Predicting Growth Curves of Externalizing Behavior ... - Springer Link

P1: FIL Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59

Style file version May 30th, 2002

C 2003) Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2003, pp. 575–590 (°

Predicting Growth Curves of Externalizing Behavior Across the Preschool Years Elizabeth B. Owens1,3 and Daniel S. Shaw2 Received April 26, 2002; revision received May 5, 2003; accepted May 9, 2003

Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine 2 facets of externalizing behavior: its level at age 6 and its rate of change from age 2 to 6 among 299 boys from low-income families. As for age-6 level of externalizing behavior, maternal depressive symptoms, maternal acceptance of child behavior, parental conflict, and the interaction between maternal acceptance and maternal depressive symptoms were each uniquely associated with this outcome. Regarding the interaction, maternal acceptance was associated with externalizing behavior primarily when maternal depressive symptoms were low, and maternal depressive symptoms were related to externalizing behavior only when maternal acceptance was high. Externalizing behavior gradually decreased between ages 2 and 6; interactions between infant negative emotionality and maternal depressive symptoms and between parental conflict and maternal acceptance were associated with rate of change. Plots suggested a protective effect of low infant negative emotionality when maternal depressive symptoms were high and a larger effect of maternal acceptance when parental conflict was low compared to when it was high. Results add to a small but growing literature regarding predictors of continuity and change in early child externalizing behavior. KEY WORDS: growth curves; externalizing; preschool.

The study of early childhood externalizing problems has implications for the science of developmental and clinical child psychology. During the preschool period rapid behavioral changes are apparent and therefore may be particularly informative regarding processes of human development. Early externalizing behaviors are highly predictive of externalizing behavior over a 1- to 2-year period (Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, & Szumowski, 1984; Cummings, Iannotti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1989; Rose, Rose, & Feldman, 1989), with at least moderate predictability over much longer periods (Campbell & Ewing, 1990; Egeland, Kalkoske, Gottesman, & Erickson, 1990; Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982). Yet early externalizing behavior is not stable. On average, absolute levels decrease over time (Campbell, 1995) despite individual rank order

remaining relatively unchanged. Furthermore, about 50% of preschoolers with notable externalizing-type problems display such problems during middle childhood (Campbell & Ewing, 1990), but the other half do not. The study of early childhood externalizing problems is also relevant to clinical practice. Externalizing behaviors are a common concern for parents of young children (Campbell, 1995), show stability coefficients from childhood to adulthood that are comparable to those of IQ scores (Olweus, 1979), and when they begin at a young age, are associated with increased risk for seriously antisocial outcomes (Moffitt, 1993). Examining the development of such problems before they are entrenched could help us to fashion effective interventions targeted toward those most likely to benefit. The study of behavior trajectories, including the present focus on over-time trends in early externalizing behavior, begins with the measurement of behavior change. Scores at different time points should reflect change in the behavioral construct of interest rather than change in how the construct was measured (Eddy, Dishion, & Stoolmiller, 1998; Stoolmiller, 1995). One implication of this idea might be that constructs should be defined and

1 Institute

of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley, California. 2 Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3 Address all correspondence to Elizabeth B. Owens, Institute of Human Development, mc 1690, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720; e-mail: [email protected].

575 C 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation 0091-0627/03/1200-0575/0 °


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59

576 measured in the same way at each age, an approach that assumes the construct is expressed in exactly the same way across age. This assumption cannot be made about externalizing behavior during the preschool period because of the strong likelihood of heterotypic continuity of such behavior. Heterotypic continuity means that the same underlying construct or process manifests differently across age because development has occurred in the interim. Accordingly, behaviors considered problematic vary as a function of age because behavioral norms vary with development. We therefore adopt the stance that rather than necessarily measuring identical behaviors at each time point, behaviors assessed should be developmentally-relevant and possibly different. In support of this approach, Boyle and Willms (2001) state that repeated measures in developmental studies should have identical meaning across the period of study but need not be invariant. Furthermore, the use of dynamic constructs has been recommended (Eddy et al., 1998), and at least one other study of externalizing growth curves used different but developmentally-relevant items at each age (Patterson & Yoerger, 2001). Potential predictors of early externalizing behavior are often grouped into child, parenting, and family domains (Greenberg, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Jones, 2001; Keller, Gilchrist, & Lewis, 2001). (Regarding the peer domain, peer influence on externalizing problems gains increasing importance with formal school entry. Therefore, given the age of our participants, the peer domain will not be considered here). Within the child domain, temperamental features including negative emotionality or difficulty are often investigated (e.g., Bates, Maslin, & Frankel, 1985; Chess & Thomas, 1984; Earls & Jung, 1987; Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Sanson, Smart, Prior, & Oberklaid, 1993; Shaw, Vondra, Hommerding, Keenan, & Dunn, 1994). Several conceptual possibilities exist: Individual differences in negative emotionality may directly predispose one to the development of externalizing behavior, children with high levels of negative emotionality may elicit caregiver responses (e.g., harsh discipline) that then lead to later externalizing problems, or underlying biological processes may contribute to both negative emotionality and the subsequent behavior problems (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). High negative emotionality has been posited to be a central facet of psychopathology (Cicchetti, Ackerman, & Izard, 1995), with some data indicating that fussy infants who have difficulty regulating anger may later become aggressive in social relationships (Rubin, Coplan, Fox, & Calkins, 1995). Empirical evidence supports linkages between infant negative emotionality and the future level of externalizing problems, at least when both constructs are assessed via maternal-report (Bates et al., 1985; Chess & Thomas, 1984; Earls & Jung, 1987;


