Marc LeBlanc’s research while affiliated with Université de Montréal and other places

The aims of this study are to identify the most powerful predictors of school dropout and to determine how stable they are over time. Two generations of White French-speaking boys and girls from 12 to 16 years old (n = 791 in 1974, n = 791 in 1985) completed a self-administered questionnaire on their psychosocial adjustment at least one year before leaving school. As expected, the analyses showed that school, family, behavioral, social, and personality variables could all predict dropping out of school in the two samples. Furthermore, these predictors were quite stable over time. However, statistical improvement measures in logistic regression analyses indicated that school experience variables (i.e., grade retention, school achievement, school commitment) were the best screening variables for potential dropouts. The contribution of other psychosocial variables, even though significant, did not improve very much the capacity to identify who will drop out of school. The discussion highlights the implications of the findings for secondary prevention and screening practices.

Cette recension des écrits cherche à intégrer les connaissances issues de diverses disciplines des sciences humaines en regard de l'abandon scolaire. L'intégration de ces différentes connaissances est guidée par une perspective écologique et interactionniste qui souligne l'importance de considérer simultanément les niveaux individuels, organisationnels et socioculturels pour bien cerner toute la complexité de la problématique. A cette intégration se greffe une réflexion concernant les liens entre l'inadaptation scolaire, l'inadaptation psychosociale et l'abandon des études. Réunis dans une structure gigogne, nous tentons de démontrer l'interdépendance de ces différents niveaux d'analyse et de leurs liens avec l'inadaptation scolaire, l'inadaptation psychosociale et le décrochage scolaire. (French)

This longitudinal research was designed to study protective factors in a group of boys at risk with extreme scores of aggressiveness-hyperactivity-distractibility in kindergarten. We attempted to identify schoolrelated protective factors in the elementary school against the occurrence of delinquent acts at age 12. Previous studies had shown that teacher's and mother's teaching style, pupils' involvement in the classroom activities, and popularity in the peer group were factors with good protective potential, but the concurrent contribution to protection of all four factors in the same study has never been verified. Fifty-three boys were observed at age 8-9 and at age 10-11 during regular classroom activities. In addition, observations were carried out, subject by subject, on three pupils from the same class for control purposes and on the class teacher. Each boy was also observed during problem-solving tasks in the laboratory with his mother. Peer assessments of the boys' popularity in the peer group were available at age 8-9 and age 10-11 for 48 of the boys. Self-reported delinquency at age 12 was used as the outcome variable. A unique contribution to the protection against juvenile delinquency was found only for the teachers' interaction style. Improvement in the protective ability was a function of the cumulative effect of two years of expos re to a well-balanced interaction style. Evaluation of the combined effect of multiple protective factors showed that boys with at least three protective factors engaged less in delinquent acts than those with one or less protective factor.

Multiple gating, which is considered to be a cost-effective screening method for identification of children at risk of developing serious antisocial behaviors, uses relatively inexpensive ratings as a first gate and more sophisticated assessments in the following steps. Different assessment strategies were tested to find a combination of predictors at the beginning of elementary school that could effectively identify children who are at risk of developing serious antisocial problems. All boys in 54 schools, located in low socioeconomic districts in montreal, were assessed in the first step of the screening procedure. A sample of 84 boys was randomly selected from a larger pool of 250 kindergarten boys who had an “aggressiveness-hyperactivity-distractibility” score above the 70th percentile on the preschool behavior questionnaire. In the second step, observed task-inappropriate behaviors were compared to mothers' and teachers' ratings of inattention and of aggressiveness (at ages 6 to 7), as predictors of extreme antisocial behavior at age 10. Results indicated that observed task-inappropriate behaviors and teacher ratings of inattention were better predictors of diversity of offending than were mother ratings of aggressiveness. The best predictive combination consisted of extreme scores above the 70th percentile and observations of task-inappropriate behaviors in multiple settings.

