Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Aug 2.
Published in final edited form as: Open Fam Stud J. 2011;4(Suppl 1-M2):17–26. doi: 10.2174/1874922401104010017

Table 1.

Demographics and Descriptive Statistics of Samples

Subsample 1 Subsample 2 Subsample 3 Subsample 4; Twins A Subsample 4; Twins B
Sample Size 337 209 45 42 42
Gender (% boys) 48.1% 39.8% 66.7% 50.0% 40.5%
Age Range 9 8 to 9 5 to 9 6 to 9 6 to 9
Age Mean (SD) 9.00 8.61 (.49) 8.47 (1.20) 7.69 (1.08) 7.71 (1.19)
Low Economic StatusA 98.0% 63.1% 42.9% N/A N/A
Racial/Ethnic Composition 80.0% African-American 55.9% Caucasian 100% Hispanic 93.3% Caucasian 93.3% Caucasian
Sensation Seeking N/A 1.2 (.65) 1.1 (.76) 1.1 (.60) 1.2 (.63)
Social Contagion N/A .6 (.80) .6 (1.08) .6 (.80) .7 (.89)
Disinhibition N/A 1.2 (.56) 1.0 (.51) 1.1 (.40) 1.1 (.42)
Self Management N/A 1.8 (.52) 2.0 (.75) 2.0 (.45) 1.9 (.63)
Parent Fortification N/A 2.1 (.87)* 2.1 (.71) 2.3 (.61) 2.3 (.47)
Social Support N/A N/A 2.1 (.83) 2.0 (.52) 1.8 (.53)
School Protection N/A 2.2 (.66) 2.8 (.57) 2.6 (.48) 2.5 (.58)

Note:

A

Based on reports of receiving free lunch at school. Socioeconomic data were not available as part of the twins protocol. Parenthetical values are standard deviations. N/A = not assessed.

*

based on a Parent Fortification subscale, Parental Monitoring (which has a factor loading of .78)