preliminary due to the extremely small sample size, the authors do point out that future
investigations must take care to isolate the effects of the CAI from the global effects of the facility's educational
program. The authors of the current review would add that the effects of the receiving exposure to general computer
instruction, as well as the influence of receiving additional one-on-one time with a positive mentor should also be
controlled for whenever possible. While this is the only published study using a CAI to address aspects of reading with
an incarcerated JD sample.
In a related study, Batchelder and Rachal (2000) used educational software (Advanced Instructional Management
System: AIMS) to consider the effectiveness of computer-assisted learning versus standard instruction alone in a
regular adult prison. AIMS4 is a learning management system that allowed the inmates to select general education
activities of interest to them. The software provided a maximum of 70 reading lessons (five on structure and
understanding of passages, 65 that involved practice reading and comprehension passages). This software was used to
supplement instruction in a GED preparation program, which is also a common component of educational programs for
incarcerated juveniles. While individuals with poor phonological, visual, or attentional abilities are most likely to be
classified as RD, these individuals are likely to be placed in the same educational setting as individuals who are behind
in reading due to other factors, such as a poor educational environment and/or a general developmental disability
resulting in a globally subnormal intelligence.
6. Summary of recommendations for research and remediation
As a means to review some of the key issues for the design of effective RD research in the JD, we will detail the
design of a study that is currently under way at a residential facility in southern Alabama that houses boys in an
alternative sentencing program (Shelley-Tremblay, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, in preparation). These researchers
chose to employ an intervention strategy that was based on what was effectively utilized by Solan, Shelley-Tremblay,
Ficarra, Silverman, and Larson (2003). This program emphasized the development of visual selective and sustained
attention, efficient occulomotor processing, and reading fluency. Choosing an empirically-supported remediation
strategy is critical when attempting to gain the trust and support of facility administrators who are increasingly faced
with time and budgetary pressures. Shelley-Tremblay and Langhinrichsen-Rohling chose the Solan et al. (2003)
method because it had previously been shown to produce positive gains in attentional skills, and, perhaps more
importantly, to raise reading comprehension levels. Further, while much of the field is currently stressing phonological
awareness-based intervention strategies, these strategies have in fact been found to have limited utility in older readers
(see Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2003). As reviewed in Alexander and Slinger-Constant (2004), phonologicallybased training programs have strong research support as useful prevention strategies in younger, at-risk children.
However, their utility as remediation strategies has had limited support in the research, with some studies finding little
or no significant change in reading ability following popular phonologically-based programs such as FastForWord
(Hook, Jones, & Macaruzo, 2001).
The next overarching issue to resolve is that of selecting an experimental design. The “gold standard” of
experimental research is to employ random assignment of otherwise equivalent participants to the experimental
treatment and control groups. Shelley-Tremblay and Langhinrichsen-Rohling were able to achieve this by a
prescreening process whereby all detainees were assessed for RD (quantified as two or more years behind for 6–9th
grades, and three or more years behind for ≥ 10th graders). Those who qualified as reading disabled were placed in
either a six-week (12 sessions, twice/week) CAI program, or a no-treatment control. The participants in the visual
attention/fluency CAI were monitored and encouraged by a one-on-one college student trainer to ensure compliance
and maximum effort during training sessions. It must be stressed that this level of control was only possible in the
4
Instructional Systems Inc., 411 Hackensack Avenue, 10th Floor, Hackensack, NJ 07601.
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
389
context of an ongoing, multi-year relationship between the facility and the researchers. Only after considerable time
and effort were the goals of the facility and those of the research team aligned.
Additional considerations included the inclusion of sufficient numbers of experimental and control subjects (n = 20
for both groups), as well as sufficient time in training (45 min/session). Participant effort was maintained by stressing
the intrinsic value of reading, as well as by trainers who developed enough rapport with the detainees to be able to talk
about their plans after release, such as work, graduation, and college. Another important feature of this research design
was the inclusion of additional measures to corroborate and explore the potential salutatory effects of the intervention,
such as measures of oral reading, phonological skill, magnocellular functioning, and general attentional abilities. The
Shelley-Tremblay and Langhinrichsen-Rohling study was limited by the number of available participants who could be
assigned to two different experimental groups, and so was unable to control for non-specific treatments effects such as
effect of spending time with an enthusiastic college student twice per week (i.e., they were unable to have an attention
only control condition). As in the public schools, detention facilities are loathe to allow some participants to be
assigned to a condition that would involve time socializing as opposed to being educated.
