Journal of Abnormal Psychology Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2001, Vol. 110, No. 4, 600-609 0021-843X/01/$5.00 DOT: 10.1037//0021-843X.110.4.600

Adolescence-Limited Versus Persistent Delinquency:

Extending Moffitt's Hypothesis Into Adulthood

Helene Raskin White, Marsha E. Bates, and Steven Buyske

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

The authors examined how neuropsychological, personality, and environmental risk factors and their
interactions were related to trajectories of delinquent behavior from adolescence to adulthood. Four
waves of longitudinal data from 698 male participants, ages 12-18 at Time 1 and ages 25-31 at Time 4,
were included in the analyses. Using a growth mixture model approach, 4 trajectories were identified:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

nondelinquents, adolescence-limited delinquents, adolescence-to-adulthood-persistent delinquents, and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

escalating delinquents. Five risk factors distinguished escalating from persistent delinquents and 5 also
distinguished nondelinquents from the 3 delinquency trajectories. Persistent delinquents scored signifi-
cantly higher than adolescence-limited delinquents on only one risk factor, disinhibition. Overall, few of
the factors that are related to childhood-to-adolescence persistence were associated with persistence in
delinquency beyond adolescence.

Some criminologists have argued that criminal propensity is
attributable to stable individual differences established early in life
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). This view disregards the possibility
that trajectories may have different etiologies, change due to life
circumstances, and be altered by current behavior (see Nagin &
Farrington, 1992; Laub & Sampson, 1993; Pasternoster & Brame,
1997). In contrast, other criminologists have argued that there are
distinct groups of deviant individuals and that the causes of crime
differ over the life course (Blumstein, Cohen, & Farrington, 1988).
The preponderance of research on delinquency has supported this
latter view and suggests that adolescent delinquents may represent
several types rather than a single entity (Bartusch, Jeglum, Lynam,
Moffltt, & Silva, 1997; Loeber, 1988; Moffitt, 1993a; Nagin &
Land, 1993; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Simons, Wu, Conger, &
Lorenz, 1994).
Moffitt (1993a) has proposed that, for some individuals, antiso-
cial behavior is stable and persistent, whereas for others it is
temporary. Her taxonomy distinguished two types of delinquents:
adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent. Moffitt hypothe-
sized that life-course-persistent delinquents could be distinguished
from adolescence-limited ones in terms of neuropsychological
Helene Raskin White and Marsha E. Bates, Center of Alcohol Studies,
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Steven Buyske, Department
of Statistics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
{"reparation of this article was supported in part by grants from the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA/AA-03395), the National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA-11594), and the Rutgers Univer-
sity Research Council. An earlier version of this article was presented at the
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November 1997, San
Diego, California.
We are grateful to David Farrington, Cathy Widom, and Scott Lilienfeld
for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Helene
Raskin White, Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, 607 Allison Road, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8001.
Electronic mail may be sent to hewhite@rci.rutgers.edu.
fion
deficits, especially in verbal skills and executive functions, bio-
logically based personality factors (such as an impulsive temper-
ament), and environmental adversity. Adolescence-limited delin-
quents, on the other hand, were hypothesized to engage in
antisocial behaviors as a social group phenomenon.
Knowledge of preadolescent behaviors has figured prominently
in differentiating persistence of antisocial behavior from childhood
to adolescence, in part because adolescence-limited and persistent
delinquents purportedly have the same frequency and severity of
delinquency during adolescence (Moffitt, 1993a). The hypothe-
sized neuropsychological, personality, and environmental risk
factors have been useful in distinguishing early onset from esca-
lating delinquency and childhood-to-adolescence-persistent from
adolescence-limited delinquency (Bartusch et al., 1997; Moffitt,
1993a; Moffitt, Lyman, & Silva, 1994; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993;
Simons et al., 1994; Tibbetts & Piquero, 1999; Tremblay, Pihl,
Vitaro, & Dobkin, 1994; J. White, Moffitt, Earls, Robins, & Silva,
1990). Yet, little is currently known about the utility of this
typology for differentiating adolescence-limited from adolescence-
to-adulthood-persistent delinquency. Although studies have found
that many persistent offenders are also early-onset delinquents, the
correlation is not perfect (e.g., Farrington & Hawkins, 1991; Smith
& Brame, 1994). Moffitt and colleagues (Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson,
Silva, & Stanton, 1996) found that nearly half of childhood-onset
delinquents were not seriously delinquent at age 18 years. The
aims of this study were as follows: (a) to extend the study of
individual differences in the persistence of delinquent behaviors by
examining longitudinal patterns of antisocial behaviors from ado-
lescence into adulthood, and (b) to examine how purported risk
factors were related to the persistence of antisocial behaviors
across the adolescence-to-adulthood transition.
Differentiating Limited and Persistent
Trajectories of Delinquency
According to Moffitt (1993a), most adolescent delinquent be-
haviors arise from peer and social environment factors, not from a
 ADOLESCENCE-LIMITED VERSUS PERSISTENT DELINQUENCY
high-risk developmental trajectory (see also Moffitt et al., 1996).
However, for a minority group of life-course-persistent delin-
quents (5%-10%), antisocial behavior is hypothesized to have
pathological roots. Specifically, neurological damage is proposed
to disrupt early development by fostering neuropsychological
problems and a difficult and undercontrolled temperament, which
in turn increase vulnerability to negative environmental influences.
Neuropsychological Dysfunction
The sources of early neuropsychological dysfunction are hy-
pothesized to include disruption of brain development in utero,
neonatal deprivation, birth complications, and genetic influences
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Moffitt, 1993a). There is some evidence that proxy measures of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
neurocognitive deficits, such as low birth weight and low scores on
achievement tests, are related to age of delinquency onset (Tibbetts
& Piquero, 1999). Deficits in verbal abilities and executive func-
tions consistently have been related to antisocial behavior (Gian-
cola, 1995; Giancola, Moss, Martin, Kirisci & Tarter, 1996; Ly-
nam, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993; Moffitt, 1993a; Seguin,
Pihl, Harden, Tremblay, & Boulerice, 1995).
Deficits in verbal skills that may promote delinquency include
the failure to use verbal mediation for self-control, a present-
oriented cognitive style that does not promote delay of gratifica-
tion, poor comprehension, and poor communication skills evoking
negative interactions (Moffitt, 1993b). The term executive cogni-
tive functions is often used to encompass the interrelated operation
and control of attention, abstract reasoning, cognitive flexibility,
strategic planning, use of environmental feedback, working mem-
ory, goal selection, and response inhibition (Benton, 1994; Duffy
& Campbell, 1994; Luria, 1973). Executive impairment is thought
to promote undercontrolled behavior that is disinhibited and ag-
gressive (Giancola, 1995; Hoaken, Giancola, & Pihl, 1998; Mof-
fitt, 1990, 1993a, 1993b; Seguin et al., 1995). Impairment may
disrupt interpersonal relations and social problem solving by lim-
