Transcript Typologies of Problem Behaviors in Seventh Grade and the Relation

Background Research



Moffit and Caspi (2001) distinguish between
anti-social behavior which develops in early
childhood and is life-course persistent and
what they term ‘adolescent-limited’ antisocial behaviors.
Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1998) have
delineated three different pathways for the
development of problem behaviors and
delinquency.
Jessor (Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1991;
Donovan et al., 1988) argues that such
behaviors as delinquency, substance use and
sexual behaviors cluster together within
individuals.
Research Questions



Do seventh grade students exhibit differing
typologies of problem behavior profiles?
Do demographic factors distinguish group
membership?
Do these different groups of student also
differ in terms of their mental health, family
functioning, academic achievement and
perceptions of school?
Methods


Subjects (n = 1230) were drawn from the Maryland
Adolescent Development in Context Study (MADICS).
Problem behaviors were assessed using indicators of risky
behavior, delinquent behavior (e.g. vandalism and theft),
substance use and abuse, aggressive behaviors and school
problems.




Problem Behaviors were converted to a semi-absolute scale (0
= None, 1 = Mild, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Severe).
The problem behavior variables were aggregated into one of
six categories based on context and type of behavior.
Parent reports of perception of youth mental health and
demographic measures were used to validate the cluster
membership.
Eleven domains were examined to create a portrait of the
different students’ mental health and their school and home
lives.
Measures
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics from MADIC Wave 1
Variable
N
Mean
Problem Alcohol Behavior
1031 .17
Problem Marijuana Behavior 781
.04
Problem Cigarette Behavior
1220 .09
Problem Drugs to School
1220 .08
Behavior
Problem Class Skipping
1230 .20
Behavior
Problem School Skipping
1205 .11
Behavior
Problem Cheating Behavior
1230 .42
Problem Risk Behavior
1230 .70
Problem Hitting Behavior
1230 .75
Problem Lying Behavior
1230 .46
sd
.56
.34
.43
.44
.57
Variable
Problem Pill Behavior
Problem Crack Behavior
Problem Cocaine Behavior
Problem Heroin Behavior
Problem Sent Office
Behavior
.40 Problem Suspended or
Expelled Behavior
.73 Problem Stealing Behavior
1.08 Problem Gang Behavior
1.11 Problem Damage Behavior
.92 Problem Stealing Car
Behavior
N
Mean sd
1230 .10
.51
1225 .02
.23
1224 .02
.26
1225 .01
.21
1230
.64
.91
1205
.11
.40
1230
1230
1218
1219
.34
.45
.32
.09
.74
.94
.70
.48
Note: Problems were on a 0 to 3 semi-absolute scale (0 = no problems in the domain, 3 = severe problems in the domain).
Statistical Analysis

Ward Squared Euclidian method was used to
perform cluster analysis on the 6 problem
behavior categories to identify subgroups.


Clusters were validated using parent reports of
mental health functioning.
Hierarchical regressions were performed to
analyze the differences between groups in
terms of the eleven domains of outcome
variables, with race, income, gender, age,
highest level of parent education and highest
occupational status as covariates.

Tukey’s Honestly Significant Differences (HSD)
comparison was used to determine mean
difference between groups.
Wave 1 Problem Behavior Clusters
3
Cigartte, Alcohol and
Marijuana Use
2.5
Hard Drug Use
2
School Discipline
1.5
School Authority
1
Minor Deliqunecy
0.5
Mutiple
Problems
Hard Drug
Use
MP w/o Hard
Drug
Serious
Delinquency
Minor
Delinquency
School
Authority
No Problems
0
Serious Deliqunecy
Cluster Demographics
80%
Female
70%
60%
50%
African American
40%
30%
Age 11-12
20%
10%
Mutiple
Problems
Hard Drug
Use
MP w/o
Hard Drug
Serious
Delinquency
Minor
Delinquency
School
Authority

Income < $25,000
No Problems
0%
Intact family
A significant relation exists between cluster membership and
gender, Χ2 =84.319; df=6; p=.000, race, Χ2 = 50.419; df=6;
p=.000, age , F (6, 1125) = 3.384, p = .003, income, Χ2 (6, n =
1064) = 20.483, p = .002 and intact family status, F (6, 1067)
= 6.251, p = .000.
Parent Perceptions of Youth
No Problems
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
n
A
n
io
ss
r
ge
re
ep
D
l
ia

d
te
c
so
ti

ac
tr
is
D
n
A

School
Authority
Minor
Delinquency
Serious
Delinquency
MP w/o Hard
Drug
Hard Drug Use
Mutiple
Problems
Antisocial Behavior and Distractedness – School Authority,
Multiple Problems and MP without Drugs were higher than other
groups (Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Depression – Hard Drug Use and Multiple Problems were higher
than other groups (Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Anger - Multiple Problems, MP without Drugs and Hard Drugs
were higher than other groups (Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Mental Health
0.6
No Problems
0.5
School Authority
0.4
0.3
Minor Delinquency
0.2
0.1
Serious
Delinquency
MP w/o Hard Drug
0
-0.1
-0.2
Resiliency
Negative
Outcomes

