Table 4. Comparison of Study Design Features for the CDP (Study 1) and Fast Track (Study 2).
| Design feature | CDP (Study 1) | Fast Track (Study 2) |
|---|---|---|
| Samplea | ||
| No. of participants | 389 (198 boys, 191 girls) | 243 (115 boys, 128 girls) |
| Location of participants | Nashville, TN; Knoxville, TN; Bloomington, IN | Nashville, TN; Durham, NC; Seattle, WA; rural central PA |
| Ethnic/racial composition | 76% European American 22% African American 2% “other” |
53% European American 40% African American 7% “other” |
| Socioeconomic backgroundb | 26% economically disadvantaged | 61% economically disadvantaged |
| Predictor variables | ||
| Time of assessment | Summer before kindergarten | Summer before 1st grade |
| Environment measures | Restrictive discipline, maternal hostility, stress, marital conflict, abuse | Restrictive discipline, maternal hostility, stress |
| Methods of assessment | Oral interview, postvisit inventory | Oral interview, postvisit inventory |
| Moderator variables | ||
| Time of assessment | 2nd & 3rd grade for Cohort 1; 1st & 2nd grade for Cohort 2 | 1st & 2nd grade |
| Assessment of friendship | Reciprocated liking ratings (1–5 scale) | Reciprocated liking ratings (1–3 scale) |
| Assessment of social acceptance | Social preference (standardized difference between “like most” and “like least” scores) | Social preference (standardized difference between “like most” and “like least” scores) |
| Outcomes | ||
| Time of assessment | 4th grade for Cohort 1; 3rd grade for Cohort 2 | 3rd grade |
| Assessment of aggression | 3 peer nomination items | 1 peer nomination item |
| Assessment of victimization | 3 peer nomination items | 1 peer nomination item |
Note. CDP = Child Development Project.
a
Participants in current studies.
b
Economic disadvantage was defined by classification in one of the two lowest socioeconomic status groups, using criteria specified by Hollingshead (1979).