Owens and Shaw Sanson et al., 1993; Shaw, Vondra, et al., 1994). However, it is not clear whether infant negative emotionality, or any temperament feature, is related to the growth (i.e., rate of change) of externalizing behavior. Colder, Mott, and Berman (2002) is the only study we know of providing evidence for a link between temperament features (in this case, high activity level and low fear) and growth of externalizing problems. Within the parenting domain, maternal acceptance of child behavior is one of many behaviors purportedly associated with early externalizing behavior. Theoretically, acceptance may increase the effectiveness of socialization attempts by enhancing the parent–child relationship and/or may positively influence child self-esteem, both of which may decrease the likelihood of future behavior problems. Rohner (1986) argues for a biologically-based need for positive and accepting interactions with caretakers, with behavioral adjustment being a response to caregiver acceptance. Empirical evidence supports relations between maternal acceptance and low levels of child behavior problems (Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1997; Rothbaum, Rosen, Pott, & Beatty, 1995; Wolchik, Wilcox, Tein, & Sandler, 2000). Furthermore, constructs related to acceptance (e.g., warmth, responsiveness, supportiveness, reciprocity) are clearly predictive of low levels of externalizing problems in young children (Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985; Gardner, 1994; Harnish, Dodge, & Valente, 1995; Pettit & Bates, 1989; Shaw et al., 1998; Shaw, Keenan, & Vondra, 1994). As was true for infant negative emotionality, empirical evidence thus far supports prediction of future level of externalizing behavior. We know of no studies documenting relations between maternal acceptance and changes in early externalizing behavior, although maternal coercion and nonaffection (McFadyen-Ketchum, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1996) and maternal negative control (Spieker, Larson, Lewis, Keller, & Gilchrist, 1999) have shown relations with rate of externalizing behavior change across the preschool and schoolaged periods. In the family domain we tested maternal depressive symptoms and parental conflict as predictors of early externalizing problems. Both are variables whose welldocumented relations with externalizing problems may be environmentally-mediated (Cummings & Davies, 2002; Goodman & Gotlib, 1999). The environmental mediation hypothesis involves the impact of these variables on parenting behaviors, parent–child relationships, and perhaps the family emotional climate, which then lead to behavior problems. For example, mothers who are depressed are more likely to use inconsistent, permissive, harsh, or coercive discipline (Gelfand & Teti, 1990; Kochanska, Kuczynski, & Maguire, 1989; Peterson, Ewigman,


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59


Early Externalizing Growth Curves & Vandiver, 1994); depressed parents may be more likely to disengage from the parenting role and to neglect parenting responsibilities (Gelfand & Teti, 1990; Osofsky & Thompson, 2000). Regarding parental conflict, relations with childhood externalizing problems may be due to parental modeling of problematic behavior. However, most evidence suggests that the link is indirect through parental conflict’s adverse effect on parent–child relationship quality (Harrist & Ainslie, 1998), parenting practices such as disciplinary strategies (Mann & MacKenzie, 1996), and/or child emotional insecurity (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Much empirical evidence supports links between both maternal depression (see Gotlib & Goodman, 1999 for review) and parental conflict (see Cummings, 1994 for review) and future levels of externalizing behavior, but only one study we know of documents a relation between either variable, in this case maternal depression, and growth or changes in early externalizing problems (Munson, McMahon, & Spieker, 2001). Early externalizing behaviors have been conceptualized as resulting from transactional processes. These typically involve reciprocal relations over time between a child’s attributes or behaviors and aspects of the child’s environment (Sameroff, 1975). In very young children, prior to peer exposure and formal schooling, significant and influential transactive processes likely involve aspects of the family environment, most notably parental characteristics and behaviors. Consequently, we expected the presence of cross-domain risk factors (e.g., high negative emotionality and high depressive symptoms, low acceptance and high parental conflict) to be associated with less improvement in externalizing behavior over time (anticipating that on average, externalizing behavior would decrease across the preschool period) and higher levels of externalizing problems at age 6. Furthermore, certain cross-domain interactions were expected to be predictive of externalizing growth curves because one variable might confer protection/vulnerability in the context of another. For example, infant negative emotionality might operate as a protective/vulnerability factor (decreased externalizing problems and more improvement when low, and increased problems and less improvement when high) in the context of maternal depressive symptoms (Goodman & Gotlib, 1999) or parental conflict (Cummings & Davies, 2002). Similarly, risk for externalizing problems due to maternal depression or parental conflict may be attenuated if mothers are nevertheless high on acceptance. Empirical evidence that these specific interactions predict growth or change in problem behavior is scant. However, a growing literature exists in which parenting behavior, especially discipline practices, together with child temperament (e.g., fearfulness, activity level) is associated with

577 various aspects of child adjustment measured at particular points in time (Bates, Pettit, Dodge, & Ridge, 1998; Colder, Lochman, & Wells, 1997; Kochanska, 1997; Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler, & West, 2000). This literature provides at least indirect support for our tests of interactions involving infant negative emotionality. In sum, our goal was to test hypotheses regarding predictors of externalizing behavior growth curves across the preschool period. We examined predictors from three domains: child (infant negative emotionality), parenting (maternal acceptance), and family (maternal depressive symptoms and parental conflict). We were particularly interested in ascertaining whether cross-domain interactions explained variation in the rate of externalizing behavior change between the ages of 2 and 6. Specifically, we expected to find significant joint effects of infant negative emotionality with maternal depressive symptoms, parental conflict, and maternal acceptance, and of maternal acceptance with both maternal depression and parental conflict.

