PREVENTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

描述（改编自申请人的摘要）：本提案的目的 研究目的是测试大都市区儿童研究的近端效应 （MACS）关于以后犯罪、吸毒、学业失败的风险指标， 和暴力。 MACS 比较了三种互补的多年预防措施 对 4,000 多名高危城市青年（主要是少数族裔）进行干预 包括八个队列。这些干预计划牢固地扎根于 风险的认知生态理论（Tolan、Guerra 和 Kendall，1996），反映 认为只有多背景、长期的干预措施才有可能发挥作用 有效预防这些反社会行为问题。此外， 方案的设计和评估是基于预防的观点 效果最好理解为与发展的相互作用。每一个成功的 干预条件代表了更加强烈和全面的水平 干预：A级：解决社会问题的课程与 广泛的教师培训计划； B级：与A级相同的处理 加上针对高中生的小组社交问题解决和同伴关系培训 危险儿童；和 C 级。与 B 级相同的治疗加上一个家庭 对高危儿童及其家庭进行干预。另一个专业 设计特点是早期（二年级与三年级）和后期（五年级）的比较 和六年级）干预时机。 该项目在两个城市中心的较贫困社区进行， 并包括一开始随机分配的 16 所学校。在整个过程中 干预，情况导致需要准实验方法 来分析。随着缺失数据插补和层次结构的进步 对于干预评估模型，我们应用了复杂但敏感的模型 检验近端效应的方法。因此，在这种方法中我们可以 估计三个日益复杂的理论驱动的影响 对行为、认知和生态风险因素的干预 这些影响取决于时间、学校/居住地点、性别和 种族。 我们请求支持来进行这些必要的分析，以表明 MACS 的具体效果并确定这种预防措施的前景 干预以获得长期影响。首席研究员和 共同研究人员在过去 8 年里一直在合作开发， 评估以及与此干预相关的数据的初步分析。在 除了该项目中与开发和风险相关的报告之外， 初步分析表明干预措施具有重大而广泛的影响， 在完整状态下具有最一致和最强的效果， 提早交付，并且当干预学校不在其中之一时 最贫困的内城地区。我们完全期望这项研究的结果将 极大地促进了对预防的普遍理解（例如， 评估方法、不同成分的功效、时间 干预）以及对生活在最高水平的高风险青年的具体影响 风险社区。

DESCRIPTION (Adapted from the Applicant's Abstract): The aim of this proposal research is to test the proximal effects of the Metropolitan Area Child Study (MACS) on indicators of risk for later delinquency, drug use, school failure, and violence. The MACS compares three complementary, multi-year preventative interventions for over 4,000 high risk, primarily minority, urban youth comprising eight cohorts. These intervention programs, firmly grounded in a cognitive-ecological theory of risk (Tolan, Guerra, and Kendall, 1996), reflect the view that only multi-context, long-term interventions are likely to be effective in preventing these problems of antisocial behavior. In addition, the program design and evaluation are based in the perspective that prevention effects are best understood as an interaction with development. Each succeeding intervention condition represented a more intense and comprehensive level of intervention: Level A: A social problem-solving curriculum combined with an extensive teacher training program; Level B: The same treatments as in Level A plus small group social problem-solving and peer-relationship training for high risk children; and Level C. The same treatments as in level B plus a family intervention for the high-risk children and their families. Another major design feature was the comparison of early (2nd vs. 3rd grade) and later (5th and 6th grade) intervention timing. The project was carried out in two urban centers, in the poorer neighborhoods, and included 16 schools randomly assigned at the outset. Over the course of the intervention, circumstances resulted in requiring a quasi-experimental approach to analysis. With the advances in imputation of missing data and hierarchical models for intervention evaluation, we have applied a complex but sensitive method to examine the proximal effects. Thus, within this approach we can estimate effects of three increasingly complex theoretically-driven interventions on behavior and cognitive and ecological risk factors, the dependency of these effects on timing, school/residence location, gender, and ethnicity. We are requesting support to conduct these needed analyses to indicate the specific effects of the MACS and to determine the promise of this preventive intervention for long-term effects. The principal investigator and co-investigators have collaborated for the last 8 years on the development, assessment, and preliminary analyses of data related to this intervention. In addition to reports out of this project pertinent to development and risk, preliminary analyses suggest significant and broad effects of the intervention, with the most consistent and strongest effects for the full condition, delivered earlier, and when the intervention school is not in one of the poorest inner-city areas. We fully expect that the results of this study will contribute significantly to the general understanding of prevention (e.g., methods of evaluation, efficacy of different components, timing of intervention) and to specific effects for high risk youth living in the highest risk communities.