iting one's ability to generate alternative solutions to problems,
inhibit aggressive responses, appropriately respond to environmen-
tal cues, and appreciate behavioral consequences (see Loeber &
Hay, 1997).
Personality
A substantial literature supports the idea that the risk for per-
sistence of antisocial behavior is compounded by temperamental
characteristics (Moffitt, 1993a). These characteristics may be sec-
ondary to neuropsychological deficits, come about through focal
neurological injury, or have other etiological roots. As infants and
young children, those with difficult temperaments are described as
overactive and irritable. In adolescence, such youths tend to re-
main impulsive and disinhibited. The personality characteristics of
impulsivity and disinhibition have been linked to delinquency in
many studies (Block, 1995; Tremblay et al., 1994; H. White,
Labouvie, & Bates, 1985; J. White et al., 1994). Deficits in
impulse control interfere with one's ability to inhibit behavior and
are often accompanied by tactlessness and a lack of appreciation
for the consequences of one's behavior. Negative emotionality
(e.g., alienation) and low constraint (e.g., low traditionalism, harm
avoidance, and control) have also been linked to delinquency (e.g.,
Caspi et al., 1994).
601
Although neuropsychological functioning and personality char-
acteristics have been found to differentiate early-onset from late-
onset delinquents, few studies have examined their ability to
differentiate those individuals who persist in delinquency beyond
adolescence from those who do not. Nagin, Farrington, and Moffitt
(1995) found no evidence that neurocognitive and personality
factors—including attention problems, low 1Q, reading failures,
and impulsivity—could differentiate adolescence-limited from
chronic offenders. On the other hand, Donnellan, Ge, and Wenk
(2000) found that some cognitive abilities were able to discrimi-
nate White and Hispanic but not African American persistent
delinquents from adolescence-limited delinquents. However, in
both of these studies, persistence groups were based on official
records of arrests or criminal convictions. Thus, some subjects
were assigned to the adolescence-limited group even though they
may have continued to engage in undetected criminal behavior in
adulthood. Additional research separating those who continued
criminal behavior from those who stopped, regardless of convic-
tion status, might reveal differences that were masked by these
group definitions.
Environmental Adversity
According to Moffitt (1993a), the co-occurrence of a neurolog-
ically impaired infant in an adverse rearing environment sets the
stage for life-course-persistent deviance. She suggested that the
impact of neuropsychological impairment would be exacerbated in
disadvantaged homes because impaired children create a real chal-
lenge for parents, and inadequate parents would not be able to
compensate for these problems. Family adversity has been defined
to include such familial environment factors as low parental edu-
cation and income, single-parent status, and measures of a dis-
rupted family social environment (e.g., Moffitt & Silva, 1988).
Present Study
The present study extended previous research by examining
trajectories of delinquent behaviors from early adolescence into
adulthood. On the basis of previous studies of childhood-to-
adolescence persistence, we hypothesized that three different tra-
jectories would be identified: nondelinquents, adolescence-limited
delinquents, and adolescence-to-adulthood-persistent delinquents.
We also hypothesized that adolescence-limited and adolescence-
to-adulthood-persistent delinquents would differ on selected mea-
sures of neuropsychological functioning, personality risk, and en-
vironmental risk. As described above, Moffitt (1993b) postulated
that neurocognitive dysfunction would moderate the association of
other intrapersonal and interpersonal factors to delinquency. Al-
ternatively, there is also support for direct associations between
these risk factors and antisocial behavior (e.g., Patterson &
Yoerger, 1993; Pennington & Bennetto, 1993). We therefore ex-
amined both main effect and interaction models.
Method
Design and Sample
Data were collected as part of the Rutgers Health and Human Develop-
ment Project (HHDP), a prospective cohort-sequential, longitudinal study
of adolescent development. Adolescents were originally identified by a
 602 WHITE, BATES, AND BUYSKE
random telephone survey in New Jersey (NJ). Following the telephone survey,
field staff interviewed interested participants and their parents in their homes.
Subsequently, participants came to the test site for a full day of testing.
Families were paid for their participation, and informed written consent was
obtained from both the participants and their legal guardians. (For greater
detail on initial participant recruitment, see Horwitz & White, 1987.)
The HHDP samples included 698 male and 682 female participants who
were tested initially between 1979 and 1981 (Time 1, Tl). Three cohorts
were tested: The youngest cohort was age 12 at Tl, the middle cohort was
age 15 at Tl, and the oldest cohort was age 18 at Tl. These participants
returned for retest 3 years later in 1982-1984 (Time 2, T2), again in
1985-1987 (Time 3, T3), and finally in 1992-1994 (Time 4, T4). A total
of 91% (n = 1,257) of the original sample returned at T4._The original
sample was predominantly White (90%; compared with the NJ population,
which was 83% White at the time; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981). Half
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of the participants were Catholic, 30% were Protestant, 9% were Jewish,
and the final 11% were another or no religion, analogous to the religious
composition of NJ. The median family income of participants' parents at
Time 1, between $20,000 and $29,000, was also comparable to that of the
entire state at that time (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981). Participants
were comparable to those who refused at Tl in demographic characteristics
and selected behaviors sampled during the original telephone survey,
except that participants displayed slightly higher parental occupation and
education. Overall, the sample of participants is most representative of
White adolescents living in a metropolitan, working-class and middle-class
environment. (For more extensive details of this study, see Pandina, Labou-
vie, & White, 1984.)
For the present study, we included only male participants because, in
general population samples, life-course-persistent delinquency is limited
almost exclusively to men (Moffitt, 1993a) and because, in our sample, the
number of female participants with serious delinquency was very small. All
698 male participants in our sample were included in the analysis. All
available observations on delinquency were used, with an average of 3.75
observations for each participant over the four waves. For 75% of the
participants (n = 523), complete covariate information was available; for
the remaining 25%, partial covariate information was available. To take
advantage of the full available data, we used multiple imputation. Specif-
ically, we used PROC MI in SAS, with options set to use multivariate
normal Markov Chain Monte Carlo, to impute 10 data sets with full
covariate information (SAS, 2001). All analyses described below were first
done separately on each imputed data set and then combined by standard
statistical methods designed to incorporate the additional uncertainty due to
the imputed data. This multiple imputation takes full advantage of all
available data and avoids the bias that may result from using only the
complete cases (Schafer, 1997).
Measures
The data came from self-report questionnaires. Self-reports are generally
accepted as reliable and valid indicators of delinquent behavior (Hindelang,
Hirschi, & Weis, 1981) if conducted under nonthreatening circumstances
(Dembo, Williams, Wish, & Schmeidler, 1990). Elliott, Huizinga, and
Menard (1989) suggested that self-reports provide a more direct, sensitive,
and complete measure of various forms of deviant behavior than do
measures based on official law enforcement and institutional records.