Finally, the above new research study will assess the effects of reading remediation on recidivism, as well as
consider whether there are concomitant changes in the juvenile delinquents psycho-social adjustment (i.e., depression,
locus of control, academic self-esteem, and frequency and severity of ADHD symptoms). Ultimately, any RD
intervention study must be seen as an intervention against recidivism and toward better eventual integration with
society. By working with aftercare providers and local juvenile justice systems it may be possible to track additional
positive outcomes (resistance to risk-taking, drugs, and violence) experienced by a juvenile delinquent who has had the
opportunity to gain confidence in their reading ability.
In conclusion, based on this review of the literature and our own ongoing work in the juvenile justice system, the
following recommendations are offered.
1. Given the large number of studies showing the increased frequency of learning disabilities among individuals involved
in the juvenile system, juvenile delinquents should routinely be assessed for the occurrence of a reading disability.
2. There are multiple determinants of reading problems in youth. The most useful reading assessment will include
measures of phonological awareness, word recognition, and fluency, and visual functioning. Because of the links
between ADHD and learning disabilities, it is highly recommended that juveniles be screened for this disorder upon
entrance into the facility.
3. Any youth who meets criteria for a RD is entitled to special educational services, according to federal law. Juvenile
justice facilities may be more motivated to provide these services when they are armed with the evidence that
reading remediation has been consistently linked with reduced rates of recidivism.
4. Due to the constraints experienced by many aspects of the juvenile justice system, implemented reading remediation
programs need to be efficacious, and time and cost efficient. Computer assisted remediation programs show promise
on all of these dimensions.
5. Remediating reading in middle school and high school aged individuals may require targeting different skills than programs
targeted toward elementary aged children. In particular, recent promise has been shown with a reading remediation program
which targets visual sustained and selective attention, occulomotor motor efficiency, and reading fluency.
6. The efficacy of any reading remediation program that has been implemented within the juvenile justice system
needs to be demonstrated via a methodologically sound empirical investigation.
7. Researchers should be aware of, but not deterred by, practical and location-specific barriers encountered when
conducting this type of applied research.
Acknowledgement
This project was supported by Grant No. 2001-SI-FX-0006 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice.
References
Alexander, A. W., & Slinger-Constant, A. (2004). Current status of treatments for dyslexia: Critical review. Journal of Child Neurology, 19, 744−758.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revision (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
390
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revision (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Archwamety, T., & Katsiyannia, A. (2000). Academic remediation, parole violations, and recidivism rates among delinquent youths. Remedial and
Special Education, 21, 161−170.
Baltodano, H. M., Mathur, S. R., & Rutherford, R. B. (2005). Transition of incarcerated youth with disabilities across systems and into adulthood.
Exceptionality, 13, 103−124.
Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. New York: Guilford.
Bassarath, L. (2001). Conduct disorder: A biopsychosocial review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 609−616.
Batchelder, J. S., & Rachal, J. R. (2000). Efficacy of a computer-assisted instruction program in a prison setting: An experimental study. Adult
Education Quarterly, 50, 120−133.
Beebe, M. C., & Mueller, F. (1993). Categorical offenses of juvenile delinquents and the relationship to achievement. Journal of Correctional
Education, 44(4), 193−198.
Belenko, S., & Dembo, R. (2003). Treating adolescent substance abuse problems in the juvenile drug court. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 26, 87−110.
Brier, N. (1993). Predicting antisocial behavior in youngsters displaying poor academic achievement: A review of risk factors. Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 271−276.
