Table 2.
Main effects of family routines on young adulthood outcomes
| Model 1 (n = 504) |
Model 2 (n = 501) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcohol use (ages 19 – 21) 1 |
Epinephrine (ages 19 – 21) |
Norepinephrine (ages 19-21) |
||||||
| B (se) | B (se) | B (se) | B (β) (se) | B (β) (se) | B (β) (se) | B (β) (se) | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Block 1 | Block 2 | Block 3 | Block 1 | Block 2 | Block 3 | Block 1 | Results of Blocks 2 and 3 not displayed given non-significant results from Block 1 | |
| Family routines (ages 16-18) | −0.08** (.03) | −0.06* (.03) | −0.06 (.03) | −0.28 (−.10)* (.13) | −0.29 (−.10)* (.14) | −0.29 (−.10)* (.14) | −0.61 (−.04) (.62) | |
| SES risk (age 16-18) | −0.06 (.04) | −0.07 (.04) | −0.07 (.04) | 0.03 (.01) (.16) | 0.03 (.01) (.16) | 0.03 (.01) (.16) | 1.15 (.06) (.78) | |
| Youth sex2 | 0.28** (.09) | 0.28** (.09) | 0.28** (.09) | 2.94 (.31)** (.40) | 2.95 (.31)** (.41) | 2.95 (.31)** (.41) | −2.04 (−.05) (1.93) | |
| Baseline control (age 16) | 0.27** (.07) | 0.27** (.06) | 0.27** (.06) | --- | --- | --- | --- | |
| Supp. parenting (age 16-18) | −0.01 (.02) | −0.01 (.02) | 0.03 (.02) (.09) | 0.03 (.01) (.09) | ||||
| Harsh parenting (ages 16-17) | 0.07* (.03) | 0.06* (.03) | 0.03 (.01) (.16) | 0.03 (.01) (.16) | ||||
| Household Chaos (ages 16-18) | 0.01 (.02) | −0.04 (−.02) (.11) | ||||||
| Model 3 (n = 463) | Model 4 (n = 415) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emotional Self-Regulation (ages 19 – 21) |
University Enrollment (age 21) 1 |
|||||
| B (β) (se) | B (β) (se) | B (β) (se) | Odds Ratio (se) | Odds Ratio (se) | Odds Ratio (se) | |
|
| ||||||
| Block 1 | Block 2 | Block 3 | Block 1 | Block 2 | Block 3 | |
| Family routines (ages 16-18) | 0.54 (.15)** (.17) | 0.44 (.13)* (.18) | 0.41 (.12)* (.18) | 1.15 ** (.05) | 1.13 * (.05) | 1.13 * (.05) |
| SES risk (age 16-18) | −0.25 (−.06) (.21) | −0.22 (−.05) (.21) | −0.19 (−.05) (.21) | −0.83 ** (.06) | −0.83** (.06) | −0.83** (.06) |
| Youth sex2 | −0.06 (−.01) (.53) | −0.02 (−.00) (.53) | −0.02 (−.00) (.53) | 0.89 (.15) | 0.90 (.15) | 0.90 (.15) |
| Baseline control (age 16) | 0.67 (.51)** (.07) | 0.65 (.49)** (.07) | 0.64 (.49)** (.07) | 1.07** (.02) | 1.07** (.02) | 1.07** (.02) |
| Supp. parenting (age 16-18) | 0.14 (.06) (.12) | 0.12 (.05) (.12) | 1.02 (.03) | 1.02 (.03) | ||
| Harsh parenting (ages 16-17) | −0.31 (−.07) (.21) | −0.28 (−.06) (.21) | 0.98 (.05) | 0.98 (.05) | ||
| Household Chaos (ages 16-18) | −0.10 (−.04) (.14) | 0.99 (.05) | ||||
Note.
Standardized parameters are not available because alcohol use was modeled as a zero-inflated Poisson distribution.
1 = university enrollment. 1 = male. Model 1 was estimated using Monte Carlo integration algorithm with restricted maximum likelihood estimation given zero-inflated Poisson distribution. Models 2 was estimated using maximum likelihood estimation and was fully constrained (no model fit indices).
p < .05;
p < .01
Note.
1 = Currently enrolled in university.
1 = male. Models 3 and 4 were estimated using maximum likelihood estimation. Model 4 was fully constrained (no model fit indices). Model 3 fit: Block 1: χ2(7) = 30.429 (p < .01). CFI = .96; RMSEA = .085, [.06, .12], SRMR = .027. Block 2: χ2(11) = 45.89 (p < .01). CFI = .94; RMSEA = .083, [.06, .11], SRMR = .028. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Block 3: χ2(13) = 50.78 (p < .01). CFI = .93; RMSEA = .079, [.06, .10], SRMR = .026.
p < .05;
p < .01.