Table 1.
Constructs used in this study
| Constructs | Instruments |
Assessed by | Ages | Reliability |
Risk | Promotive | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | |||||
| Birth problems | Birth and developmental history |
Pre and Perinatal Risk Factors |
Parent | First assessment (n = 1177) |
15 items | 7 items | Any pre- or perinatal birth problem |
NA |
| Early disruptive behavior disordera |
Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) |
Child Symptom Inventory (CSI) |
Parent | First assessment (n = 1359) |
ADHD: 27 items; ODD: 18 items; CD: 18 items |
ADHD: 14 items; ODD: 8 items; CD: 12 items |
At least one of the following disorders: ADHD. ODD, CD |
NA |
| Callous unemotional behaviorb |
Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL) |
Psychopathy Screening Device |
Parent | 7–9 (n = 1324); 10–12 (n = 1285) |
32 items (alpha from 0.90 to 0.93) |
6 items (alpha from 0.56 to 0.69) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Anxiety | CBCL | Scared | Parent | 7–9 (n = 1297); 10–12 (n = 1281) |
7 items (alpha from 0.54 to 0.61) |
29 items (alpha from 0.90 to 0.92) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Poor education of parents |
Highest degree of education |
Highest degree of education |
Parent | 7–9 (n = 1327); 10–12 (n = 1310) |
1 item | 1 item | No diploma or a General Education Diploma (GED) for both parents at all ages |
NA |
| Early pubertal development |
Petersen Pubertal Development Scale (PPDS) |
Petersen Pubertal Development Scale (PPDS) |
Child | 9(n = 1126); 12 (n = 1258) |
5 items (alpha from 0.56 to 0.75) |
5 items (alpha from 0.50 to 0.69) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Single parent household |
How many caretakers? |
How many caretakers? |
Parent | 8–9 (n = 1348); 10–12 (n = 1282) |
1 item | 1 item | Living with one parent at all ages |
Living with both parents at all ages |
| Physical punishment of both parents |
Discipline | Parent-child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC) |
Child | 7–9 (n = 1304); 10–12 (n = 1284) |
1 item | 1 item | Highest 25 % | No physical punishment at all ages |
| Low communication about activities with both parents |
Supervision and Involvement Scale (SIS) |
Supervision and Involvement Scale (SIS) |
Child | 7–9 (n = 1291); 10–12 (n = 1274) |
10 items (alpha from 0.64 to 0.84) |
10 items (alpha from 0.52 to 0.87) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Low positive parenting of both parents |
Parent Practices Scale (PPS) |
Parent Practices Scale (PPS) |
Child | 7–9 (n = 1308); 10–12 (n = 1283) |
14 items (alpha from 0.71 to 0.97) |
14 items (alpha from 0.71 to 0.97) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Low supervision | SIS | SIS | Child | 7–9 (n = 1306); 10–12 (n = 1282) |
4 items (alpha from 0.54 to 70) |
4 items (alpha from 0.45 to 0.61) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Bad quality relationship with primary caretaker |
Parent-child Relationship Survey (PCRS) |
Parent–child Relationship Survey (PCRS) |
Child | 7–9 (n =1320); 10–12 (n = 1282) |
16 items (alpha from 0.83 to 0.91) |
16 items (alpha from 0.86 to 97) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Truancy | SRD | SRD | Child | 11–12 (n = 1273) | 1 item | 1 item | Truant at both ages | NA |
| Low school motivation |
Works not hard compared to peers |
Works not hard compared to peers |
Teacher | 7–9 (n = 1223); 10–12 (n = 1225) |
1 item | 1 item | Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Low school achievement |
CBCL & TRF | CBCL & TRF | Parent and teacher |
7–9 (n = 1212); 10–12 (n = 1188) |
9 items (alpha from 0.64 to 0.71) |
9 items (alpha from 0.88 to 0.97) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Peer delinquencyc | Peer Delinquency Scale (PDS) |
Peer Delinquency Scale (PDS) |
Child | 7–9 (n = 1271); 10–12 (n = 1248) |
5 items (alpha from 0.68 to 0.84) |
7–9: 5 items (alpha from 0.78 to 0.80); 10–12: 6 items |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
| Neighborhood problems |
Your Neighborhood | Your Neighborhood | Parent | 7–9(n = 1312) 10–12 (n = 1282) |
17 items (alpha from 0.93 to 0.96) |
(alpha from 0.75 to 0.78) 17 items (alpha from 0.94 to 0.96) |
Highest 25 % | Lowest 25 % |
Due to the time of the assessment, the diagnoses of ADHD, ODD, and CD in the PYS were based on the DSM-III-R, whereas the diagnoses in the PGS were based on the DSM-IV. To make diagnoses comparable, we only included those symptoms that were assessed in both studies. For ADHD, the age of onset, that is usually part of the diagnosis, could not be taken into account since it was not assessed in the PGS. To reach the diagnosis of ADHD, boys and girls had to have 9 symptoms or more. For the diagnosis of CD, 3 or more symptoms were required, and for the diagnosis of ODD, 4 or more symptoms.
In the PYS a construct is created that measures psychopathic features in childhood, assessed by the CBCL. Examples of items are Tying or cheating’ ‘sudden changes in mood or feelings’, and ‘behaving irresponsibly’. In the PGS, items from the PSD were used to create a similar construct for girls. The following items are included: concerned about school or tasks, keeps promises, feels bad about doing wrong, concerned about others’ feelings, shows feelings and emotions, keeps the same friends.
For 7-to-9-year-olds, exactly the same offences were included (vandalism, shoplifting, stealing at school, stealing from building, violence against adult) in the PYS and the PGS. For 10-to-12-year-olds, the peer delinquency scale was similar in the PGS, but included more serious offences in the PYS. Therefore, we only took those offences of the PYS into account that were comparable to those of the PGS (and which are also similar to the offences considered at earlier ages), i.e. vandalism, stolen something up to $100, stealing from building, and hitting someone with intent to hurt. We corrected for the number of possible items.