There are also limitations involved in using self-report data, such as
respondents' inability to remember past events, misunderstanding the ques-
tions, and efforts to conceal or exaggerate (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1990).
When both the dependent and independent measures are assessed with
self-reports, there is also a potential influence of shared method variance.1
Nevertheless, this tradition of using self-reports is fairly common in the
delinquency literature (e.g., Elliott et al., 1989). (For further discussion of
the advantages and disadvantages of self-report data, see Elliott et al.,
1989, and Hindelang et al., 1981.) To maximize reliability and validity of
the self-report data, questionnaires were administered individually by a
trained interviewer assigned to a participant for the length of the testing
day. Participants were instructed not to put their names on any question-
naire, were advised of the protections granted by the Certificate of Confi-
dentiality obtained from the National Institutes of Health, and were repeat-
edly assured of the confidentiality of all data, especially with regard to
parents, teachers, and public authorities.
Delinquency. At each test occasion, we measured the number of times
(5-point scale, from never to more than 10 times) that participants had
engaged in the following behaviors in the last 3 years: petty theft, grand
theft, motor vehicle theft, breaking and entering, avoiding payment, van-
dalism, assault, and armed robbery. These frequency scores were summed
to form an overall scale of delinquent behavior at each test occasion.2 The
level of delinquency reported by our participants at Tl was similar to the
amount found in other surveys of predominantly middle-class adolescents
collected at the same time (e.g., Linden, 1978). (For rates, see Pandina &
White, 1984.) A scale of aggressive behavior was also constructed at each
test occasion, which was the sum of the frequencies for armed robbery,
assault, and fighting with weapons or in a gang.3
Risk factors. A proxy measure of early neuropsychological problems
(labeled birth risk; BIRISK) was developed on the basis of two birth risk
factors that have been related to neuropsychological disturbance: low birth
weight (<6 Ibs. [<2.72 kg]) and premature birth (Moffitt, 1993a; Tibbetts &
Piquero, 1999; see Footnote 4). These two variables were coded 1 (true) and 0
(not true) and summed to form a Birth Risk scale (alpha reliability = .72).
In addition to the proxy measure of early neuropsychological dysfunc-
tion, three proximal measures of neuropsychological functioning were
assessed at T3 in the areas of verbal abilities and executive function-
ing. Unlike the personality and environmental measures (see below), these
measures were not available until T3. Although this is not ideal, studies
have shown that levels of neuropsychological functioning are relatively
1
The data set did not contain independent measures of delinquency (such as
arrest records); therefore, the analyses were based on self-report data for both
the delinquency and the risk factors. Individuals' response styles and person-
ality factors can affect their responses to self-report items, which in turn can
create measurement error. This problem may be most serious for variables that
rely on a participant's perception, such as the measure of parental hostility. For
example, delinquents may be more negative in their attitudes about everything,
including their parents' treatment of them. Therefore, the results should be
evaluated in light of possible measurement limitations.
2
Several operationalizations of life-course-persistent delinquency have in-
cluded early onset of delinquency as a defining characteristic (e.g., Tibbetts &
Piquero, 1999; J. White et al., 1990). Because the HHDP began as a study of
the development of drug use behaviors, no data were collected on age of onset
for delinquency, and thus early onset could not be included in the definition
scale used in the present analysis. Only eight delinquency items were included
in the delinquency scale in order to create a scale that was exactly the same
across all four test occasions. This number is fewer than the number of items
typically used in general delinquency scales (e.g., Elliott et al., 1989). Never-
theless, the scale covered a broad range of acts in terms of type (i.e., property
offenses and offenses against persons) and severity of delinquency.
3
At T4, using a weapon in a fight was replaced by gang fighting in the
aggression scale due to changes in the questionnaire items. However, given
that the aggression scale was examined separately at each age and not used
as a repeated measure to develop trajectories over time, it is unlikely that
this change was problematic.
4
These birth risk measures were collected from mothers retrospectively
when the child was between 12 and 18 years old. It could be argued that
retrospective recall may have made these measures unreliable. However,
these two questions tap unusual circumstances that should be remembered
by most informants. Other studies have reported that retrospective recall of
such circumstances (e.g., birth weight) is reliable (see Tibbetts & Piquero, 1999).
 ADOLESCENCE-LIMITED VERSUS PERSISTENT DELINQUENCY
stable from childhood to adolescence (Moffitt, 1990) and from adolescence
into young adulthood (Bates & Labouvie, 1998). Confirmatory factor
analyses of the structure and stability of our neuropsychological battery test
scores over 7 years from T3 to T4 demonstrated very high stability of latent
factors (>.90; Bates & Labouvie, 1998), and the specific manifest scores
used in the present study also showed high stability from T3 to T4 (>.70).
Verbal ability (VERB) was measured by the Shipley Institute of Living
Scale (SILS) Vocabulary Test (Zachary, 1986). It consists of a 40-item
multiple-choice test and provides a time-saving (10 min) yet valid alter-
native to more extensive verbal IQ assessments (Parker, Birnbaum, Boyd,
& Noble, 1980; Paulson & Lin, 1970). Executive function was measured
by two separate tests: the Trail Making Test—Part B (TRAIL) and the
Booklet Category Test (BCT). TRAIL (Reitan & Wolfson, 1985) involves
drawing a continuous line to connect circled numbers and letters in an
alternating sequence. Response time is the dependent variable. Longer
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
response times signal impairment in complex conceptual tracking skills,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
reduced ability to follow more than one mental sequence at a time, and
inflexibility in shifting cognitive-behavioral activities (Escon, Yen, &
Bourke, 1978; Gaudino, Geisler, & Squires, 1995). The BCT (DeFillippis
& McCampbell, 1991) requires developing and elaborating abstract con-
cepts that relate subsets of multidimensional visual stimuli. Increasing
errors are indicative of a deficit in the ability to develop (with feedback)
conceptual referents or rules to use in solving novel, unfamiliar problems,
that is, shirting cognitive sets and adapting. A shortened version (Russell &
Levy, 1987) was used, which correlates highly with the full BCT and has
been found to be as accurate as full scores in discriminating brain-damaged
from normal participants (Russell & Barren, 1989). Higher scores indicate
higher neuropsychological risk.
Two of the personality measures were the Impulsivity and Harm Avoid-
ance subscales from a shortened version of Jackson's (1968) Personality
Research Form E (PRF E). Higher scores indicate higher impulsivity (IMP;
M = 5.35, SD = 2.32) and lower harm avoidance (HARM; M = -5.65,
SD = 2.79). The PRF E provides a broadly defined measure of personality
structure, and high levels of internal consistency (.94 for HARM; .92 for
IMP) and test-retest reliability (.90 for HARM; .81 for IMP) have been
reported (Jackson, 1968). Sensation seeking was measured by the Disin-
hibition subscale (M = 4.37, SD = 2.0) from Zuckerman's (1979) Sensa-
tion Seeking Scale. Higher scores indicate higher disinhibition. This scale
has been demonstrated to have high test-retest reliability (.91) and internal
consistency (>.70). All of the personality variables were assessed at Tl
with the exception of disinhibition. Disinhibition was assessed at Tl for the