Brunner, M. S. (1993). Reduced recidivism and increased employment opportunity through research-based reading instruction. NCJ publication,
Vol. 141324. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Burrell, S., & Warboys, L. (2000). Special education and juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Centers for Disease Control. (2005). Youth violence: Fact sheet. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm
Childrens' Defense Fund (2003). Facts of youth, violence, and crime. Retrieved January 27, 2003, from http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/
americayvc.htm
Deacon, D., & Shelley-Tremblay, J. (2000). How automatically is meaning accessed: a review of the effects of attention on semantic processing.
Frontiers in Bioscience, 5, 82−94.
Dembo, R., Wothke, W., Shemwell, M., Pacheco, K., Seeberger, W., Rollie, M., et al. (2000). A structural model of the influence of family problems
and child abuse factors on serious delinquency among youths processed at a juvenile assessment center. Journal of Child and Adolescent
Substance Abuse, 10, 17−31.
Deptula, D. P., & Cohen, R. (2004). Aggressive, rejected, and delinquent children and adolescents: A comparison of their friendships. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 9, 75−104.
Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of youth confined to juvenile corrections. Journal of
Correctional Education, 53, 139−144.
Eden, G. F., & Zefiro, T. A. (1998). Neural systems affected in developmental dyslexia revealed by functional neuroimaging. Neuron, 21, 279−282.
Eden, G. F., Stein, J. F., Wood, H. M., & Wood, F. B. (1995). Verbal and visual problems in reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28,
272−290.
Elkins, I. J., Iacono, W. G., Doyle, A. E., & McGue, M. (1997). Characteristics associated with the persistence of antisocial behavior: Results from
recent longitudinal research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 101−124.
Falshaw, L., Browne, K. D., & Hollin, C. R. (1996). Victim to offender: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 389−404.
Farrington, D., Ohlin, L., & Wilson, J. Q. (1986). Understanding and controlling crime. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Field, S. A., & McNamara, J. R. (2003). The prevention of child and adolescent violence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 61−91.
Finn, J. D., Stott, M. W. R., & Zarichny, K. T. (1988). School performance and adolescents in juvenile court. Urban Education, 23, 150−161.
Gellert, A., & Elbro, C. (1999). Reading disabilities, behavior problems, and delinquency: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
43, 131−155.
Gifford-Smith, M., Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & McCord, J. (2005). Peer influence in children and adolescents: Crossing the bridge from
developmental to intervention science. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 255−265.
Grietens, H., & Hellinckx, W. (2004). Evaluating effects of residential treatment for juvenile offenders by statistical metaanalysis: A review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 401−415.
Grossen, B. (2004). Success of a direct instruction model at a secondary level school with high-risk students. Reading and Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 20, 161−178.
Guttorm, T. K., Leppänen, P. H. T., & Poikkeus, A. (2005). Brain Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) measured at birth predict later language
development in children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Cortex, 41, 291−303.
Hämäläinen, J., Leppänen, P. H. T., Torppa, M., Müller, K., & Lyytinen, H. (2005). Detection of sound rise time by adults with dyslexia. Brain and
Language, 94, 32−47.
Hansen, P. C., Stein, J. F., & Orde, S. R. (2001). Are dyslexics' visual deficits limited to measures of dorsal stream function? Neuroreport: For Rapid
Communication of Neuroscience Research, 12, 1527−1530.
Hawkins, K. A., & Trobst, K. K. (2000). Frontal lobe dysfunction and aggression: Conceptual issues and research findings. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 5, 147−157.
Henderson, J. M. (1992). Visual attention and eye movement control during reading and picture viewing. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements and
cognition (pp. 260−283). New York: Springer Verlag.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and adolescence: Casual relationships and
underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127−155.
Hook, P., Jones, S., & Macaruzo, P. (2001). The efficacy of FastForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills in children with specific
reading disabilities — A longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 75−96.
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
391
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (n.d.). Federal Register, March 12, 1999. Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su_docs/fedreg/a990312c.html
Kashani, J. H., Jones, M. R., Bumby, K. M., & Thomas, L. A. (1999). Youth violence: Psychosocial risk factors, treatment, prevention, and
recommendations. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 200−211.
Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Barrett, D. E., & Flaska, T. (2004). Background and psychosocial variables associated with recidivism among adolescent
males: A 3-year investigation. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 23−29.