METHODS Participants As part of an ongoing longitudinal study of developmental precursors of antisocial behavior, infant boys and their mothers were recruited from Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) nutritional supplement clinics in the Pittsburgh, PA metropolitan area. Of those asked, 97% agreed to participate, and 71% (N = 310) attended the first visit at 1.5 years. Moreover, 280–300 of the families were seen at each of the visits after 1.5 years (except for the 5.5-year visit) so that attrition at each age was less than 10%. As recognition for their contribution to our research project, at each assessment families were given between $20 and $30 (depending on the length of the visit), plus $5 for transportation. The analyses herein were conducted using data from the 299 boys (of the original 310) for whom mother-rated externalizing scores were available at two or more time points between ages 2 and 6. The average 24month externalizing score among the 11 boys not included in these analyses was slightly lower than, but not significantly different from, the average 24-month externalizing score of the 299 boys whose data were analyzed. Fifty-eight percent of the mothers were Caucasian, 40% were African American, and 2% were of Native American, Asian, or mixed descent. All families were low-income: at the 1.5-year visit 67% of the families were living under poverty threshold, and 91% had income-toneeds ratios of 1.5 or less. Fifty-eight percent of the mothers had 12 or fewer years of education, 36% had some


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59


578 post-high school education, and 5% had finished college. Most mothers (76%) were not employed outside of their homes. Sixty-five percent were married or living with partner, 27% were single, and 7% were separated, divorced, or widowed. Procedures Boys and their mothers were seen at 1.5, 2, 3.5, 5, 5.5, and 6 years of age in the home and/or in the lab for 1.5–3.5 hours at each visit. They participated in a series of developmentally appropriate interaction tasks, many of which were videotaped for later coding. At each visit mothers also completed questionnaires and interviews regarding demographic variables, their own adjustment, family functioning, and child behavior. Measures Externalizing Behavior Externalizing behavior was measured using maternal report on the age 2/3 version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, Edelbrock, & Howell, 1987) at ages 2 and 3.5 and the age 4–16 version of the same instrument (Achenbach, 1991) at ages 5, 5.5, and 6. Both versions are psychometrically sound. Regarding the age 2/3 version, short-term and long-term retest reliability for all scales has averaged .87 and .69, respectively. Convergent validity is suggested by clinical cutoff scores that discriminated between referred and nonreferred children, and divergent validity is suggested by nonsignificant correlations between CBCL scores and measures of mental development. Scores from versions 2/3 and 4–16 are correlated to a moderately large degree, providing support for the predictive validity of the age 2/3 version (Achenbach et al., 1987). Regarding the age 4–16 version, 1-week retest reliability is .89 and 1-year retest reliability is .72. Convergent validity has been demonstrated by high correlations (above .80) between CBCL scores and other checklist measures of childhood behavior problems. Furthermore, suggested clinical cut-off scores discriminate between children referred and not referred for mental health services (Achenbach, 1991, 1994). Both measures produce broad- and narrow-band factor scores reflecting child behavior over the previous 6 months. Because of the relatively undifferentiated nature of externalizing behavior in preschoolers, we created our dependent measure from all items loading on the broadband Externalizing factor at each age. These Externalizing items varied across age but are considered developmen-

Owens and Shaw Table I. Externalizing Factor Items From Age 2/3 and Age 4–16 Versions of the CBCL Age 2/3

Age 4–16

Destroys own things Destroys things belonging to others Demands must be met immediately Disobedient Easily jealous Gets in many fights Screams a lot Sudden changes in mood or feelings Temper tantrums or hot temper Unusually loud

Destroys own things Destroys things belonging to others Demands a lot of attention Disobedient at school/ disobedient at home Easily jealous Gets into many fights Screams a lot Sudden changes in mood or feelings Temper tantrums or hot temper Unusually loud

Hits others Can’t concentrate or pay attention Cruel to animals Gets into everything Defiant Easily frustrated Angry moods Punishment doesn’t change behavior Selfish or won’t share Whining Quickly shifts from one activity to another Repeatedly rocks head or body Smears bowel movements Gets hurts a lot, accident-prone Chews on things that aren’t edible Eats or drinks things that are not food

Does not feel guilty after misbehaving Hangs with others who get in trouble Lying or cheating Teases a lot Sets fires Steals at home, Steals outside of home Swears a lot Threatens people Truancy, skips school Vandalism Argues a lot Bragging, boasting Cruelty, bullying, meanness to others Physically attacks people Showing off or clowning Talks too much Stubborn, sullen, or irritable Thinks about sex too much

Note. Items above dotted line are identical across age. Items below dotted line vary across age.

tally relevant because they were obtained from age-normed versions of the CBCL that contain age-appropriate items (see Table I). Above the dashed line are items that are virtually identical across age, whereas below the line are items that differ across age. Because the T -scores typically derived from the CBCL are age normed and therefore index change in relative rank over time, they are not considered optimal indicators of change (Stoolmiller, 1995). Instead, we averaged raw item scores, as recommended by Willet and Sayer (1994), to create an overall score for Externalizing behavior at each age scaled according to the original metric (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true). The T -scores of 50, 60,