SelfEsteem

Depression

Hard Drug Use
Anger
-0.3
Mutiple Problems
Anger and Chances of Negative Outcomes- Multiple Problems, MP without
Drugs and Hard Drugs were higher than other groups (Tukey’s HSD = <
.05).
Depression – Multiple Problems, MP without Drugs, Hard Drugs and Minor
Delinquency were higher than other groups (Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Self Esteem and Resiliency- Multiple Problems and MP without Drugs were
lower than other groups (Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Achievement and Motivation
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
No Problems
School Authority
Minor Delinquency
Serious Delinquency
MP w/o Hard Drug
n
Fi
e
is
D
al
n
G
ga
A
P
ge
Mutiple Problems
nt
d
ar
e
m
eg
ls
e
at
l
ki
lim
S
C
R
e
ic

er
v
ti
em

ch
ea
ga
d
ca

T
e
N
A

Hard Drug Use
Importance of Academic Skills and School Disengagement - Multiple
Problems, MP without Drugs and Hard Drugs were lower (and higher,
respectively) than other groups (Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Negative School Climate – Multiple Problems and Hard Drugs were higher
than other groups (Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Teacher Regard – The No Problems Group was higher than other groups
(Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Final GPA – School Authority, Serious Delinquency, Multiple Problems, and
MP without Drugs were lower than other groups (Tukey’s HSD = < .05).
Results Summary

Groups differed on a number of demographic variables.



Girls were overrepresented in Hard Drug Use and No Problems but
underrepresented in Serious Delinquency, Multiple Problems and MP
without Drug Use.
African Americans were underrepresented in No Problems, Hard Drug and
Multiple Problems Groups but overrepresented in School Authority, Serious
Delinquency and MP without Drugs.
Groups differed on measures within all domains.




The parents of School Authority perceived that they had levels of
distractedness similar to Multiple Problems and MP without Drug Use.
Minor Delinquency scored higher than Serious Delinquency on Anger and
depression and lower on self-esteem.
Hard Drug Use had high anger and depression and also perceived the most
negative school climate and felt that academic skills were the least
important.
School Authority Group had a generally positive attitude toward school but
a low GPA.
Conclusions





Seventh graders can be differentiated based on the
types of problem behaviors in which they participate.
Participation in different types of problem behaviors
predicts mental health, school functioning and parent
attitudes.
Complex patterns of attitudes and mental health emerge
when looking at clustered behavior groups.
These differences are meaningful in describing types of
adolescents which should inform intervention and
prevention.
Differentiating types of problem behaviors allows
researchers to follow patterns of behaviors
longitudinally.
Selected Works Cited






Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1988). Syndrome of problem
behavior in adolescence: A replication. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology, 56(5), US American Psychological Assn; 1988, 1762-1765.
Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in
high-risk settings. American Psychologist: Special Issue: Adolescence,
48(2), US American Psychological Assn; 1993, 1117-1126.
Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Beyond adolescence:
Problem behavior and young adult development. New York, NY, US:
Cambridge University Press.
Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & et al. (1995).
Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects
and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), US
American Psychological Assn; 1995, 1923-1933.
Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate lifecourse persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among
males and females. Development & Psychopathology: Special Issue:,
13(2), US Cambridge University; 2001, 2355-2375.
Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents' perceptions of middle
school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological
adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(1), 123-158.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported in part by NICHD Grant #R01 HD33437
awarded to Jacquelynne S. Eccles and Arnold J. Sameroff and in part
by a grant from W. T. Grant awarded to Jacquelynne S. Eccles. The
original data collection was supported by funding from the MacArthur
Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development in High Risk
Settings, chaired by Richard Jessor.
We gratefully acknolwedge the contributions of the following
people to this project (listed alphabetically): Elaine Belansky, Celina
Chatman, Diane Early, Jacque Eccles, Kari Fraser, Katie Jodl, Ariel Kalil,
Linda Kuhn, Karen Macarthy, Oksana Malanchuk, Steve Peck, Rob
Roeser, Arnold Sameroff, Sherri Steele, Cynthia Winston, and Carol
Wong.
For more information about this study or to print a copy
of the paper go to: http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/garp