Kronenberger, W. G., & Meyer, R. G. (2001). The child clinician's handbook (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Rebholz, C. L., O'Brien, N., O'Farrill-Swails, L., & Ford, W. (in press). Self-reported co-morbidity of depression,
ADHD, and alcohol/substance use disorders in male youth offenders residing in an alternative sentencing program. Journal of Evidenced-Based
Social Work: Advances in Practice, Programming, Research, and Policy.
Leone, P. E. (1994). Education services for youth with disabilities I a state-operated juvenile correctional system: Case study and analysis. Journal of
Special Education, 28(53), 46−50.
Leone, P. E., Bannon, M., & Buser, C. A. (1987). Prison segregation units and the educational rights of handicapped inmates: Problems and some
potential solutions. Issues in Correctional Training and Casework, 3, 1−3.
Leone, P. E., Krezmien, M., Mason, L., & Meisel, S. (2005). Organizing and delivering empirically based literacy instruction to incarcerated youth.
Exceptionality, 13, 89−102.
Maguin, E., Loeber, R., & Lemahieu, P. G. (1993). Does the relationship between poor reading and delinquency hold for males of different ages and
ethnic groups? Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 88−99.
Malmgren, K., & Leone, P. E. (2000). Effects of a short-term auxiliary reading program on the reading skills of incarcerated youth. Education and
Treatment of Children, 23, 239−247.
Mangun, G. R., & Hillyard, S. A. (1991). Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visualspatial priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1057−1074.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22−54.
Mears, D. P., & Kelly, W. R. (1999). Assessment and intake processes in juvenile justice processing: Emerging policy considerations. Crime and
Delinquency, 45, 508−529.
Moffitt, T. E. (1990). Juvenile delinquency and attention deficit disorders: Boys' developmental trajectories from age 3 to age 15. Child Development,
61, 893−910.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674−701.
Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors of life-course persistent and adolescent-limited antisocial pathways among males and
females. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 355−375.
Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Self-reported delinquency, neuropsychological deficit, and history of attention deficit disorder. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 553−569.
National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice (2003). Addressing the needs of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system:
The status of evidence-based research. National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004. Retrieved February
6, 2005, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/juvenile.html
National Council on Disability (2003). Addressing the needs of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: The current status of evidencebased research.Washington, DC: National Council of Disability Retrieved March 5, 2004 from http://www.ncd.gov.newsroom/publications/
juvenile.html
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children how to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction. Reports of the Subgroups. (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Otto, R., Greenstein, J. J., Johnson, M. K., & Friedman, R. M. (1992). Prevalence of mental health disorders among youth in the juvenile justice
system. In J. Cocozza (Ed.), Responding to the mental health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system (pp. 7−48). Seattle, WA: The National
Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System.
Pennington, B. F. (1991). Diagnosing learning disorders: A neuropsychological framework. New York: Guilford.
Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E, Jenner, A. R., Lee, J. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., et al. (2001a). Neuroimaging studies of reading development and reading
disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 240−340.
Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Lee, J. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., et al. (2001b). Neurobiological Studies of Reading and Reading Disability.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 479−492.
Puzzanchera, C. M. (2000, February). Self-reported delinquency by 12-year-olds, 1997. OJJDP Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Rayner, K., Murphy, L. P., Henderson, J. M., & Pollatsek, A. P. (1989). Selective attentional dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 6, 357−378.
Rayner, K., Murphy, L. P., Henderson, J. M., & Pollatsek, A. P. (1989). Reading disabilities: A regression-based test of phonological-core variabledifference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24−53.
Richman, N., Stevenson, J., & Graham, P. J. (1982). Pre-school to School: A behavioral study. London: Academic Press.
Rozalski, M. E., & Engel, S. (2005). Literacy education for correctional facilities: The "hope" for technology. Reading and Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 21, 301−305.
Rutherford Jr., R. B., Bullis, M., Anderson, C., & Griller-Clark, H. M. (2002). Youth with disabilities in the correctional system: Prevalence rates and
identification issues. College Park, MD: Center for Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.
Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1970). Reading retardation and antisocial behavior — the nature of the association. In M. Rutter, J. Tizard, & K. Whitmore
(Eds.), Education, health, and behavior. London: Longman.
392
J. Shelley-Tremblay et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 376–392
Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Stockhammer, T., & Hood, J. (2002). An ecological framework for understanding risk for exposure to community
violence and the effects of exposure on children and adolescents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 423−451.
Sandak, R., Mencl, W. E., Frost, S. J., & Pugh, K. R. (2004). The neurobiological basis of skilled and impaired reading: Recent findings and new
directions. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 273−393.
Scarborough, Hollis S. (2005). Developmental relationships between language and reading: Reconciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts.
In H. W. Catts, & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 3−24). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1998). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. The Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 88, 137−189.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Shelley-Tremblay, J. (2003). Hemispheric differences in the effect of selective attention on the electrophysiological response to semantic processing.
Dissertation Abstracts International. B. The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 1519.
Shelley-Tremblay, J., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (in preparation). The Effect of Visual Attention Training on Reading Ability on a Sample of
Reading Disabled Juvenile Delinquents.
Sickmund, M. (2004). Juveniles in corrections. OJJDP bulletin Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Silva, P. A., Williams, S., & McGee, R. (1987). A longitudinal study of children with developmental language delay at age three: Later intelligence,
reading, and behavior problems. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 29, 630−640.
Simos, P. G., Breier, J. I., Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Mouzaki, A., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2001). Age-related changes in regional brain
activation during phonological decoding and printed word recognition. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19, 191−204.
Simpson, S. B., Swanson, J. M., & Kunkel, K. (1992). The impact of an intensive multisensory reading program on a population of learning-disabled
delinquents. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 54−66.
Solan, H. A., Hansen, P. C., & Shelley-Tremblay, J. (2003). Coherent motion threshold measurements for M-cell deficit differ for above-and belowaverage readers. Optometry: Journal of the American Optometric Association, 74, 727−734.
Solan, H. A., Larson, S., Shelley-Tremblay, J., Ficarra, A., & Silverman, M. (2001). Role of visual attention in cognitive control of oculomotor
readiness in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 107−118.
Solan, H. A., Shelley-Tremblay, J., Ficarra, A., Silverman, M., & Larson, S. (2003). Effect of attention therapy on reading comprehension. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 16, 556−563.
Solan, H. A., Shelley-Tremblay, J., & Hansen, P. C. (2004). M-Cell deficit and reading disability: A preliminary study of the effects of temporal
vision-processing therapy. Optometry: Journal of the American Optometric Association, 75, 640−650.
Solan, H. A., Shelley-Tremblay, J., Hansen, P. C., & Larson, S. (in press). Is there a common linkage among reading comprension, visual attention,
and magnocellular processing? Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Stahl, A. L. (2003, September). Delinquency cases in juvenile courts, 1999. OJJDP Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of
phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24−53.
Stein (2001). The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia, 7. (2001)., 12−36.
Susswein, G. (2000). Austin American Statesman Homepage. [Online] Available: http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/wednesday/
metro_state_2/html
Talcott, J., Hansen, P., & Assoku, E. (2000). Visual motion sensitivity in dyslexia: Evidence for temporal and energy integration deficits. Neuropsychologia, 38, 935−943.
Tarolla, S. M., Wagner, E. F., Rabinowitz, J., & Tubman, J. G. (2002). Understanding and treating juvenile offenders: A review of current knowledge
and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 125−143.
Teichner, G., & Golden, C. J. (2000). The relationship of neuropsychological impairment to conduct disorder in adolescence: A conceptual review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 509−528.
Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. (2003). Progress towards understanding the instructional conditions necessary for remediating
reading difficulties in older children. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp.
277−298). Timonium: York Press.
Tremblay, R. E., Masse, B., Perron, D., Leblanc, M., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (1992). Early disruptive behavior, poor school
achievement, delinquent behavior, and delinquent personality: Longitudinal analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64−72.
Wasserman, G. A., Miller, L. S., & Cothern, L. (2000, April). Prevention of serious and violent juvenile offending. OJJDP: Juvenile Justice Bulletin.