middle and oldest cohorts; however, it was assessed at T2 for the youngest
cohort because of the lack of demonstrated reliability prior to age 14
(Zuckerman, 1979). In this sample, the alpha reliability coefficient was .64
at Tl and .66 at T2.
Three measures of family adversity were included. Family socioeco-
nomic status (SES) at Tl was the product of highest parental educational
level (1 = less than high school, 1 = postgraduate) and highest parental
occupational level (1 = unemployed, 10 = professional; alpha reliability =
.66). The final SES scale was divided into quintiles representing five levels
of SES, with a higher score indicating lower SES (M = 3.26, SD = 1.46).
A Tl family structure (FAMST) variable was coded 1 for a single-parent
family and 0 for a two-parent family. We also included a measure of
parental hostility (HOST; M = 47.30, SD = 12.67) at Tl from the Streit
(1978) Youth Perception Inventory. This was a 17-item (e.g., how often
parents forget to help you when you need it, act as though you are in the
way, make you feel you are not loved) scale with an alpha reliability
coefficient of .87. Table 1 presents a list of all of the measures included in
the analyses and when they were assessed.
Analyses
A semiparametric, group-based modeling technique was used to develop
trajectories of delinquency (Muthen & Shedden, 1999; Roeder, Lynch, &
603
Table 1
Measures
Measure Tl T2 T3 T4
Delinquency scale X X X X
Aggression scale X X X X
Birth risk X
Verbal ability X
BCT X
Trail Making Test X
Impulsivity X
Harm avoidance X
Disinhibition" X X
SES X
Family structure X
Parental hostility X
Note. An X means that the assessment was made at that time. Tl = Time
1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3; T4 = Time 4. BCT = Booklet Category
Test; SES = socioeconomic status.
a
Disinhibition was measured at Tl for the middle and oldest cohorts and
at T2 for the youngest cohort.
Nagin, 1999). This growth mixture model method allows for cross-group
differences in the shape of developmental trajectories and is, therefore,
especially suited for identifying, rather than assuming, heterogeneity in
types of developmental trajectories (Nagin & Tremblay, 1999). The ap-
proach is based on the assumption that the population is composed of a
mixture of distinct groups defined by their developmental trajectories.
Thus, this approach can test whether theoretically predicted developmental
trajectories are actually present in the population.
To take advantage of the cohort sequential design, age scores for
delinquency were used to model the trajectories. There were seven ages at
which delinquency was measured (i.e., ages 12, 15, 18, 21, 24.5, 28, and
31). The number of participants included for each delinquency measure-
ment varied depending on age. For example, delinquency at age 12 was
assessed in the youngest cohort (at Tl), whereas two cohorts supplied
information for delinquency at age 15 (the middle cohort at Tl and the
youngest cohort at T2). The oldest cohort was 24 at T3 and the youngest
cohort was 25 at T4; their scores were combined to provide a measure of
delinquency at age 24.5.
A custom-written Splus library named mmlcr (mixed-mode latent class
regression), run on the Splus statistical programming environment (Math-
soft, 1999), was used to test the models (available at StatLib, http://
lib.stat.cmu.edu). An important step in the analysis is to determine the
optimal number of groups that best describes the data. This is accomplished
by repeating the analyses and adding an additional group each time.
Although there is no definitive statistic for determining the optimal number
of groups, most experts suggest that the Bayes information criterion (BIC)
should be used to determine the optimal number of trajectory groups when
testing mixture models (D'Unger, Land, McCall, & Nagin, 1998; Keribin,
2000). The model with the smallest absolute BIC is chosen. The BIC
criterion rewards parsimony and so tends to favor fewer groups, but it is
known to be consistent (Keribin, 2000). A difference of more than 10 in the
BIC is considered very strong evidence against the model with the higher
BIC (Raftery, 1995). For each possible trajectory group, the observed
delinquency score was modeled with a Poisson model quadratic in time.
For each class, this model was fit using quasi-likelihood, ensuring the
consistency of the estimates within each class even if the model is mis-
specified (Wedderburn, 1974). Using the methods recommended in
Bandeen-Roche, Miglioretti, Zeger, and Rathouz (1997) for checking
model adequacy in latent class models, we found this model to give a
satisfactory fit to the data. (The model-checking analyses are available on
request from Helene Raskin White.)
 604 WHITE, BATES, AND BUYSKE
The EM algorithm was used to simultaneously find the trajectories and
the membership probabilities. Earlier applications of the growth mixture
modeling approach assigned each individual to the class to which he or she
had the highest probability of belonging (e.g., Nagin et al., 1995). In this
study, each individual's probability of membership in each trajectory group
was used as a weight in the analyses. This technique reduces bias and
measurement error, especially for individuals whose observed behavior
does not clearly match any one group's trajectory (see Nagin & Tremblay,
1999; Roeder et al., 1999). After determining the number of groups, we
examined the association between group membership and risk factors by
using polytomous logistic regression, with the group membership proba-
bilities as case weights.
Results
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Delinquency Trajectories
In all, two-group, three-group, four-group, five-group, and six-
group models were tested. There was improvement in the BIC (i.e.,
it decreased) as the number of latent classes increased from two
(BIC = 10,405) to three (BIC = 10,140) and from three to four
(BIC = 10,009). However, the BIC began to increase as the
number of classes increased to five (BIC = 10,082) and six
(BIC = 10,111). Thus, on the basis of the BIC criteria, we selected
a four-group model as the best-fitting model.
Figure 1 shows the four trajectory groups. Group N represents
nondelinquents (47% of the total sample). Group A comprises the
adolescence-limited delinquents (33%). Group P represents the
adolescence-to-adulthood-life-course-persistent delinquents (7%,
which is consistent with estimates by Moffitt, 1993a). In addition
8
w
£
'33
Q
12 15 18
Figure 1. Delinquency trajectories for the total sample. N = nondelinquents; A = adolescence-limited
delinquents; E = escalating delinquents; P = persistent delinquents.
to the these three predicted groups, a fourth group was also
identified. This group, labeled E in Figure 1, comprises the esca-
lating delinquents, who increased their levels of delinquency into
adulthood (13%).
Chi-square analyses indicated that there were no significant
differences in the representativeness of the three age cohorts
among the trajectory groups, ^(6, N = 698) = 1.16, p = .98. In
addition, when separate trajectories for each age cohort were
plotted (not shown, but available from Helene Raskin White), they
matched the overall trajectory well, providing convergent support
for the chi-square analyses and indicating that age cohort effects
were negligible.
Levels of Delinquency
Table 2 shows the weighted mean levels and standard deviations
for the delinquency and aggression scales at each age for the
trajectory groups. Tukey post hoc comparisons were conducted to
determine significant group differences. Persistent delinquents
scored significantly (p < .05) higher on the delinquency scale than
adolescence-limited delinquents at all ages except age 12. Al-
though persistent compared with adolescence-limited delinquents
were more aggressive at all ages except age 31, the differences
were only statistically significant at ages 18 and 24.5.
The escalating group was significantly lower in their delin-
quency than the adolescence-limited delinquent group at ages 12
and 15 and the persistent group at ages 12 through 18. The
escalating group became significantly more delinquent than the
21 24.5 28 31
Age
 ADOLESCENCE-LIMITED VERSUS PERSISTENT DELINQUENCY 605