A risk group of disruptive boys (N=65) identified in kindergarten was assessed using the same procedures at ages 6–7, 8–9, and 10–11. Criteria used to define the predictors and criterion variable were the same at all assessment times. Severity was addressed by comparing different forms of behaviors, considering the extent of harmful consequences to others (aggressiveness was considered as most harmful, whereas inattention was considered as least harmful), manifestation in multiple settings, and extreme scores (manipulation of cutoff scores). Different assessment strategies (direct observations, ratings) and different informants (trained observers, mothers and teachers) were used. Aggressiveness as rated by mothers was highly stable from age 6 to age 11. Inattention as rated by teachers was stable only from age 6 to age 9, whereas no stability was found for observations of task inappropriate behaviors. Taskinappropriate behaviors observed in mother-child interactions and in multiple settings at age 6–7 were significant predictors of self-reported antisocial behaviors at age 12, but this prediction was not repeated at ages 8–9 and 10–11. Teacher ratings of inattention at ages 6–7 and 8–9 were also significant predictors of self-reported antisocial behaviors at age 12. The predictive power was much lower when mothers'' ratings of aggressiveness were used. Findings from the present study support the hypothesis that some antisocial behavior precursors are age dependent, in that they are more characteristic of certain age groups than of others. Implications for the selection of assessment screening procedures are discussed.

Three subgroups of kindergarten boys (stable conduct disordered-hyperactive (SCDH), stable conduct disordered (SCD), stable non-deviant control (SC)) were defined and followed up three, four and five years later in primary school. Using assessments from multiple informants (teachers, mothers, peers, self), the results showed that SCDH boys were more hyperactive (i.e. overactive/inattentive) and displayed a greater diversity of conduct problems in school and home at follow-up compared to the other groups. These results and the fact that during early adolescence SCDH boys tend to develop a worse prognosis than SCD boys suggest that they should be distinguished. Keywords: Hyperactivity, conduct problems, development

Three alternative models concerning the causal links between early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, and delinquent behavior or antisocial personality were tested with linear structural equation modeling. Subjects were boys and girls followed from first grade to age 14. Disruptive behavior was assessed in Grade 1; school achievement was assessed in Grades 1 and 4; delinquent behavior and antisocial personality were assessed at age 14. With regard to self-reported delinquent behavior at age 14, results indicate that the best model for boys was a direct causal link between Grade 1 disruptive behavior and delinquent behavior. Poor school achievement was not a necessary causal factor. For girls, none of the tested models were a good fit to the delinquent behavior data. As for delinquent personality, results indicate that, for both boys and girls, poor school achievement was a necessary component of the causal path between Grade 1 disruptive behavior and age 14 delinquent personality.

conducted a longitudinal–experimental study to describe the social interactions of disruptive boys during the primary school years, and also verify the effects of both parent training and children's social skills training for the prevention of delinquent behavior / the study's population consisted of kindergarten boys from low socio-economic areas of Montréal / 1034 subjects were retained for the longitudinal study / this total sample has been followed yearly from age 10 onward (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Boys' fighting was assessed at ages six, eight, and nine. The boys (N = 69) had been selected from the 30% most disruptive children in kindergartens from low socioeconomic neighborhoods. Twenty-three percent of these disruptive boys were rated as high fighters on three assessments ("stable high fighters"), and 28% were rated as high fighters on two of the three assessments ("variable high fighters"). Forty-two percent were rated as high fighters only one out of three assessments ("occasional high fighters") and 7% were never rated as high fighters. Only high fighting in two successive years significantly increased the risk of being rated a high fighter in a following year. At age 10, stable high fighters (high fighters at ages 6, 8, 9) were perceived by teachers, peers, mothers, and the boys themselves as more disruptive and more antisocial than occasional high fighters. These results show an impressive self-other agreement in boys who have adopted a physically aggressive life style from an early age. The three groups did not differ on individual family demographic characteristics, but stable high fighters had a higher mean on an index of family socioeconomic disadvantage. Results indicate that the aggression scales which include only a few physical aggression items and many disruptive items (oppositional behavior, rejection, hyperactivity, inattention, etc.) probably aggregate two kinds of disruptive boys, the high-frequency fighters at high risk for stable disruptive, physically aggressive, and antisocial behaviors, and the disruptive low-frequency fighters who are at a lower risk of stable disruptive behavior and at a lower risk of early antisocial behavior.