Aggregating indices of risk and protection for adolescent behavior problems: The Communities That Care Youth Survey
Aggregating indices of risk and protection for adolescent behavior problems: The Communities That Care Youth Survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.09.002
复制
发表时间：
2007-06-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Greenberg, Mark T.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Feinberg, Mark E.;Ridenour, Ty A.;Greenberg, Mark T.
用途：为了促进对青少年的风险和保护行为问题的研究，并促进社区决策的干预方案的资源分配，通过创建一个减少一套连贯的综合指数的青少年的风险和protection.Methods：我们研究了31个风险和保护因素量表的社区，关心青年调查（CTC-YS）。数据来自宾夕法尼亚州6至12年级学生的两波CTC-YS（2001年n = 43，842; 2003年n = 101，988）。因子分析和内部可靠性的计算被用来创建风险/保护因素域的聚合指数。聚集指数相互之间的相关性和与问题行为（反社会行为，物质使用）examined.Results：理论和实证结果导致创建七个连贯的指标：社区凝聚力，家庭凝聚力，家庭风险，学校支持亲社会活动，反社会同行域，对危险行为的态度，危险的行为倾向。四个量表不包括在综合指数中（偏执，学业成绩，个人转变和流动性，早期开始使用药物和反社会行为）。这些指标彼此相关，并以预期的方式与青少年问题行为（反社会行为和物质使用）相关。结果是一致的跨波的data.Conclusions：建设理论上有意义的和实证上可辩护的青少年风险和保护因素的综合措施是可能的，虽然其他数据集的分析和进一步的讨论是必要的。建议研究人员和社区使用综合指数，这是便利研究和决策的一种方式。(c)2007年，为青少年医学。All rights reserved.
Purpose: To facilitate research on adolescent risk and protection regarding behavior problems, and to facilitate community decision-making regarding resource allocation for intervention programs, by creating a reduced set of coherent aggregate indices of adolescent risk and protection.Methods: We examined the 31 risk and protective factor scales in the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS). Data came from two waves of the CTC-YS administered to sixth through 12th graders in Pennsylvania (2001 n = 43,842; 2003 n = 101,988). Factor analysis and calculation of internal reliability were used to create aggregate indices of risk/protective factor domains. Correlations of aggregate indices with each other and with problem behaviors (antisocial behavior, substance use) were examined.Results: Theory and empirical results led to the creation of seven coherent indices: Community Cohesion, Family Cohesion, Family Risk, School Support for Prosocial Activities, Antisocial Peer Domain, Attitudes toward Risky Behavior, Risky Behavioral Tendencies. Four scales were not included in the aggregate index (Religiosity, Academic Performance, Personal Transitions and Mobility, and Early Initiation of Drug Use and Antisocial Behavior). The indices were related to each other and to adolescent problem behaviors (antisocial behavior and substance use) in expected ways. Results were consistent across waves of data.Conclusions: The construction of theoretically meaningful and empirically defensible aggregate measures of adolescent risk and protective factors is possible, although analyses of other data sets and further discussion are warranted. The use of aggregate indices by researchers and communities is recommended its a way to facilitate research and decision-making. (c) 2007 Society for Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.