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59


Early Externalizing Growth Curves and 70 on the age 2/3 version approximately correspond to raw scores of .54, .89, and 1.27, respectively. The T -scores of 50, 60, and 70 on the age 4–16 version approximately correspond to raw scores of .28, .50, and .80, respectively. Infant Negative Emotionality Negative emotionality at 1.5 years was derived via observation of approximately 70-min long videotapes of infants and their mothers participating in activities that varied in level of stress (e.g., free play, clean-up task, period of separation from mother). One molecular and three global ratings of negative emotionality were made. For the molecular rating, coders recorded the proportion of time spent fussing and crying. They also made global ratings on 5-point scales of the amount and intensity of the infant’s fussing and crying, and of overall difficulty. Interrater agreement in the form of weighted kappas were computed for each component of the Negative Emotionality measure. Across 10 randomly selected cases weighted kappas ranged from .77 to .88, with a mean of .83. The one molecular and three global scores were standardized and summed into a single observed Negative Emotionality score with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. Maternal Depressive Symptoms Maternal depressive symptoms were measured using the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961). When the BDI is administered to nonpsychiatric populations, Cronbach’s alphas range from .78 to .95 and retest reliability coefficients range from .60 to .90 (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988). The BDI has been shown to be moderately to highly correlated with other measures of depressive symptoms and disorder (Beck et al., 1988). Instructions were altered to cover depressive symptoms during the previous 6 months (instead of the last 2 weeks) in order to provide a more stable indication of maternal affect throughout her child’s life. The BDI was administered at 1.5, 2, 3.5, 5, and 5.5 years, with scores from each administration averaged to produce a single score with a Cronbach’s alpha of .87. This single composite score estimated the level of maternal depressive symptoms throughout the growth period under study. Maternal Acceptance The Acceptance of Child Behavior scale from the Home Inventory for Measurement of the Environment (HOME; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) was administered at age 2 and used to assess maternal acceptance. Infor-

579 mation needed to score the inventory is obtained through a combination of observational and interview methods. Items on this scale include: “Parent does not shout at child”, “Parent does not interfere or restrict child more than three times,” “Parent does not scold or criticize child during visit,” and “No more than one instance of physical punishment during the past week.” The HOME is widely used and psychometrically sound (Bradley & Caldwell, 1988). For example, Elardo, Bradley, and Caldwell (1975) reported an internal consistency coefficient for the total scale of .89 and a moderate degree of retest reliability from 6 to 24 months. Subscale and total scores have been found to predict child cognitive and language scores, and to distinguish the home environments of malnourished, failure-to-thrive, and developmentally delayed infants from demographically-matched, normally developing infants (Bradley & Caldwell, 1988).

Parental Conflict A total score for parental conflict was formed from two self-report measures of parental conflict: frequency scores from the Childrearing Disagreements Scale (CRD; Jouriles et al., 1991) administered at 2 and 5.5 years, and the Verbal and Physical Aggression subscale scores from the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979) administered at 3.5 and 5.5 years. When the CRD and CTS were administered to single mothers we asked them to complete the measure about the person who spends the most time helping to care for their children. Often this was a boyfriend, mother, or sister. The Cronbach’s alpha for the composited Parental Conflict measure was .60. Scores on this composited measure reflected the average level of parental conflict throughout the growth period. The CRD assesses the frequency with which parents disagree about childrearing issues. This frequency scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of .86, and some evidence of predictive and discriminative validity has been provided using relations with child behavior problems that differ from those between marital adjustment and child behavior problems (Jouriles et al., 1991). The CTS assessed the use of different conflict resolution strategies by mother and her partner. Cronbach’s alphas were .79 and .82 for the Verbal and Physical Aggression subscales, respectively (Straus, 1979) and the factor structure originally proposed by Straus has been replicated (Caulfield & Riggs, 1992). The Physical Aggression subscale has shown significant correlations with measures of family power structure that predict the use of violence; both subscale scores have also shown correlations with measures of physical and verbal aggression obtained from interviews (Straus, 1979).


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59


580 Data Analytic Strategy First, we computed descriptive statistics and correlations among predictor variables. We then modeled growth curves because it is a strongly recommended approach to analyzing repeated-measures data and describing developmental patterns (Boyle & Willms, 2001; Burchinal, 1999; Stoolmiller, 1995; Willett, Ayoub, & Robinson, 1991) that allows examination of individual change, average change, and predictors of individual differences in change over time. Specifically, we tested hierarchical linear models using HLM software, version 5 for Windows (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2000). Our growth curve analyses involved two steps: the first was to unconditionally model (i.e., examine without predictors) individual and group-level externalizing behavior as a linear function of time, and the second was to add predictors of variance in the Externalizing growth curve slopes and intercepts. Because we were more interested in developmental outcome at the end of the growth period than in initial status, we set the intercept at age 6 rather than at age 2, an approach that has been adopted in at least three other investigations examining growth curves of externalizing problems (Colder et al., 2002; Munson et al., 2001; Spieker et al., 1999). Therefore, in our analyses a trajectory or growth curve for each of the 299 children was represented by a slope (describing the rate of change) and an intercept (describing the level of Externalizing behavior at age 6). An average or overall growth curve was generated, and then predictors of variance around the slope and intercept of this average growth curve were examined. We examined each predictor individually, then cumulatively, and finally tested five cross-domain interactions: Infant Negative Emotionality × Maternal Depressive Symptoms, Infant Negative Emotionality × Maternal Acceptance, Infant Negative Emotionality × Parental Conflict, Maternal Acceptance × Parental Conflict, and Maternal Acceptance × Maternal Depressive Symptoms.