Table 2
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Delinquency and Aggression

Adolescence-limited Escalating Persistent

Variable Nondelinquents delinquents delinquents delinquents

Delinquency
Age 12 0.35 (0.70)a 2.02(1.92)b 1.05(1.44)c 2.99 (4.26)b,c
Age 15 0.61 (0.91)a 3.76 (2.52)b 2.02(1.91)c 6.93 (4.97)d
Age 18 0.76(1.03)a 3.54 (2.27)b 3.74 (2.69)b 10.76 (4.85)c
Age 21 0.61 (0.95)a 1.97(1.92)b 3.73 (2.70)c 7.55 (4.61)d
Age 24.5 0.40 (0.77)a 0.82(1.13)b 3.87 (2.33)c 5.51 (4.09)c
Age 28 0.16 (0.52)a 0.33 (0.64)a 3.99(2.71)b 2.46 (2.64)b
Age 31 0.16(0.48)a 0.12 (0.35)a 4.30 (3.04)b 1.56(1.96)c
Aggression
Age 12 0.13(0.39)a 0.49 (0.88)b 0.33(0.99)ab 1.41(2.31) ab
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Age 15 0.14(0.46)a 0.62(1.28)bc 0.27 (0.78)a,b 1.13(1.61)c

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Age 18 0.14 (0.47)a 0.60(1.15)b 0.41 (0.86)b 1.80(2.25)c

Age 21 0.11 (0.48)a 0.38 (0.97)b 0.63(1.35)b 0.93 (1.57)b
Age 24.5 0.06 (0.35)a 0.14(0.47)a 0.30(0.90)ab 0.65(1.14)b
Age 28 0.04 (0.28)a 0.04 (0.27)a 0.36 (1.05)a 0.11 (0.46)a
Age 31 0.02(0.14)a 0.03 (0.24)a 0.13 (0.43)a 0.07 (0.25)a

Note. Means with different subscripts differ significantly (p < .05) by Tukey post hoc tests.

adolescence-limited group at age 21 and older, and was signifi-
cantly more delinquent than the persistent group at age 31.s
Trajectory Profiles
Figure 2 presents the age-adjusted, weighted means and 95%
confidence intervals for the nondelinquent, adolescence-limited,
escalating, and persistent groups on each of the risk factors to
provide an overall description of the trajectory groups (see Moffitt
et al., 1996). For this presentation, the means were standardized to
a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 (higher scores indicate
higher risk). Tukey post hoc comparisons (available from Helene
Raskin White on request) revealed that all three delinquent groups
were significantly (p < .05) higher than nondelinquents in impul-
sivity, harm avoidance, and disinhibition. No other significant
group differences were found.
Trajectory Group Differences
To test the hypotheses regarding whether putative neuropsycho-
logical, personality, and environmental risk factors and their in-
teractions could distinguish among delinquency trajectories, we
conducted hierarchical polytomous logistic regression analyses.
Four sets of models were examined. The first set included the main
effects of the predictors and age cohort (as two dummy variables).6
The second set included the main effects plus the neuro-
psychological-personality variable interactions. The third set
included the main effects plus the neuropsychological-
environmental variable interactions. The final set included the
main effects plus the personality-environmental variable interac-
tions. For comparing nested models, we used the multiple impu-
tation version of the likelihood ratio test, which uses an F statistic
instead of a chi-square difference (Meng & Rubin, 1992).
The main effects model was significant, F(30, 352268) = 5.19,
p < .0001. The addition of the neuropsychological-environment
interactions significantly, F(36, 37665) = 5.19,p = .03, improved
the model fit. The addition of the neuropsychological-personality
interactions, F(36, 49045) = 1.21, p = .18, and the personality-
environment interactions, F(27, 26043) = 1.42, p = .07, did not
significantly improve the model fit. Within these models, we
examined odds ratios to determine which risk factors differentiated
among trajectory groups. Table 3 shows the odds ratios (OR) for
the significant comparisons.
First, nondelinquents were compared with the other three tra-
jectory groups. The main effects model indicated that those ado-
lescents with higher impulsivity (OR = 1.15 for every unit in-
crease), lower harm avoidance (OR = 1.11 for every unit increase
on our reverse-coded scale), higher disinhibition (OR =1.41 for
every unit increase), higher parental hostility (OR = 1.03 for every
unit increase), and one versus two parents (OR = 2.16) were
significantly more likely to be delinquents than nondelinquents.
Second, in the primary comparison of the adolescence-limited
delinquent trajectory with the persistent delinquent trajectory, only
one of the risk factors differed significantly between groups.
Persistent delinquents were significantly higher in disinhibition
(OR = 1.19 for every unit increase).
Third, escalating delinquents were compared with persistent
delinquents. Although this comparison was not planned, it was
conducted to help elucidate the risk factors associated with in-
5
Trajectory groups were also compared on the individual delinquency
items. For the most part, the persistent group had the highest 3-year
prevalence rates for serious and nonserious types of delinquency until their
late 20s and the escalating group exceeded them on every offense by either
age 28 or age 31. The adolescence-limited group engaged in both serious
and nonserious offenses during adolescence; however, their prevalence
rates of nonserious delinquency were closer to those of persistent delin-
quents than were their rates of serious delinquency.
6
The youngest cohort and oldest cohort were entered as two dummy
variables compared with the middle cohort as the reference group. We
chose to use cohort rather than age as the control in case the risk factors
were not linearly related to age. Interactions of cohort with each of the risk
factor variables were also tested, but none were statistically significant.
 606 WHITE, BATES, AND BUYSKE

oq
0 Nondelinquent
Adolescent Limited
Escalating
CD Persistent
d

t\j
d
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

i i i
BIRISK VERB TRAIL BCT IMP HARM DIS SES FAMST PARHOS

Figure 2. Standardized means on the risk factors for the four trajectory groups. All risk factors are coded so
that a higher score means greater risk. BIRISK = birth risk; VERB = verbal ability; TRAIL = Trail Making
Test; BCT = Booklet Category Test; IMP = impulsivity; HARM = harm avoidance; DIS = disinhibition;
SES = socioeconomic status; FAMST = family structure; PARHOS = parental hostility.

