TABLE 2.

Outcome Domains, Variables Measured, and Bases for Hypotheses

Outcome Domains and Variables Measured	Basis for Hypothesesa
	Earlier Effect in Current Trial	Effect in Other Trial	Predicted From Earlier Phases or Trials	Conditional Effect
Primary cognitive-related outcomes
Nonverbal intelligenceb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2, matrices subtest28,d	X13	—	—	—
Receptive languageb	—	X18–20	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III30	X13	—	—	—
Math achievementb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Peabody Individual Achievement Test, math subtest31	X13,15	—	—	—
Secondary cognitive-related outcomes
Sustained attentionb	—	X19,20	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Leiter-R sustained attention test32	—	—	—	—
Verbal Working Memory Indexb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
WAIS No. recall sequences33	—	—	—	—
Emotion recognitionb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Facial Emotion Recognition Task, No. correct34	—	—	—	—
Risky decision-makingb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Cambridge Decision-Making Test35	—	—	—	—
High school graduation, %b	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Administrative records and self-report	—	—	—	—
Exploratory cognitive-related outcomes
High school graduation with honorsb,e, %	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Administrative records	—	—	—	—
SSI: disabilityb,f	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	LPRc
Maternal and/or caregiver report of enrollment	—	—	—	—
Primary behavioral health outcomes
Internalizing behavioral problems (borderline or clinical)b	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	—
Youth self-report ages 11–18: Achenbach system36	X15	—	—	—
Current substance useb	X15	X9	X5–9,11–16,18–20	—
Drug Use Screening Inventory (adolescent version)37 plus urine screens for cotinine, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, cocaine, amphetamines, tetrahydrocannabinol, opiates, and barbiturates (coded yes or no)	—	—	—	—
Substance-use disorderb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	—
CIDI-SAM38	—	—	—	—
STIsb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	—
Neisseria gonorrheae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Trichomonas vaginalis39–41	—	—	—	—
HIV riskb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	—
Risky sexual behaviors, STIs, and pregnancies42	—	—	—	—
Arrests and convictionsb	—	X9,10	X5–16,18–20	Females
Counts of self- and maternal and/or caregiver-reported arrests and convictions before age 18 for all offenses and interpersonal violence	—	—	—	—
Gang membershipb	—	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	—
Self-report	—	—	—	—
Secondary behavioral health outcomes
Externalizing and total behavioral problems (borderline or clinical)b	X13	—	X5–9,11–16,18–20	—
Achenbach assessment36: self- and maternal and/or caregiver report both crossing the borderline or clinical threshold	—	X20	—	—

CIDI-SAM, Composite International Disease Interview–Substance Abuse Model; WAIS, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; —, not applicable.

^aWe show the bases for hypotheses in 3 categories: (1) an earlier effect on the same specific measure or construct in an earlier phase of the trial, (2) an effect on the same measure or construct in other trials, and (3) effects in earlier phases or trials that predict the current outcomes on theoretical or epidemiological grounds. When the prediction was made from the same measure, the basis for the hypothesis is shown on the same row; otherwise, it is shown on the construct row. Note that those outcomes hypothesized to be greater for particular subgroups are shown in the last column.

^bOutcome domain. Specific variables assessed are shown under each outcome domain. Outcomes were selected on the basis of their being affected in earlier phases of this trial or the preceding trial or on theoretical and epidemiological grounds, with attention paid to those aspects of functioning that are of clinical or public health importance and that could be assessed without overburdening respondents.

^cSubgroup defined by youths' mothers at registration¹¹ falling into the lower half of the distribution of an index composed of the average z scores of women’s intellectual functioning,²¹ mental health,²² and sense of mastery²³ plus self-efficacy (based on mothers’ confidence in their ability to accomplish key NFP behavioral objectives).²⁴

^dThe intervention effect on nonverbal intelligence at age 6 was a trend overall and for the LPR group, derived from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite.²⁹ The analysis of the whole-scale Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Mental Processing Composite was significantly different for the treatment-control contrast, both overall and for the LPR group at age 6.¹³ The nonverbal subscale trend was not reported in the earlier publication.¹³ The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2 administered at age 18 is a shortened version of intellectual functioning based on the full-scale Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children.

^eExploratory outcome. Graduating with honors was not part of the original measurement design per se. The original plan called for gathering school records of grade point averages and disciplinary records, which were incomplete, leading us to eliminate them as part of the final measurement design. We discovered, however, that states sent information on graduation with honors, which aligns with the original measurement design and thus is included in this report. Note that all states to where participants moved record graduating with honors, with the exception of Mississippi. Seventeen participants graduated from Mississippi schools (10 control; 7 NV); they are included in the analysis as not having graduated with honors.

^fExploratory outcome. SSI (disability) was based on parent and/or caregiver report and not included in the original measurement design. The question is relevant to this report and thus is included here.