RESULTS In preparation for analyses, certain missing values were replaced and distributions of our dependent measures were examined. Replacement of missing data for betweensubject predictors is necessary when using HLM software. In 6% of cases (n = 19) for Maternal Acceptance, and in 2% of cases (n = 6) for Infant Negative Emotionality missing values were replaced with the sample means. For Maternal Depressive Symptoms and Parental Conflict, we first computed aggregate variables from the available raw data. Then for Parental Conflict, in 1% of cases (n = 3)

Owens and Shaw Table II. Descriptive Statistics

Predictor variables Infant negative emotionality Maternal acceptance Maternal depressive symptoms Parental conflict Outcome variables Externalizing score 24 months Externalizing score 42 months Externalizing score 60 months Externalizing score 64 months Externalizing score 72 months

n

M

SD

293 280 299 296

13.21 5.0 7.8 −.01

5.44 2.0 5.5 .70

275 275 275 231 253

.64 .61 .42 .40 .40

.28 .30 .24 .25 .24

missing values were replaced with the Parental Conflict mean. There were no missing values for the aggregated Maternal Depressive Symptoms variable. Missing values were not replaced for the outcome (Level 1) variables. A benefit of HLM is its ability to produce robust estimates despite missing values for the repeated dependent measure. Additionally, our use of a restricted maximum likelihood estimation procedure required that our dependent variables (the Externalizing slopes and intercepts) be normally distributed, as the slope scores were. The distribution of intercepts had a slight positive skew but did not appear to violate the assumption of normality. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table II. For the predictor variables, statistics were calculated before missing data were replaced with sample means. We also computed Pearson product moment correlations among predictors. Infant Negative Emotionality was not significantly associated with any other variable (all r s less than .10). Each parenting and family variable showed smallto moderately-sized significant correlations with all of the other parenting and family variables; the smallest was between Maternal Acceptance and Parental Conflict (r = −.13, p = .016) and the largest was between Maternal Depressive Symptoms and Parental Conflict (r = .34, p = .000). The correlation between Maternal Depressive Symptoms and Maternal Acceptance was intermediary (r = −.19, p = .001). Figure 1 displays the actual means and the estimated mean growth curve for Externalizing behavior from ages 2 to 6. As can be seen, average Externalizing scores decreased over time. Given the pattern of actual Externalizing means, we considered the appropriateness of linear, quadratic, and cubic models. Ultimately we adopted a linear model both because a straight line approximated the change in Externalizing means across time, and because adding quadratic and cubic terms to our model substantially decreased the reliability of our slope estimates.


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59


Early Externalizing Growth Curves

581

Fig. 1. Unconditional growth curve.

Additionally in Fig. 1, the lower case letters a through d were included to provide reference points for interpretations regarding the clinical relevance of our findings. As can be seen, the actual and estimated means at ages 2 and 3.5 were close to the normative mean. By ages 5 to 6, however, the actual and estimated means were somewhat higher than the normative mean, although not in the clinical range. Given that our participants were at elevated risk for externalizing problems (i.e., were boys from lowincome urban families), the relatively high average scores at ages 5 to 6 were expected. The linear slope of the estimated mean growth curve was −.0597 and its intercept (in other words, the average Externalizing score at age 6) was .4025. Both of these values were significantly different from zero, and were reasonably reliable (.45 for slope estimate and .81 for intercept estimate). The correlation between slope and intercept was .21, meaning that a small relation existed between more slowly decreasing slopes and higher age6 Externalizing scores. The variances around the average slope and intercept were also significant (.0448 for inter2 2 = 1545.38, p = .000; .0019 for slope, χ298 = cept, χ298 541.05, p = .000), indicating notable diversity in children’s individual trajectories and suggesting that predictors of these variances should be sought. Consequently, in four separate equations each independent variable was entered as a predictor of both the slope and the intercept, with results presented in Table III. The PV stands for percent of variance accounted for, a measure of effect size. As can be seen, each predictor ac-

counted for significant variance in the age-6 intercept, with Maternal Depressive Symptoms accounting for the most variance (16%) and Infant Negative Emotionality accounting for the least (1%). When entered simultaneously, each of the three family predictors still accounted for unique variance, above and beyond the effects of the others and despite the collinearity among them, but the variance accounted for by Infant Negative Emotionality was only marginally significant. The statistics for the significant predictors in this cumulative model were as follows: Maternal Depressive Symptoms (coefficient = .0114, se = .0024, t294 = 4.79, p = .000), Parental Conflict (coefficient = .0634, se = .0189, t294 = 3.35, p = .001), and Maternal Acceptance (coefficient = −.0170, se = All four predi.0067, t294 = −2.55, p = .011). ctors together accounted for 23% of the variance in the intercept estimate. On the other hand, no child, parenting, or family predictor accounted for significant variance in the slope. In other words, no main effects on the slope were detected. Not surprisingly, none accounted for variance above and beyond the others when entered simultaneously. We next computed and, in separate equations, tested five multiplicative interaction terms: Infant Negative Emotionality × Maternal Depressive Symptoms, Infant Negative Emotionality × Parental Conflict, Infant Negative Emotionality × Maternal Acceptance, Maternal Acceptance × Maternal Depressive Symptoms, and Maternal Acceptance × Parental Conflict. As suggested by Aiken and West (1991), we centered variables before computing