creases in delinquency over time. Higher disinhibition (OR = 1.20
for every unit increase), lower verbal ability (OR = 1.06 for every
unit increase), lower harm avoidance (OR = 1.15 for every unit
increase), higher parental hostility (OR = 1.03 for every unit
increase), and coming from a one- compared with a two-parent
family (OR ~ 3.49) differentiated persistent from escalating
delinquents.
Table 3
Odds Ratios for Significant Group Comparisons
Predictor N vs. A, E, & P A vs. P
Finally, we examined the significant set of neuropsychological-
environment interactions. Because of the large number of specific
interactions terms examined, we used the Bonferroni formula to
establish a significance level of .0014. One interaction in each
group comparison was significant at this level; birth risk interacted
with family structure to distinguish nondelinquents from delin-
quents, adolescence-limited from persistent delinquents, and esca-
lating from persistent delinquents.7 However, the odds ratio for
birth risk in each of the three group comparisons was not signif-
icant (p > .05) when family structure was set at either level (i.e.,
one-parent vs. two-parent family; Aiken & West, 1991). This
failure to achieve significance is not surprising given that birth risk
E vs. P was not a significant main effect in any of the models.

Higher birth risk

Lower verbal ability 1.06 Discussion
More BCT errors
Slower on Trail Making Test This study examined trajectories of delinquency from adoles-
Higher impulsivity 1.15 cence into adulthood. Four different trajectory groups were iden-
Lower harm avoidance 1.11 1.15 tified, which partially confirms the hypotheses. In accord with
Higher disinhibition 1.41 1.19 1.20 Moffitt's (1993a) model, an adolescence-limited and a persistent
Lower SES
delinquent trajectory were both clearly differentiated from a non-
One-parent family structure 2.17 3.49
Higher parental hostility 1.03 1.03 delinquent trajectory. In addition, a fourth trajectory group com-

