Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Feb 25.
Published in final edited form as: Eval Rev. 2011 Apr;35(2):153–188. doi: 10.1177/0193841X11403989

Table 6.

Analysis of the Low Risk Sample (Based on Risk Index Score < 16): Cohorts 1 and 2 and Community Sample

Neighborhood constructs Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Community Sample
Adjusted Meansa
p Value for Tx × Timeb Adjusted Meansa
p Value for Tx × Timeb Adjusted Meansa
p Value for Tx × Timeb
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2
Neighborhood involvement FTG 6.35 6.19 6.33 ns 6.28 6.74 6.91 ns 5.81 6.11 ns
Comp 5.76 5.90 6.66 5.63 5.92 6.19 6.10 5.82
School involvement FTG 4.39 4.91 5.53 ns 3.82 3.67 4.22 ns 5.23 5.19 ns
Comp 4.18 4.65 4.94 3.85 4.13 4.69 6.06 5.31
Social connectedness FTG 25.45 25.22 25.55 ns 24.00 24.29 24.58 ns 25.61 25.02 ns
Comp 26.24 26.15 26.65 25.89 26.26 26.57 27.60 27.15
Neighborhood organization FTG 19.15 19.19 18.96 ns 18.65 19.81 20.22 ns 18.86 18.45 ns
Comp 19.69 19.65 19.75 19.43 19.43 20.33 20.47 20.71
Neighborhood availability of alcohol & drugs FTG 10.38 10.84 10.61 ns 10.21 10.86 11.22 ns 10.18 10.26 ns
Comp 10.50 10.67 10.76 10.69 10.83 10.66 10.77 10.75
Satisfaction with police enforcement FTG 14.76 14.58 14.58 ns 14.39 14.33 14.53 ns 14.30 14.12 ns
Comp 15.11 15.13 15.49 15.02 14.73 15.06 15.03 15.06
Neighborhood norm against substance use FTG 13.52 13.47 13.36 ns 12.87 13.58 13.92 ns 12.94 12.84 ns
Comp 13.59 13.79 13.86 13.63 13.54 13.76 13.54 13.43
Family and substance abuse constructs
 Use of rules FTG 2.73 2.57 2.62 ns 2.45 2.45 2.43 ns 2.65 2.70 ns
Comp 2.73 2.60 2.61 2.47 2.53 2.40 2.70 2.60
 Family conflict FTG 3.59 3.74 3.68 ns 3.40 3.63 3.44 ns 3.47 3.42 ns
Comp 3.56 3.76 3.67 3.83 3.77 4.11 3.54 3.61
 Parent frustration FTG 2.13 2.26 2.36 ns 2.05 2.12 2.36 ns 2.05 2.06 ns
Comp 2.01 2.26 2.35 2.10 2.32 2.25 2.11 2.28
 Physical discipline—spankingc,d FTG 0.52 0.51 0.45 ns 0.49 0.55 0.64 ns 0.53 0.50 ns
Comp 0.69 0.67 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.57 0.63 0.58
 Physical discipline—hittingc,d FTG 0.07 0.09 0.10 ns 0.03 0.07 0.10 ns 0.08 0.05 ns
Comp 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.20 0.09 0.07 0.08
 Time-outc FTG 0.59 0.62 0.47 ns 0.57 0.46 0.55 ns 0.58 0.62 ns
Comp 0.65 0.43 0.54 0.56 0.59 0.47 0.62 0.55
 PC alcohol used FTG 1.13 1.29 1.60 ns 1.79 1.94 2.16 ns 1.77 2.00 ns
Comp 1.04 1.45 1.22 0.84 0.97 1.30 1.77 2.10
PC and household substance usec,d FTG 0.10 0.05 0.20 ns 0.19 0.18 0.21 ns 0.16 0.22 ns
Comp 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15
Family norms: drinking FTG 2.75 2.80 2.78 ns 2.78 2.91 2.68 ns 2.30 2.39 ns
Comp 2.89 2.80 2.94 2.82 2.89 2.60 2.38 2.39
Family norms: getting drunk FTG 3.62 3.58 3.53 ns 3.55 3.55 3.45 ns 3.50 3.47 ns
Comp 3.75 3.69 3.66 3.74 3.67 3.67 3.48 3.50
n 449 296 252 197 141 109 531 545
a

Estimates for means adjust for primary caregiver: age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, risk index score, relationship to HS child, number of children at home, presence of infant at home, family structure, and child gender; site-level variables: community action agency, family service worker education, enrollment size, early HS, population density of city, SES factor score, percentage owner-occupied housing. Except where otherwise noted, higher scores indicate better outcomes.

b

Tests of interaction term adjust for primary caregiver: age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, risk index score, relationship to HS child, number of children at home, presence of infant at home, family structure, and child gender; site-level variables: community action agency, family service worker education, enrollment size, early HS, population density of city, SES factor score, percentage owner-occupied housing. Based on a Bonferroni adjustment, p values <.001 are treated as statistically significant and reported in the tables.

c

Dichotomous variable estimates reported as prevalences instead of means.

d

Lower scores indicate better outcomes.