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59


582

Owens and Shaw Table III. Main Effects on the Intercept and the Slope

On intercept Infant negative emotionality Maternal acceptance Maternal depressive symptoms Parental conflict On slope Infant negative emotionality Maternal acceptance Maternal depressive symptoms Parental conflict

Coefficient/se

t

Variance component

df

χ2

PVa

.0053/.0025 −.0259/.0071 .0155/.0023 .1024/.0188

2.12∗ −3.66∗∗∗ 6.73∗∗∗ 5.46∗∗∗

.0441 .0425 .0376 .0399

297 297 297 297

1522.25∗∗∗ 1478.78∗∗∗ 1340.71∗∗∗ 1404.27∗∗∗

1% 5% 16% 11%

.0004/.0007 .0003/.0020 .0000/.0007 .0006/.0054

.68, ns .13, ns .03, ns .12, ns

.0019 .0019 .0019 .0019

297 297 297 297

540.21∗∗∗ 541.02∗∗∗ 541.05∗∗∗ 541.02∗∗∗

— — — —

= percent of variance accounted for. < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

a PV ∗p

interaction terms. However, we centered around sample medians and plotted significant interactions by conditioning on values one standard deviation above and below the sample medians. We did this because the distributions of our predictors were not perfectly normal. Therefore, we thought that medians better represented the central tendencies of these distributions than did means. Furthermore, plots of our significant interactions were more interpretable when data were median-centered rather than mean-centered. Models in which an interaction term was significantly associated with growth curve intercepts or slopes are presented in Table IV. In one of the five equations the interaction term accounted for significant variance around the intercept estimate: Maternal Acceptance and Depressive Symptoms had a joint effect on age-6 Externalizing scores (coefficient = .0028, se = .0011, t295 = 2.52, p = .012). The term plus the component main effects accounted for 20% of the intercept variance. Regarding model fit, the variance component and χ 2 statistics 2 = 1281.70, p = .000 for the intercept were .036 and χ295 2 and .002, χ295 = 535.64, p = .000 for the slope, suggesting a substantial improvement in model fit compared to the unconditional model. Figure 2 was generated by conditioning the model on high values (one standard deviation above the sample medians) and low values (one standard deviation below the sample medians), As seen there, when Maternal Depressive Symptoms high, children’s externalizing scores were elevated regardless of Maternal Acceptance level, but at low levels of Maternal Depressive Symptoms, only low Acceptance was associated with higher levels of externalizing behavior. Additionally, when Maternal Acceptance was high, the relation between Maternal Depressive Symptoms and the age-6 intercepts was significantly different from zero (simple slope = .0204, se = .0067, t295 = 3.04, p < .001), but when Maternal

Acceptance was low, the relation between Maternal Depressive Symptoms and age-6 intercepts was not significantly different from zero (simple slope = .0098, se = .0079, t295 = 1.24, ns). In two of the five equations, interaction terms accounted for significant variance in the slope estimate, above and beyond the component main effects (see Table IV). First, although the interactions between Infant Negative Emotionality and both Parental Conflict and Maternal Acceptance were not statistically significant, the interaction between Infant Negative Emotionality and Maternal Depressive Symptoms was (coefficient = .0003, se = .0001, t295 = 2.32, p = .021), with the term plus its component main effects accounting for 2% of the slope variance. Regarding model fit, the variance component 2 = 1342.79, p = .000 and χ 2 statistics were .0373, χ295 2 for the intercept and .0018, χ295 = 530.56, p = .000 for the slope, suggesting a small improvement in fit compared to the unconditional growth model. The association between the interaction term and the slope of Externalizing growth curves is displayed in Fig. 3. In that figure, each line is drawn through the average child Externalizing scores when Infant Negative Emotionality and Maternal Depressive Symptom scores were high (one standard deviation above sample medians) and/or low (one standard deviation below sample medians). Each of these simple slopes was significantly different from zero (see Table V). The effect of Maternal Depressive Symptoms is apparent (higher Externalizing scores at all ages when Depressive Symptoms are high), and at each age the average Externalizing score was the lowest when both Infant Negative Emotionality and Maternal Depressive Symptoms were low. Of note too is that when Maternal Depressive Symptoms were high, estimated Externalizing scores at ages 5– 6, but not at ages 2–3.5, were in or quite near the clinically significant range (i.e., were near or at least as high as raw


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59



583 Table IV. Significant Interactive Effects

Model 1: Joint effect of maternal acceptance and maternal depressive symptoms Intercept Maternal acceptance (MA) Maternal depressive symptoms (MDS) MA × MDS Slope Maternal acceptance (MA) Maternal depressive symptoms (MDS) MA × MDS

Intercept Slope Model 2: Joint effect of infant negative emotionality and maternal depressive symptoms Intercept Infant negative emotionality (INE) Maternal depressive symptoms (MDS) INE × MDS Slope Infant negative emotionality (INE) Maternal depressive symptoms (MDS) INE × MDS

Intercept Slope Model 3: Joint effect of maternal acceptance (MA) and parental conflict (PC) Intercept Maternal acceptance (MA) Parental conflict (PC) MA × PC Slope Maternal acceptance (MA) Parental conflict (PC) MA × PC

Intercept Slope

Coefficient/se

t295

.3917/.0128 −.0231/.0070 .0151/.0023 .0028/.0011 −.0588/.0038 .0007/.0021 .0002/.0007 .0006/.0003

