PREVENTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

描述（改编自申请人的摘要）：本提案的目的 研究是为了测试大都会地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性药物， 为4 000多名高风险、主要是少数族裔的城市青年采取干预措施 包括八个队列。这些干预计划，坚定地扎根于一个 风险的认知生态理论（Tolan，Guerra和Kendall，1996），反映了 认为只有多方面的长期干预措施才有可能 有效地预防了这些反社会行为的问题。此外该 项目设计和评估的基础是预防 最好将影响理解为与发展的相互作用。每个后续 干预条件代表了更强烈和全面的水平， 干预：A级：一个社会问题解决课程结合了一个 广泛的教师培训计划; B级：与A级相同的待遇 加上小组社会问题解决和同伴关系培训， 风险儿童; C级。与B级加一个家庭相同的待遇 对高危儿童及其家庭进行干预。另一个主要 设计特点是早期（2年级与3年级）和后期（5年级）的比较 第六节时间干预 该项目在两个城市中心进行，在较贫困的社区， 包括了16所随机分配的学校。过程中 干预，情况导致需要一个准实验的方法 进行分析。随着缺失数据插补和层次分析法的发展， 干预评估模型，我们采用了一个复杂但敏感的 方法来检查近端效应。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， 行为、认知和生态风险因素的干预措施， 这些影响对时间、学校/居住地点、性别和 种族 我们正在请求支持进行这些必要的分析，以表明 MACS的具体效果，并确定这种预防性的承诺， 干预的长期效果。主要研究者和 共同研究者在过去的8年里一直在合作开发， 评估和初步分析与这一干预措施有关的数据。在 除了与开发和风险相关的项目报告外， 初步分析表明，干预措施产生了重大而广泛的影响， 对于全条件具有最一致和最强的效果， 如果学校没有被录取， 最贫穷的城市中心区。我们完全期望这项研究的结果将 有助于对预防的普遍理解（例如， 评估方法，不同成分的功效， 干预）和具体影响的高危青年生活在最高 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.