Validation of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument with a looked after population

The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–version 2 (MAYSI-2) was developed to help identify mental health needs of young people admitted to youth detention centres. Only one study has applied the tool to a UK population and none have looked at young people who live in residential and secure care in Scotland. This study aimed to assess the validity of the MAYSI-2 in Scotland with a looked after and accommodated population. Boys and girls in a large education and care centre were asked to complete the MAYSI-2 within 72 hours of being accommodated. A total of 168 males and 69 females with a mean age of 15 completed the tool. Substantial levels of mental health need were identified. Girls appeared to have higher needs on all areas, bar alcohol and substance misuse. The MAYSI-2 had good internal consistency and exploratory factor analysis showed good overlap with the tool’s original factor model. As a result, there can be more confidence in the validity and consistency of the tool with this population. This is also further evidence of the high need of this population, particularly girls.

Mental Health Screening in Juvenile Justice Settings: Evaluating the Utility of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, Version 2

Allocating limited mental health resources is a challenge for juvenile justice facilities. We evaluated the clinical utility of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, Version 2 (MAYSI-2)—an instrument designed to aid in this process—in three subsamples of justice-involved youth (ages 14-17): detained girls ( n = 69), detained boys ( n = 130), and incarcerated boys ( n = 373). For perspective, we compared its performance (in the incarcerated subsample) to that of the Youth Self-Report (YSR), a more widely-used screen. The MAYSI-2 subscales were moderately useful for detecting relevant diagnoses, and differences were observed across samples. However, as a general mental health screen, the MAYSI-2 performed well (and comparably to the YSR), correctly classifying 66% to 75% of youth. When used to differentiate youth with any and without any disorder, both instruments were effective. Given the MAYSI-2’s practical advantages over the YSR (lower cost, easier administration), it may be a better option for juvenile facilities.