30.55∗∗∗ −3.29∗∗ 6.52∗∗∗ 2.52∗ −15.38∗∗∗ −.36 −.28 1.72

Variance

df

χ2

PVa

.036 .002

295 295

1281.70∗∗∗ 535.64∗∗∗

20% 0%

Coefficient/se

t295

.3841/.0130 .0041/.0024 .0150/.0023 .0002/.0005 −.0604/.0039 .0002/.0007 −.0002/.0007 .0003/.0001

29.65∗∗∗ 1.70 6.51∗∗∗ .49 −25.96∗∗∗ .25 −.28 2.32∗

Variance

df

χ2

PVa

.0373 .0018

295 295

1324.79∗∗∗ 530.56∗∗∗

17% 2%

Coefficient/se

t295

.3900/.0131 −.0238/.0071 .0981/.0188 .0114/.0094 −.0590/.0038 −.0009/.0021 .0023/.0054 .0061/.0027

29.73∗∗∗ −3.35∗∗ 5.23∗∗ 1.21 −15.56∗∗∗ −.43 .43 2.25∗

Variance

df

χ2

.0383 .0018

295 295

1352.13∗∗∗ 531.85∗∗∗

PVa 14% 2%

= percent of variance accounted for. < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

a PV ∗p

scores comparable to a T -score of 60 on the CBCL). When Depressive Symptoms were low, Externalizing scores decreased faster when Infant Negative Emotionality was high (simple slope = −.0675) than when it was low (simple slope = −.0511). On the other hand, when Depressive Symptoms were high, Externalizing scores decreased faster when Infant Negative Emotionality was low (simple slope = −.0715), compared to when it was high (simple slope = −.0515).

Second, although the cross-domain interaction involving Maternal Acceptance and Depression was not a statistically significant predictor of externalizing slope variance, the interaction between Maternal Acceptance and Parental Conflict was (coefficient = .0061, se = .0027, t295 = 2.25, p = .024). Regarding model fit, the variance component and χ 2 statistics were .0383, 2 = 1352.13, p = .000 for the intercept and .0018, χ295 2 = 531.85, p = .000 for the slope, suggesting a small χ295


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59

584


Owens and Shaw

Fig. 2. Age-6 externalizing behavior at different levels of maternal acceptance and depressive symptoms.

improvement in fit compared to the unconditional growth model. Again, the term plus its component main effects accounted for 2% of the slope variance. The association between the interaction term and the slopes is displayed in Fig. 4. In that Figure, each line is drawn through the average child Externalizing scores when Parental Conflict and

Maternal Acceptance scores were high (one standard deviation above sample medians) and/or low (one standard deviation below sample medians). Each of these simple slopes was significantly different from zero (see Table V). The effect of Parental Conflict is apparent (higher externalizing scores at all ages when Parental Conflict is high).

Fig. 3. Average growth curves at different levels of infant negative emotionality and maternal depressive symptoms.


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59



585 Table V. Simple Slope Scores

Condition Infant negative emotionality (INE) and maternal depression symptoms (MDS) High INE and High MDS Low INE and High MDS Low INE and Low MDS High INE and Low MDS Parental conflict (PC) and maternal acceptance (MA) High PC and High MA Low PC and High MA Low PC and Low MA High PC and Low MA ∗p

Simple slope

se

t295

−.0515 −.0715 −.0511 −.0675

.0265 .0232 .0235 .0261

−1.94∗ −3.08∗∗∗ −2.17∗ −2.59∗∗

−.0510 −.0704 −.0508 −.0638

.0077 .0077 .0089 .0063

−6.62∗∗∗ −9.14∗∗∗ −5.71∗∗∗ −10.13∗∗∗

< .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

In fact, when Parental Conflict was high and Maternal Acceptance was low, estimated Externalizing scores at ages 5–6 (but not at ages 2–3.5) were in the clinically significant range (i.e., were at or higher than the raw score comparable to a T -score of 60 on the CBCL). At each age the average Externalizing score was the lowest when Parental Conflict was low and Maternal Acceptance was high. The overtime decrease in Externalizing scores was also greater in this situation of low Parental Conflict and high Maternal Acceptance. When Parental Conflict was high, low Maternal Acceptance was associated with a faster decrease in Externalizing behavior than was high Acceptance (simple slopes = −.0638 and −.0510, respectively). On the other hand, when Parental Conflict was low, high Mater-

nal Acceptance was associated with a faster decrease in Externalizing scores (simple slope = −.0704) than was low Maternal Acceptance (simple slope = −.0508).

DISCUSSION We examined the age-6 level of externalizing behavior and its rate of change from age 2 to 6 among 299 boys from low-income families and explored how factors across child, parenting, and family domains predicted the course of early externalizing behaviors. Predictors investigated included infant negative emotionality, maternal depressive symptoms, maternal acceptance, and parental

Fig. 4. Average growth curves at different levels of parental conflict and maternal acceptance.


