67 Behavioral problems in Take it Personal! 3 rule-breaking according to YSR ranges (Table 2), we only found an effect on the rule-breaking problem domain. It is striking that the majority of emotional and behavioral problem domains were in the normal YSR ranges, as the adolescents and young adults receive intramural care for their behavioral and emotional problems. Therefore, the occurrence of such problems within these treatment centers are more normative. Specifically, adolescents and young adults who live in a treatment center are surrounded by peers who also show emotional and/ or behavioral problems, which may normalize these problems. Sometimes, it may even promote deviant behavior as a consequence of deviancy training, a process in which peers talk about- or encourage engaging in antisocial behaviors (Dishion et al., 1999). As a result of these norms, it is possible that participants ‘underreported’ their own emotional and/or behavioral problems in the YSR. Douma et al. (2006) found similar or lower YSR scores with mild intellectually disabled adolescents, compared to a reference group of YSR scores from peers without a mild intellectual disability. This suggests that different YSR norm scores may be necessary for the young mild intellectually disabled target group. Nevertheless, due to floor effects in this study, scores on these problem domains cannot decrease as much as they can increase. The underrepresentation of clinically anxious and withdrawn adolescents and young adults is also reflected by the relatively small number of participants with personality profiles anxiety sensitivity and negative thinking (9% and 12%, respectively). For anxiety sensitivity, this is in line with previous research, as anxiety appears to be a protective factor for substance use in adolescents and young adults with a mild intellectual disability (Poelen et al., 2017). Participating in the program might have appealed less to negative thinking adolescents and young adults (Schijven et al., 2020a). Nevertheless, externalizing problems are typically characteristic for youth with a mild intellectual disability in treatment centers (Dekker et al., 2002). Therefore, it is striking that we only find an equal distribution of adolescents and young adults in the normal, borderline, or clinical range in terms of rulebreaking behaviors but not for aggressive problems. Non-aggressive acts of rule-breaking typically increase considerably during adolescence, whereas aggression remains fairly stable between early childhood and adulthood (Burt, 2013). This might have made rule-breaking problems more noticeable for adolescents and young adults in the self-reports and vice versa caused the self-reported scores on items for aggression to be underreported as they felt normal relative to how they had conducted themselves their whole life. Future research could therefore include additional parent or staff reported
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw