While We Are Waiting
-
Upload
libby-perkins -
Category
Documents
-
view
28 -
download
4
description
Transcript of While We Are Waiting
Risk and protection in adolescent health, mental
health and behavior
J. David Hawkins, Ph.D.SWL 579Session 2
School of Social WorkUniversity of Washington
October, 2009
While We Are Waiting
Name 3 types of prevention.Think of an example of each type
as relevant to your chosen problem area.
Be prepared to share your examples with the class.
O’ Connell, Boat & Warner (2009) mention two major risk factors in families. What are they?
Can you think of other family risk factors shown by research to predict increased mental, emotional or behavioral disorders in youth?
EPIDEMIOLOGY ETIOLOGY EFFICACY EFFECTIVENESS DISSEMINATION
1. Identify problem or disorder(s) and review information to determine its extent
2. With an emphasis on risk and protective factors, review relevant information-both from fields outside prevention and from existing preventive intervention research programs
3. Design, conduct, and analyze pilot studies and confirmatory and replication trials of the preventive intervention program
4. Design, conduct, and analyze large-scale field trials of the preventive intervention program
5. Facilitate large-scale implementation and ongoing evaluation of the preventive intervention program in the community.
The preventive intervention research cycle. Preventive intervention research is represented in boxes three and four. Note that although information from many different fields in health research, represented in the first and second boxes, is necessary to the cycle depicted here, it is the review of the information, rather than the original studies, that is considered to be part of the preventive intervention research cycle. Likewise, for the fifth box, it is the facilitation by the investigator of the shift from research project to community service program with ongoing evaluation, rather than the service program itself, that is part of the preventive intervention research cycle. Although only one feedback loop is represented here, the exchange of knowledge among researchers and between researchers and community practitioners occurs throughout the cycle.
Research Advances in Prevention Science and Positive
Youth Development
Longitudinal studies have identified factors that predict substance abuse, violence, and other problem behaviors as well as positive outcomes like success in school.
Concepts
Promotive factors: factors shown to promote positive
functioning/health or absence of problem regardless of risk.
Risk factors: factors shown to increase probability of
problem in longitudinal or epidemiologic studies.
Protective factors: factors shown to decrease probability of
problem behavior in presence of risk.
Risk Factors and OutcomesRisk Factors and Outcomes
Example: Family Example: Family management practices and management practices and onset of daily smoking. onset of daily smoking. (Hill et (Hill et al., 2005)al., 2005)
Family Management at Family Management at Each Age from 11-18Each Age from 11-18
When you are away from home, do your parents When you are away from home, do your parents know where you are and who you are with?know where you are and who you are with?
The rules in my family are clear.The rules in my family are clear. When you misbehave do your parents take time to When you misbehave do your parents take time to
calmly discuss what you have done wrong?calmly discuss what you have done wrong? My parents praise me for my school achievements.My parents praise me for my school achievements. My parents notice when I am doing a good job and My parents notice when I am doing a good job and
let me know about it.let me know about it. My parents put me down (reversed).My parents put me down (reversed).
Family management Family management trajectories in the transition trajectories in the transition to adolescenceto adolescence
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
11 12 13 14Age
Fam
ily M
anag
emen
t
High Management (42.7%)Management Increaser (14.0%)Low Management (43.3%)
86%
Onset of Daily Smoking by Levels Onset of Daily Smoking by Levels of Family Managementof Family Management
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Age
Pro
babilit
y o
f In
itia
tion o
f D
aily S
mokin
g
Good Family Management
Poor Family Mangagement
19%
11%
Risk Factors for Adolescent Problem Behaviors
Extreme Economic Deprivation
Low Neighborhood Attachment and Community Disorganization
Transitions and Mobility
Media Portrayals of Violence
Community Laws and Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms, and Crime
Availability of Firearms
Availability of Drugs
Community
Depre
ssion &
A
nxie
ty
Vio
lence
Sch
ool D
rop
-Out
Teen P
regnancy
Delin
quency
Su
bsta
nce
Abuse
Risk Factors
Used by permission of Channing Bete Company
Risk Factors for Adolescent Problem Behaviors
Used by permission of Channing Bete Company
Favorable Parental Attitudes and Involvement in the Problem Behavior
Family Conflict
Family Management Problems
Family History of the Problem Behavior
Family
Depre
ssion &
A
nxie
ty
Vio
lence
Sch
ool D
rop
-O
ut
Teen
Pre
gnancy
Delin
quency
Su
bsta
nce
A
buse
Risk Factors
Risk Factors for Adolescent Problem Behaviors
Lack of Commitment to School
Academic Failure Beginning in Late Elementary School
School
Depre
ssion &
A
nxie
ty
Vio
lence
Sch
ool D
rop
-Out
Teen P
regnancy
Delin
quency
Su
bsta
nce
Abuse
Risk Factors
Used by permission of Channing Bete Company
Risk Factors for Adolescent Problem Behaviors
Constitutional Factors
Early Initiation of the Problem Behavior
Favorable Attitudes Toward the Problem Behavior
Friends Who Engage in the Problem Behavior
Rebelliousness
Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior
Individual/Peer
Depre
ssion &
A
nxie
ty
Vio
lence
Sch
ool D
rop
-Out
Teen P
regnancy
Delin
quency
Su
bsta
nce
Abuse
Risk Factors
Used by permission of Channing Bete Company
Want to learn more about “constitutional factors”, read Chapter 5 “Perspectives from Developmental Neuroscience in O’Connell, Boat & Warner.
How can we distinguish between risk and promotive or protective factors?
Promotive and Protective Factors
Individual Characteristics High Intelligence Resilient Temperament Competencies and Skills
In each social domain (family, school, peer group and neighborhood) Prosocial Opportunities Reinforcement for Prosocial Involvement Social Bonding or Connectedness Healthy Beliefs and Clear Standards for
Behavior
Prevalence of 30 Day Marijuana UseBy Number of Risk and Protective
Factors
Six State Student Survey of 6th-12th Graders,Public School Students
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 7 8 to 9 10+
Number of Risk Factors
Pre
vale
nce
0 to 12 to 34 to 56 to 78 to 9
Number of Protective Factors
Prevalence of Any Other Illicit Drug Use
(Past 30 Days)By Number of Risk and Protective Factors
Six State Student Survey of 6th - 12th Graders,Public School Students
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 8 9 or More
Number of Risk Factors
Pre
vale
nce
0 to 1
2 to 3
4 to 5
6 to 8
Number of Protective Factors
Prevalence of “Attacked to Hurt”By Risk and Protection
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Risk, Level0
Risk, Level1
Risk, Level2
Risk, Level3
Risk, Level4
Pre
vale
nce
Protection, Level 0
Protection, Level 1Protection, Level 2
Protection, Level 3Protection, Level 4
Prevalence of Academic SuccessBy Number of Risk and Protective Factors
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 7 8 to 9 10+
Number of Risk Factors
Pre
vale
nce 0 to 1
2 to 34 to 56 to 78 to 9
Number of Protective Factors
Six State Student Survey of 6th-12th Graders,Public School Students
Generalizations AboutRisk and Protective Factors Risk & protective factors are found in many
domains
The more risk factors present, the greater likelihood of problem behaviors, and the less likelihood of successful outcomes
Protective factors reduce effects of exposure to risk -- the greater the level of protection, the less likelihood of problem behaviors
Common risk & protective factors predict diverse behavior outcomes
Risk & protective factors show much consistency in effects across different races & cultures
MediationMediation
Example from Seattle Social Example from Seattle Social Development Project.Development Project.
Does age of initiation of alcohol Does age of initiation of alcohol use mediate the effect of use mediate the effect of exposure to earlier risk factors in exposure to earlier risk factors in predicting alcohol misuse at age predicting alcohol misuse at age 18?18?
ModerationModeration
Example from Seattle Social Example from Seattle Social Development Project.Development Project.
Does good family management in Does good family management in adolescence moderate the effects adolescence moderate the effects of individual characteristics in of individual characteristics in predicting symptoms of alcohol predicting symptoms of alcohol dependence in adulthood?dependence in adulthood?
SSDP Measures of BAS SSDP Measures of BAS - - behavioral activation behavioral activation systemsystem
Done crazy things even if they are a little Done crazy things even if they are a little dangerous ?dangerous ?
Done something dangerous because someone Done something dangerous because someone dared you to do it?dared you to do it?
Done what feels good, no matter what?Done what feels good, no matter what? Gone to a wild, out-of-control party?Gone to a wild, out-of-control party? Upset or annoyed adults just for the fun of it?Upset or annoyed adults just for the fun of it?
alpha = .80
Carver & White, 1994: BAS associated with strong pursuit of appetitive goals, responsiveness to reward, sensation seeking, impulsiveness.How many times have you done the following things?
SSDP Measures of BIS SSDP Measures of BIS - - behavioral inhibition behavioral inhibition systemsystem
I worry a lot.I worry a lot. I am nervous or tense.I am nervous or tense. I am too fearful or anxious. I am too fearful or anxious. I am self-conscious or easily embarrassed.I am self-conscious or easily embarrassed. I feel that I am overly anxious to please I feel that I am overly anxious to please
others.others. I am afraid of making mistakes.I am afraid of making mistakes.
alpha = .77
Carver & White, 1994: BIS inhibits behavior that may lead to negative or painful outcomes. Thus, BIS activation causes inhibition of movement toward goals. Fear, frustration, anxiety.
Alcohol Dependence Symptoms Age 27
Do BAS and BIS predict Alcohol Do BAS and BIS predict Alcohol Dependence Symptoms in Dependence Symptoms in Adulthood?Adulthood?
BAS
BIS8th and 9th Grades (ages 14-15)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1 2 3 4 5 6BAS
Alc
oh
ol
De
pe
nd
en
ce
Sy
mp
tom
s A
ge
27
BAS is predictive of Alcohol BAS is predictive of Alcohol Dependence Symptoms at age Dependence Symptoms at age 2727
= .11, p < .008
controlling for ethnicity, poverty and gender
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1 2 3 4 5BIS
Alc
oh
ol D
epen
den
ce S
ymp
tom
s A
ge
27
controlling for ethnicity, poverty and gender
BIS is NOT predictive of BIS is NOT predictive of Alcohol Dependence Alcohol Dependence Symptoms at age 27Symptoms at age 27
= .01, ns
Does Consistent Good Family Does Consistent Good Family Management Moderate this Effect?Management Moderate this Effect?
BAS
BIS
Alcohol Dependence Symptoms Age 27
Consistent+ Family
Management
?
?
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1 2 3 4 5 6BAS
Alc
oh
ol
De
pe
nd
en
ce
Sy
mp
tom
s A
ge
27
controlling for ethnicity, poverty and gender
Does the Effect of BAS on Age Does the Effect of BAS on Age 27 Alcohol Dependence 27 Alcohol Dependence Depend on Good/Poor Family Depend on Good/Poor Family Management?Management?
= .11, p < .008
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6
BAS
Alc
oh
ol
De
pe
nd
en
ce
Sy
mp
tom
s A
ge
27
Consistently Poor Family Management
Consistently Good Family Management
controlling for ethnicity, poverty and gender
Family management practices Family management practices moderate the effect of BAS on moderate the effect of BAS on Age 27 Alcohol Dependence Age 27 Alcohol Dependence SymptomsSymptoms
Interaction, = -.28, p < .003
= .15, p < .01
= -.010, ns
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1 2 3 4 5BIS
Alc
oh
ol D
epen
den
ce S
ymp
tom
s A
ge
27
controlling for ethnicity, poverty and gender
Does the Effect of BIS on Age Does the Effect of BIS on Age 27 Alcohol Dependence 27 Alcohol Dependence Depend on Good/Poor Family Depend on Good/Poor Family Management?Management?
= .01, ns
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5BIS
Alc
oh
ol
De
pe
nd
en
ce
Sy
mp
tom
s A
ge
27 Consistently Poor Family Management
Consistently Good Family Management
controlling for ethnicity, poverty and gender
Family management practices Family management practices do not moderate the effect of do not moderate the effect of BIS on Age 27 Alcohol BIS on Age 27 Alcohol Dependence SymptomsDependence Symptoms
Interaction, = .02, ns
= -.02, ns
= .006, ns
Example of Theory:Example of Theory:The Social Development The Social Development ModelModel
( + ) ( - ) ( +, -
PROSOCIAL PATH
ANTISOCIAL PATH
Individual constitutional
factors
Prosocial opportunities
Prosocial involvement
Prosocial rewards
Bonding to prosocial
others
Belief in the moral order
Belief in antisocial
values
Bonding to antisocial
others
Antisocial rewards
Antisocial involvement
Antisocial opportunities
Substance Use, Abuse and Addiction
Position in the social structure: race, SES, age,
gender
External constraints:Laws, norms,
family & classroom standards
Skills for interaction
Risk and Protection at Higher Levels of
AggregationCommunities vary significantly in levels
of risk and protective factors and substance use outcomes.
Community levels of risk and protective factors are significantly correlated with levels of adolescent substance use.
(Hawkins et al. 2005. Prevention Science)
Study of Risk/Protective Factors and Academic
Achievement in Washington Schools
Objective:Objective:
To examine the strength of To examine the strength of relationships between the levels of relationships between the levels of risk and protection in schools and risk and protection in schools and students’ standardized test scores students’ standardized test scores in those schools.in those schools.
Washington State Data
Data from the Communities that Care Youth Survey Data from the Communities that Care Youth Survey on schools' prevalence of risk and protective on schools' prevalence of risk and protective factors, drug use and other problem behaviors in factors, drug use and other problem behaviors in middle and high schools from 8middle and high schools from 8th th and 10 and 10thth graders graders
Data from the Washington Assessment of Student Data from the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) on individual students’ Learning (WASL) on individual students’ academic test scores and demographic academic test scores and demographic characteristics from 7characteristics from 7thth and 10 and 10thth graders graders
Data from 82,030 students in 423 schools and 156 Data from 82,030 students in 423 schools and 156 school districts collected in 2002-03 were school districts collected in 2002-03 were matched at the school building levelmatched at the school building level
School Building Risk and School Building Risk and Protective Factor EffectsProtective Factor Effects
10th GradeATOD Use &
Risk/Protective Factors
10th Grade WASL Scores
Fall 2002 Survey Spring 2003 WASL
Analysis Plan
Test these relationships after controlling Test these relationships after controlling for other possible influences:for other possible influences:
– individual students’ gender, race, and individual students’ gender, race, and special education status, special education status,
– school building free and reduced lunch school building free and reduced lunch eligibility, eligibility,
– district level size and per pupil expendituresdistrict level size and per pupil expenditures
FindingsFindingsIn schools where students reported
experiencing fewer risk factors, 10th graders were more likely to pass each of three WASL tests.
Greaterlikelihoodof passingthe WASL
FewerRisk
Factors
FindingsFindingsIn schools where students reported
experiencing more protective factors, students were more likely to pass each of three WASL tests.
More Protective
Factors
Greaterlikelihoodof passingthe WASL
Relationship Between Number of School Building Risk Factors and Probability of Meeting WASL Standard
(10th-Graders)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of Risk Factors
Pro
babi
lity
of M
eeting
Sta
ndar
d
Math Reading Writing
Relationship Between Number of School Building Protective Factors and Probability of Meeting WASL
Standard (10th-Graders)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Protective Factors
Prob
abili
ty o
f Mee
ting
Stan
dard
Math Reading Writing
Nova High School Substance Use & Antisocial Behavior
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Per
centa
ge
School 2002 MTF 2001
Ever Used 30-Day Use
Survey Participation Rate 2002: 79.7%
10th Grade: 2002HeavyUse
Past Year Antisocial Behavior
Nova High School Protective Profile 10th Grade
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Communityopportunities for
prosocialinvolvement
Communityrecognition for
prosocialinvolvement
FamilyAttachment
Familyopportunities for
prosocialinvolvement
Familyrecognition for
prosocialinvolvement
Schoolopportunities for
prosocialinvolvement
Schoolrecognition for
prosocialinvolvement
Social skills Belief in themoral order
OverallProtection
Per
cent P
rote
cted
School 2002 District 2002
Community Family School
Estimated National Value
2002
Survey Participation Rate 2002: 79.7%
Peer-Individual Overall
Nova High School Risk Profile 10th Grade
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
rce
nt
At
Ris
k
School 2002 District 2002
Community Family School
Survey Participation Rate 2002: 79.7%
2002
Peer-Individual
Estimated National Value
Peer-Individual
Madison Middle School Risk Profi le 8th Grade
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
rce
nt
At
Ris
k
School 2002 District 2002
Community Family School
Survey Participation Rate 2002: 87.4%
2002
Estimated National Value
Peer-Individual
Madison Middle School Risk Profile 8th Grade
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
rce
nt
At
Ris
k
School 2002 District 2002
Community Family School
Survey Participation Rate 2002: 87.4%
2002
Estimated National Value
Peer-Individual
Community Risk Factor Effects
Key Leader Ratings of Community Risk and
Protective Factors
Student Perceptions of
Community Factors
Student Health
Outcomes
Example – Lax Law Enforcement and Youth Substance Abuse
Model 1/Effect Estimate
SE DF P
Model 1 T = 0.200
Random Level 1 Intercept 0.371 0.0030
Random Level 2 Intercept 0.012 0.0028
Intercept 0.045 0.1396 129147 0.748
Leader-Rated Enforcement 0.236 0.0695 40 0.001Model 2 T = 0.583
Random Level 1 Intercept 0.280 0.0023
Random Level 2 Intercept 0.005 0.0013
Intercept 0.020 0.0948 57670 0.835
Student-Rated Enforcement
0.464 0.0050 756 0.000
Leader-Rated Enforcement
0.236 0.0472 40 0.005
Table: Models Predicting Levels of Current Youth Substance Abuse from Community Leader Ratings of Community Law
Enforcement
Sex similarities and differences in the association between risk and protective factors and self-reported
serious delinquency
Abigail A. FaganM. Lee Van Horn J. David HawkinsMichael Arthur
Social Development Research GroupUniversity of Washington
Background
• We know that serious delinquency is much more prevalent among males than females, but we don’t know why
• We know much about the causes of serious delinquency for males, but much less for females
• Few studies assess gender differences in risk and protective factors, have the power to detect differences if present, or examine a range of predictors in their analyses
Research Questions
1. Are the same risk and protective factors associated with delinquency for females and males?
2. Does the strength of the association vary by sex?
3. Do males and females report the same level of exposure to risk and protection?
4. Do sex differences in levels of risk and protection mediate the relationship between sex and serious delinquency?
Research Method
• Data collected using the Communities That Care Youth Survey– School-based, self-report survey administered in
40 towns in 7 states in 2002
• Sample: 7,829 students in 10th grade– Sex: 3,986 girls and 3,843 boys– Average Age: 15.6 years– Race/Ethnicity: 79% White, 8% Hispanic, 4%
African-American, 8% Other
Independent Variables
• Self-reported exposure to 22 risk and protective factors– Family: 4 protective, 4 risk factors– School: 2 protective, 2 risk factors– Peer: 3 risk factors– Individual: 2 protective, 5 risk factors
• Scales comprised of 2-8 questions each, typically answered on a four-point scale
• Each scale was measured as a single latent variable
Dependent Variable
• Self-reported serious delinquency
• 8 acts: prior arrest, carry a handgun, carry gun to school, violent assault, car theft, selling drugs, school expulsion, drunk/high at school
• Past year frequency of offending, with 8 response choices (never, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9…40+ times)
– Few respondents reported greater than 9 occurrences, so higher frequencies were collapsed into 6-9 category
Involvement in Serious Delinquency
Delinquent Act Females (N=3986) Males (N=3843)
Never 1+ Times Never 1+ Times
Prior Arrest 93.7% 6.3% 87.6% 12.4%
Attack Someone 88.8 11.2 78.8 21.2
Carry a Gun 98.3 1.7 89.6 10.4
Take Gun to School 99.2 0.8 95.1 4.9
Car Theft 96.2 3.8 91.6 8.4
Sell Drugs 94.1 5.9 83.9 16.1
School Suspension 93.1 6.9 84.2 15.8
Drunk/High at School 80.3 19.7 74.1 25.9
Data Analysis: Research Question 1
Item 1
Item 2
…
…
Risk/ProtectiveFactor
d
…
…
c
Suspended
Carried gun
Sold drugs
Stole vehicle
h
i
j
g
Arrested
Attack someone
High at school
Gun to school
l
m
n
kA Delinquency
Item 1
Item 2
…
…
Risk/ProtectiveFactor
d
…
…
c
Suspended
Carried gun
Sold drugs
Stole vehicle
h
i
j
g
Arrested
Attack someone
High at school
Gun to school
l
m
n
kB
Parameters constrained to be equal across groupsare labeled with lower case letters
Delinquency
Females
Males
a
b
…
…
a
b
…
…
o
p
q
r
s
t
e f
o
p
q
r
s
t
e f
Females Males Protective and Risk Factor Beta SE r R² Beta SE r R²
FAMILY
Attachment (Mom) -0.086 (.010) -0.249 0.062 -0.111 (.010) -0.316 0.100
Attachment (Dad) -0.118 (.016) -0.183 0.033 -0.184 (.017) -0.280 0.078
Conflict 0.195 (.020) 0.302 0.091 0.216 (.019) 0.330 0.109
Poor Management 0.503 (.039) 0.393 0.154 0.542 (.038) 0.418 0.175
SCHOOL
Opportunities -0.582 (.056) -0.329 0.108 -0.798 (.062) -0.431 0.186
Failure 0.172 (.040) 0.415 0.172 0.193 (.045) 0.457 0.209
Low Commitment 0.418 (.030) 0.395 0.156 0.487 (.033) 0.447 0.200
PEER
Drug Use 0.385 (.023) 0.583 0.340 0.481 (.025) 0.667 0.445
Delinquency 0.659 (.039) 0.744 0.554 0.907 (.045) 0.838 0.702
INDIVIDUAL
Social Skills -0.769 (.047) -0.688 0.473 -1.127 (.063) -0.811 0.658
Delinquent Attitudes 0.456 (.031) 0.591 0.349 0.612 (.034) 0.701 0.491
Rebelliousness 0.686 (.041) 0.555 0.308 0.825 (.046) 0.626 0.392
Q1: Are the same factors related to delinquency for females and
males?
*Significant (p<.01) effects in BOLD
Q1: Are the same factors related to delinquency for females and
males?
• All 22 risk and protective factors were significantly related to serious delinquency, for both sexes
• Risk factors were associated with more delinquency, protective factors with less delinquency
Data Analysis: Research Question 2
Item 1
Item 2
…
…
Risk/ProtectiveFactor
d
…
…
c
Suspended
Carried gun
Sold drugs
Stole vehicle
h
i
j
g
Arrested
Attack someone
High at school
Gun to school
l
m
n
kA Delinquency
Item 1
Item 2
…
…
Risk/ProtectiveFactor
d
…
…
c
Suspended
Carried gun
Sold drugs
Stole vehicle
h
i
j
g
Arrested
Attack someone
High at school
Gun to school
l
m
n
kB
Parameters constrained to be equal across groupsare labeled with lower case letters
Delinquency
Females
Males
a
b
…
…
a
b
…
…
o
p
q
r
s
t
e f
o
p
q
r
s
t
e f
Females Males Sex Difference
Protective and Risk Factor Beta SE r R² Beta SE r R² x²
FAMILY Attachment (Mom) -0.086 (.010) -0.249 0.062 -0.111 (.010) -0.316 0.100 4.58 Attachment (Dad) -0.118 (.016) -0.183 0.033 -0.184 (.017) -0.280 0.078 9.39 Conflict 0.195 (.020) 0.302 0.091 0.216 (.019) 0.330 0.109 0.75 Poor Management 0.503 (.039) 0.393 0.154 0.542 (.038) 0.418 0.175 0.65
SCHOOL Opportunities -0.582 (.056) -0.329 0.108 -0.798 (.062) -0.431 0.186 8.52 Failure 0.172 (.040) 0.415 0.172 0.193 (.045) 0.457 0.209 2.30 Low Commitment 0.418 (.030) 0.395 0.156 0.487 (.033) 0.447 0.200 3.29
PEER Drug Use 0.385 (.023) 0.583 0.340 0.481 (.025) 0.667 0.445 12.29 Delinquency 0.659 (.039) 0.744 0.554 0.907 (.045) 0.838 0.702 24.01 INDIVIDUAL Social Skills -0.769 (.047) -0.688 0.473 -1.127 (.063) -0.811 0.658 32.11 Delinquent Attitudes 0.456 (.031) 0.591 0.349 0.612 (.034) 0.701 0.491 21.31 Rebelliousness 0.686 (.041) 0.555 0.308 0.825 (.046) 0.626 0.392 7.49
Q2: Does the strength of the association vary by sex?
Q2: Does the strength of the association vary by sex?
• In 12 of 22 cases, the strength of the association was greater for males– Protection had a stronger negative association
with serious delinquency
– Risk had a stronger positive association
• In 10 cases, there were no sex differences • There were no cases in which the
strength of the association was greater for females than males
Data Analysis: Research Question 3
Item 1
Item 2
…
…
Risk/ProtectiveFactor
Suspended
Carried gun
Sold drugs
Stole vehicle
Arrested
Attack someone
High at school
Gun to school
Male
Delinquency
A B
C
Protective and Risk Factor
Beta SE ES
FAMILY Attachment (Mom) -0.226 (.025) -0.237 Attachment (Dad) 0.115 (.022) 0.131 Conflict -0.150 (.024) -0.171 Poor Management 0.198 (.017) 0.290 SCHOOL Opportunities -0.110 (.015) -0.198 Failure 0.273 (.025) 0.285 Low Commitment 0.193 (.019) 0.260 PEER Drug Use 0.030 (.021) 0.034 Delinquency 0.298 (.022) 0.379 INDIVIDUAL Social Skills -0.240 (.020) -0.344 Delinquent Attitudes 0.357 (.022) 0.438 Rebelliousness 0.144 (.018) 0.212
Q3: Do males and females report the same level of exposure to risk and
protection?
Q3: Do males and females report the same level of exposure to risk and
protection?
• In 18 of 22 cases, boys reported less protection and more risk than girls
• In 2 cases, boys reported more protection or less risk– Boys had a stronger attachment to fathers
– Boys reported lower levels of family conflict
• No differences were found for 2 peer risk factors
Data Analysis: Research Question 4
Item 1
Item 2
…
…
Risk/ProtectiveFactor
Suspended
Carried gun
Sold drugs
Stole vehicle
Arrested
Attack someone
High at school
Gun to school
Male
Mediated effect is the product of A and C
Delinquency
A B
C
Protective and Risk Factor
Beta SE ES
FAMILY Attachment (Mom) 0.053 (.007) 0.067 Attachment (Dad) -0.024 (.005) -0.031 Conflict -0.042 (.007) -0.053 Poor Management 0.091 (.009) 0.115 SCHOOL Opportunities 0.059 (.008) 0.074 Failure 0.099 (.010) 0.122 Low Commitment 0.083 (.009) 0.106 PEER Drug Use 0.017 (.012) 0.021 Delinquency 0.235 (.018) 0.292 INDIVIDUAL Social Skills 0.193 (.017) 0.245 Delinquent Attitudes 0.219 (.015) 0.283 Rebelliousness 0.096 (.012) 0.122
Q4: Are There Indirect Effects of Sexon Serious Delinquency?
Q4: Are There Indirect Effects of Sex on Serious Delinquency?
• The indirect effects of sex on delinquency was significant in 20 of the 22 relationships– In 18 cases, greater risk and lower protection
among males led to greater involvement in delinquency
– In 2 cases, lower risk and greater protection led to less involvement in delinquency for boys than girls
• In all cases, sex had a significant, direct effect on serious delinquency
• The relationship between sex and serious delinquency was partially mediated by sex differences in levels of risk and protection
Summary of Findings
• Males’ greater delinquency is likely due to the combination of the stronger influence of risk and protective factors, and greater exposure to these factors, compared to females
• While gender differences are evidenced, they are generally modest
• There are more similarities than differences in the relationships between risk and protective factors and serious delinquency– Somewhat unexpected findings, given some feminist literature
– But, similar to recent findings from the OJJDP Girls Study Group
Limitations of the Study
• We cannot explain why these gender differences
exist
• There may be risk or protective factors omitted for
which gender differences could be found
• Data is cross-sectional, so predictive relationships
cannot be assessed
• Risk and protective factors were examined
individually; their combined effect on delinquency
was not considered
Implications for Prevention
• The findings support the use of effective prevention programs, aimed at reducing risk and enhancing protection, for both females and males
– All 22 risk and protective factors were significantly related to serious delinquency for both sexes
– Both sexes reported serious delinquent acts in 10th grade
Society for Prevention Society for Prevention ResearchResearch
18th Annual Meeting: 18th Annual Meeting:
Denver, CO Denver, CO
June 1 -4, 2010June 1 -4, 2010
(Abstracts due October 26, 2009)(Abstracts due October 26, 2009)
Information:Information:
www.preventionresearch.orgwww.preventionresearch.org