. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Youth Adolesc. 2019 May 31;49(1):74–86. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01045-8

Table 2.

Significant Hypothesized Direct and Indirect Paths

	Standardized B (SE)
Social Control (Age 12) - > Parental Monitoring (Child Perception age 15)	−.33(.09)^***
Social Cohesion (Age 12) - > Parental Monitoring (Child Perception age 15)	.33(.10)^***
Neighborhood Disadvantage (Age 11) -> Social Cohesion (Age 12) (Both Models)	−.22(.05)^**
Neighborhood Disadvantage (Age 11) -> Social Control (Age 12) (Both Models)	−.13(.05)^**
Social Control (Age 12) - > Parental Monitoring (Parents Perception age 15)	−.14(.07)^*
Social Cohesion (Age 12) - > Parental Monitoring (Parents Perception age 15)	.21(.08)^**
Social Cohesion (Age 11) - > Parental Monitoring (Parents Perception age 12)	.17(.06)^*
Disadvantage (Age 11) - > Social Cohesion (Age 12) - > Parental Monitoring (Child perception age 15)	−.06(.02)^*
Disadvantage (Age 11) - > Social Control (Age 12) - > Parental Monitoring (Child perception age 15)	.04(.02)^*
Disadvantage (Age 11) - > Social Cohesion (Age 12) - > Parental Monitoring (Parent perception age 15)	−.04(.02)^*

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, *p < .05

All models control for parents SES (education, occupation, sex and marital status), family income and the child’s delinquency at age 10