Note. N = nondelinquents; A = adolescence-limited delinquents; E =

7
escalating delinquents; P = persistent delinquents. BCT = Booklet Cate- To give better numerical stability to the interaction models, the birth
gory Test; SES = socioeconomic status. risk scale was dichotomized to no risk versus one or two risks.
 ADOLESCENCE-LIMITED VERSUS PERSISTENT DELINQUENCY
prising escalating delinquents, who engaged in relatively little
delinquency in early adolescence but whose delinquency increased
from late adolescence into adulthood, was also identified (dis-
cussed below).
A major aim of this study was to determine the ability of
putative risk factors to differentiate adolescence-limited from
adolescence-to-adulthood-persistent delinquents. Only one of the
risk factors could distinguish membership in the persistent versus
the adolescence-limited trajectory group. Persistent delinquents
were higher in disinhibition in adolescence (see also H. White et
al., 1985).
When persistent, escalating, and adolescence-limited delin-
quents as a group were contrasted with nondelinquents, five main
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
effects were significant: higher disinhibition, impulsivity, parental
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
hostility, lower harm avoidance, and less intact family structure
were related to delinquent behavior. Although personality differ-
ences between adolescence-limited delinquents and nondelin-
quents were not predicted by Moffitt's theory (1993a), she and her
colleagues found similar differences when they compared nonde-
linquents (abstainers) with adolescence-limited and persistent de-
linquents (Moffitt et al., 1996). The ability of the risk factors tested
here to more robustly distinguish membership in any delinquency
trajectory versus the nondelinquent trajectory (rather than distin-
guish the persistent from the adolescence-limited trajectory) raises
the possibility that some of the unique characteristics of childhood-
to-adolescence-persistent (or early-onset) delinquents that have
been reported in the literature (e.g., Moffitt et al., 1994; J. White
et al., 1990) may primarily reflect differences between early-onset
delinquents and those who never as opposed to later become
delinquent.
These results may suggest that many of the risk factors that
relate to onset and stability of deviant behaviors from childhood to
adolescence simply are not related to persistence from adolescence
to adulthood and, therefore, are not related to life-course persis-
tence of antisocial behavior. It is possible that social and environ-
mental factors beyond adolescence, rather than childhood individ-
ual and environmental characteristics, may be more important for
the persistence of delinquency from adolescence to adulthood. For
example, Laub and Sampson (1993) suggested that social bonds in
adulthood and life events (e.g., a stable job, and a cohesive
marriage or cohabiting relationship) can lead to desistance from
delinquency.
An alternative explanation is that more aggressive and "patho-
logical" life-course-persistent delinquents were underrepresented
in this working-class and middle-class sample8 or more were lost
to attrition. Moreover, the primarily middle-class nature of this
sample may have limited the variation in SES and may have
contributed to lower levels of neuropsychological deficit and lower
birth risk, thereby providing less power to detect interactions than
in lower SES samples (see Tibbetts & Piquero, 1999). In addition,
some of the adolescence-limited delinquents may have been pro-
pelled into a persistent trajectory although they were not high on
purported risk factors. In other words, some may have experienced
negative consequences or "snares" due to their early delinquency
(e.g., acquiring a police record, becoming embedded in a deviant
peer group), which steered them into a delinquent career (see
Moffitt, 1993a). Their inclusion in the persistent trajectory group
could dilute observed differences between pathologically driven
persistent delinquents and those who persisted because of the
607
accumulation of negative consequences. We did not have data to
test for this; we recommend that future research should examine
this possibility.
Other limitations of this study could be related to our failure to
differentiate adolescence-limited from persistent delinquents, ex-
cept in terms of disinhibition. First, the neuropsychological tests
were first administered when participants were 18 to 24 years of
age (T3). Given the stability coefficients discussed in the Method
section, it seems unlikely that the timing of these measurements
seriously affected the validity of results. Second, and more impor-
tant, a limitation may be the selection of the specific executive
functions assessed. Although problem-solving ability and cogni-
tive flexibility are important executive functions (Cummings,
1995; Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996), it is not known whether these
skills represent the dimensions of executive control that are most
relevant for identifying life-course-persistent delinquents. For ex-
ample, potentially important deficits in planning and response
inhibition are not well tapped by these measures. In addition, the
reliance on self-report data may have affected the results inasmuch
as some delinquents may have under- or overreported their delin-
quency involvement. Finally, some individuals may have been
institutionalized for an extended period of time and therefore
unable to engage in continued delinquent activities. Although we
did not have the data to specifically address this question, it is
unlikely that this would have seriously biased the results, given the
relatively lengthy intervals between assessments. Despite these
limitations, our results for neuropsychological risk factors and
impulsivity are consistent with those of Nagin and colleagues
(1995), who used alternative measures of risk factors, a lower SES
sample, and convictions rather than self-report data for criminal
behavior.
The escalating trajectory was not anticipated on the basis of
Moffitt's (1993a) two-trajectory taxonomy of delinquency, al-
though others studies have identified a similar trajectory (e.g.,
D'Unger et al., 1998). This small group (13% of the total) dis-
played higher levels of delinquency in adulthood (statistically
significant at age 31 but also higher at age 28) than the
adolescence-to-adulthood-persistent group. These individuals
were adult criminals who potentially would persist but who did not
engage in delinquency heavily during adolescence. It is possible
that some of these individuals engaged in antisocial behavior
during childhood (which we did not measure), decreased this
behavior throughout adolescence, and then increased it again in
adulthood. However, Moffitt (1993a) did not identify a hiatus for
persistent delinquents during adolescence but rather an escalation.
In addition, some members of this group may have lied about their
8
Although levels of delinquency were lower in this sample than nation-
ally representative samples (e.g., Elliott et al., 1989), the persistent delin-
quents still engaged in serious acts in adulthood (e.g., at age 28, 18% had
stolen things worth more than $50 and 3% had committed a breaking and
entering offense, and at age 31, 10% had stolen things worth more than
$50). The escalating delinquents were also frequent and serious offenders
in adulthood (e.g., 31% and 23% had stolen things worth more than $50 at
ages 28 and 31, respectively, and 11% and 8% had committed a breaking
and entering offense at ages 28 and 31, respectively). Thus, while these
adult offenders may not represent the worst felons nationwide, they are still
a group of individuals who are committing illegal acts in adulthood that
should be of concern to criminology researchers.
 608 WHITE, BATES, AND BUYSKE
delinquent activity in adolescence. Yet, others, such as Farrington
(1991), have also found that only one half of antisocial adults were
antisocial as children (see also Loeber & Hay, 1997). The esca-
lating delinquents differed from the persistent delinquents in terms
of having higher verbal ability and harm avoidance, lower parental
hostility and disinhibition, and coming from more intact families.
Thus, the stronger family support, better neuropsychological func-
tioning, and more protective personality characteristics of the
escalating delinquents compared with the persistent delinquents
may have buffered the expression of delinquency in adolescence.
Perhaps these individuals escalated their delinquency only after
leaving the supervision of their family of origin.
In sum, the data suggest that many of the neuropsychological
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
risk factors that distinguish early-onset persistent delinquency
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
from adolescence-limited delinquency are not capable of distin-
guishing adolescence-limited from adolescence-to-adulthood-
persistent delinquency. As predicted by Moffitt (1993a, 1993b),
the present results provide support for noteworthy individual dif-
ferences in the stability of antisocial behavior across time and
extend this to a later portion of the life course than has typically
been studied in longitudinal, self-report studies. Furthermore, the
results suggest that researchers may need to go beyond childhood
to determine the risk factors for life-course-persistence and exam-
ine transitions and turning points in development (see H. White,
Bates, & Labouvie, 1998). Thus, our findings support the validity
of applying a dynamic, life-course perspective to the criminal
career paradigm.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bandeen-Roche, K., Miglioretti, D., Zeger, S. L., & Rathouz, P. J. (1997).
Latent variable regression for multiple discrete outcomes. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 92, 1375-1386.
Bartusch, D., Jeglum, R., Lynam, D. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A.
(1997). Is age important? Testing a general versus a developmental
theory of antisocial behavior. Criminology, 35, 13-48.
Bates, M. E., & Labouvie, E. W. (1998, June). Do neurocognitive abilities
vary with alcohol and other drug use from adolescence to adulthood?
Answers from variable-centered and person-centered approaches. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Research Society on Alcoholism,
Hilton Head, SC.
Benton, A. L. (1994). Neuropsychological assessment. Annual Review of
Psychology, 45, 1-23.
Block, J. (1995). On the relation between IQ, impulsivity, and delinquency:
Remarks on the Lynam, Moffitt, and Stouthamer-Loeber (1993) inter-
pretation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 395-398.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. (1988). Criminal careers re-
search: Its value for criminology. Criminology, 26, 1-35.
Caspi, C., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Krueger,
R. F., & Schmutte, P. S. (1994). Are some people crime-prone? Repli-
cations of the personality-crime relationship across countries, genders,
races, and methods. Criminology, 32, 163-195.
Chaiken, J., & Chaiken, M. (1990). Drugs and predatory crime. In M.
Tonry & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime (Vol. 13, pp. 203-239).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cummings, J. L. (1995). Anatomic and behavioral aspects of frontal-
subcortical circuits. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 769,
1-13.
DeFillippis, N. A., & McCampbell, E. (1991). The Booklet Category Test:
Research and clinical form manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-
ment Resources.
Dembo, R., Williams, L., Wish, E., & Schmeidler, J. (1990). Urine testing
of detained juveniles to identify high-risk youth. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Donnellan, M. B., Ge, X., & Wenk, E. (2000). Cognitive abilities in
adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent criminal offenders. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 396-402.
Duffy, J., & Campbell, J. (1994). The regional prefrontal syndromes: A
theoretical and clinical overview. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clin-
ical Neurosciences, 6, 379-387.
D'Unger, A. V., Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Nagin, D. S. (1998). How
many latent classes of delinquent/criminal careers? Results from mixed
Poisson regression analyses. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1593-
1630.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth:
Delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Escon, M. E., Yen, J. K., & Bourke, A. L. (1978). Assessment of recovery
from serious head injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and
Psychiatry, 41, 1036-1042.
Farrington, D. P. (1991). Antisocial personality from childhood to adult-
hood. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 4,
389-394.
Farrington, D. P., & Hawkins, J. D. (1991). Predicting participation, early
onset and later persistence in officially recorded offending. Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, I, 1-33.
Gaudino, E. A., Geisler, M. W., & Squires, N. W. (1995). Construct
validity in the Trail Making Test: What makes Part B harder? Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 529-535.
Giancola, P. R. (1995). Evidence for dorsolateral and orbital prefrontal
cortical involvement in the expression of aggressive behavior. Aggres-
sive Behavior, 21, 431-450.
Giancola, P. R., Moss, H. B., Martin, C. S., Kirisci, L., & Tarter, R. E.
(1996). Executive cognitive functioning predicts reactive aggression in
boys at high risk for substance abuse: A prospective study. Alcoholism:
Clinical and Experimental Research, 20, 740-744.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delin-
quency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hoaken, P. N. S., Giancola, P. R., & Pihl, R. O. (1998). Executive
cognitive functions as mediators of alcohol-related aggression. Alcohol
& Alcoholism, 33, 47-54.
Horwitz, A. V., & White, H. R. (1987). Gender role orientations and styles
of pathology among adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behav-
ior, 28, 158-170.
Jackson, D. N. (1968). Personality Research Form. Goshen, NY: Research
Psychologists Press.
Keribin, C. (2000). Consistent estimation of the order of mixture models.
Sanka Series A, 62, 49-66.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course:
Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31, 301-325.
Linden, R. (1978). Myths of middle-class delinquency: A test of the
generalizability of social control theory. Youth and Society, 9, 407-431.
Loeber, R. (1988). Natural histories of conduct problems, delinquency, and
associated substance use. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.),
Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 73-124). New York:
Plenum.
Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression
and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of
Psychology, 48, 371-410.
Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychol-
ogy. New York: Basic Books.
 ADOLESCENCE-LIMITED VERSUS PERSISTENT DELINQUENCY
Lynam, D. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining
the relation between IQ and delinquency: Class, race, test motivation,
school failure, or self-control? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102,
187-196.
Mathsoft. (1999). S-Plus 2000programmer's guide. Seattle: Data Analysis
Products Division, Mathsoft Institute.
Meng, X. L., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Performing likelihood ratio tests with
multiply-imputed data sets. Biometrika, 79, 103-111.
Moffitt, T. E. (1990). Juvenile delinquency and attention deficit disorder:
Developmental trajectories from age three to fifteen. Child Develop-
ment, 61, 893-910.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993a). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent anti-
social behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review,
100, 674-701.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993b). The neurobiology of conduct disorder. Development
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and Psychopathology, 5, 135-151.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996).
Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in
males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and
Psychopathology, 8, 399-424.
Moffitt, T. E., Lynam, D. R., & Silva, P. A. (1994). Neuropsychological
tests predicting persistent male delinquency. Criminology, 32, 277-300.
Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Self-reported delinquency, neuropsy-
chological deficit, and history of attention deficit disorder. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 533-569.
Muthen, B., & Shedden, K. (1999). Finite mixture modeling with mixture
outcomes using the EM algorithm. Biometrics, 55, 463-469.
Nagin, D. S., & Farrington, D. P. (1992). The onset and persistence of
offending. Criminology, 30, 501-523.
Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course
trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111-139.
Nagin, D. S., & Land, K. C. (1993). Age, criminal career, and population
heterogeneity: Specification and estimation of a nonparametric mixed
Poisson model. Criminology, 31, 327-362.
Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys' physical
aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically
violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70,
1181-1196.
Pandina, R. J., Labouvie, E. W., & White, H. R. (1984). Potential contri-
butions of the life span developmental approach to the study of adoles-
cent alcohol and drug use: The Rutgers Health and Human Development
Project, a working model. Journal of Drug Issues, 14, 253-268.
Pandina, R. J., & White, H. R. (1984, April). The relationship between
alcohol and marijuana use and crime: Implications for intervention and
prevention. Paper presented at the State-of-the-Art Conference on Juve-
nile Offenders With Serious Drug, Alcohol, and Mental Health Prob-
lems, Bethesda, MD.
Parker, E. S., Birnbaum, I. M., Boyd, R. A., & Noble, E. P. (1980).
Neuropsychological decrements as a function of alcohol intake in male
students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 4, 330-334.
Pasternoster, R., & Brame, R. (1997). Multiple routes to delinquency? A
test of developmental and general theories of crime. Criminology, 35,
49-84.
Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (1993). Developmental models for delin-
quent behavior. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Crime and mental disorder. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Paulson, M. J., & Lin, T. (1970). Predicting WAIS IQ from the Shipley-
Hartford scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 453-461.
Pennington, B. F., & Bennetto, L. (1993). Main effects or transactions in
the neuropsychology of conduct disorder? Commentary on "The neuro-
psychology of conduct disorder." Development and Psychopathology, 5,
153-164.
Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S. (1996). Executive functions and devel-
609
opmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try, 37, 51-87.
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Socio-
logical Methodology, 25, 111-164.
Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1985). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsycho-
logical Test Battery: Theory and clinical interpretation. Tucson, AZ:
Neuropsychology Press.
Roeder, K., Lynch, K. G., & Nagin, D. S. (1999). Modeling uncertainty in
latent class membership: A case study in criminology. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 94, 766-776.
Russell, E. W., & Barren, J. H. (1989). A difference that is not a difference:
Reply to Vanderploeg and Logan. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 57, 317-318.
Russell, E. W., & Levy, M. (1987). Revision of the Halstead Category
Test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 898-901.
SAS. (2001). SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements (Ver-
sion 8.2). Cary, NC: Author.
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. New York:
Chapman & HalVCRC.
Seguin, J. R., Pihl, R. O., Harden, P. W., Tremblay, R. E., & Boulerice, B.
(1995). Cognitive and neuropsychological characteristics of physically
aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 614-624.
Simons, R. L., Wu, C., Conger, R. D., & Lorenz, F. O. (1994). Two routes
to delinquency: Differences between early and late starters in the impact
of parenting and deviant peers. Criminology, 32, 247-275.
Smith, D. A., & Brame, R. (1994). On the initiation and continuation of
delinquency. Criminology, 32, 607-628.
Streit, F. (1978). Technical manual: Youth Perception Inventory. Highland
Park, NJ: Essence Publications.
Tibbetts, S. G., & Piquero, A. (1999). The influence of gender, low birth
weight, and disadvantaged environment in predicting early onset of
offending: A test of Moffitt's interactional hypothesis. Criminology, 37,
843-878.
Tremblay, R. E., Pihl, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P. L. (1994). Predicting
early onset of male antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Ar-
chives of General Psychiatry, 51, 732-739.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1981). Current population survey: Money,
income and poverty status of families and persons in the United States,
1980, (Series P-60, No. 127). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1974). Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized
linear models, and the Gauss-Newton method. Biometrika, 61, 439-447.
White, H. R., Bates, M. E., & Labouvie, E. W. (1998). Adult outcomes of
adolescent drug use: A comparison of process-oriented and incremental
analyses. In R. Jessor (Ed.), New perspectives on adolescent risk behav-
ior (pp. 150-181). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
White, H. R., Labouvie, E. W., & Bates, M. E. (1985). The relationship
between sensation seeking and delinquency: A longitudinal analysis.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 197-211.
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D. J., Needles, D. J., &
Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). Measuring impulsivity and examining
its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103,
192-205.
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., Earls, F., Robins, L., & Silva, P. A. (1990).
How early can we tell? Predictors of childhood conduct disorder and
adolescent delinquency. Criminology, 28, 507-533.
Zachary, R. A. (1986). Shipley Institute for Living Scale: Manual. Los
Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of
arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Received March 27, 2000
Revision received May 15, 2001
Accepted May 17, 2001 •