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59

586 conflict, with a special interest in cross-domain interactive effects on rate of externalizing behavior change. Each showed a significant main effect on age-6 externalizing behavior, and all associations were unique except that for infant negative emotionality. Furthermore, the interaction between maternal acceptance and maternal depressive symptoms was significantly associated with age-6 externalizing behavior. On the other hand, no main effects on the rate of externalizing behavior change were found, but two of five cross-domain interactions showed significant associations with the rate of externalizing behavior change from age 2 to 6: maternal depressive symptoms with infant negative emotionality, and parental conflict with maternal acceptance. Our unconditional growth curve model indicated that the average level of externalizing behavior in this study decreased significantly from age 2 to 6. Is this a real phenomenon or a measurement artifact? Specifically, was the decrease related to changes in items from the age 2/3 to the age 4–16 versions of the CBCL that comprised our dependent measure? It seems possible that externalizing behavior scores decreased across age because the items we used to tap such behavior from age 5 to 6 have a lower base rate than those at ages 2 and 3.5 years. There are infrequently endorsed items (e.g., stealing, truancy, vandalism) on the age 4–16 version that might have brought down the average level, but there are comparably infrequent, although somewhat fewer, items on the age 2/3 version too (e.g., rocks head or body, smears bowel movements, chews on things that aren’t edible). Furthermore, our finding of decreasing externalizing behavior across the preschool years is consistent with reports using identical items across age (e.g., Spieker et al., 1999), and one would expect this pattern given increases in self-regulation that occur throughout the preschool period. To test the idea that our decreasing average growth curve was not simply due to measurement differences across time, we examined the growth curve of externalizing behavior using only the 10 items that are identical across both CBCL versions. This growth curve also showed externalizing behavior to decrease over time. The negative slope was less steep than when all items from the Externalizing factor were used (−.03 vs. −.06), but was nevertheless significantly different from zero. Therefore, we believe the decrease in externalizing behavior across the preschool period is likely a real phenomenon and not a measurement artifact. We speculate that this decrease is due to both biological maturation and parental socialization attempts, although we did not investigate the cause of the decreasing trajectories. In our conditional growth curve models all main effects tested, and the joint effect of maternal acceptance and maternal depressive symptoms, were significantly as-


Owens and Shaw sociated in the predicted directions with age-6 externalizing behavior. This was not surprising, given accumulated evidence in the literature for associations between each child, parenting, and family predictor and later externalizing problems. However, no main effects were associated with the rate at which externalizing behavior changed. This pattern may be due to the average growth curve intercept being more reliably measured than the slope. In other words, differences among slopes were more random than differences among intercepts (according to the reliability estimates), making slope variance harder to predict. It is also possible that our measurement strategy precluded finding significant predictors of the slope. That is, some predictors were measured at one point in time and some were aggregated from measures at different points in time; but in all cases a static predictor was used. Perhaps relations between changes in predictors (e.g., rate of change in maternal depressive symptoms across time, rather than the average level across time) and changes in externalizing behavior would have been statistically significant. It is also possible that the predictors tested as main effects are simply not associated with change over time, despite their associations with externalizing behavior at a particular time point in this and many other studies. On the other hand, slope variance was accounted for by interactions, suggesting perhaps that over-time behavioral change requires a more specific and elaborate explanation than one suggested by main effects. In fact, the transactional model (Sameroff, 1975) suggests that interactions or cross-domain effects should better predict behavior development than do simple main effects, as we report. Our findings are also important because in few studies to date have predictors of the rate of change in childhood behavior problems been identified. We, along with a few others (Colder et al., 2002; Keiley, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 2000; McFadyen-Ketchum et al., 1996; Munson et al., 2001; Nagin & Tremblay, 2001; Spieker et al., 1999; Stoolmiller, 2001), are the first to find significant predictors of childhood behavior problem change over time, rather than simply identifying predictors of the level of problems at a particular point in time. In the two cases in which interactive terms were associated with the growth of externalizing behavior, the nature of these associations was only partially expected. In the first case, infant negative emotionality and maternal depressive symptoms together accounted for significant variance in the slope of the externalizing behavior growth curves. This finding is consistent with the growing literature regarding associations between child temperament × parenting behavior interactions and child adjustment (e.g., Bates et al., 1998; Colder et al., 1997; Kochanska, 1997; Lengua et al., 2000), and the more general theory


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

Early Externalizing Growth Curves concerning the bidirectionality of parent and child effects on child developmental outcomes (Bell, 1968). Not surprisingly, when maternal depressive symptoms were high, low infant negative emotionality was associated with greater improvement in externalizing behavior over time than was high infant negative emotionality. This finding suggests a protective effect of low negative emotionality when children are at risk for externalizing problems due to high levels of maternal depressive symptomatology. Others have also found positive child temperamental attributes (e.g., positive emotionality, Lengua et al., 2000; low activity level, Colder et al., 1997) to protect children from adjustment problems in high-risk parenting contexts. However, when depressive symptoms were low the opposite was true. High, not low, infant negative emotionality was associated with greater improvement in externalizing behavior. It could be that under “normal” circumstances (i.e., low levels of maternal depressive symptoms), the association between infant negative emotionality and externalizing behavior simply fades over time. This fading effect is represented by the convergence of the two growth curves when maternal depressive symptoms were low. The finding that parental conflict and maternal acceptance jointly accounted for significant variance in the slopes of the externalizing behavior growth curves is somewhat more difficult to explain. Not surprisingly, the fastest decrease in externalizing behavior (i.e., most improvement) and the lowest level of externalizing behavior at each age were found in what is arguably the most optimal situation: low parental conflict and high maternal acceptance. And when parental conflict was low but maternal acceptance was also low, externalizing behavior decreased at a slower rate than when acceptance was high. Yet unexpectedly, a relatively large decrease in externalizing behavior was also found in the least optimal situation: low maternal acceptance and high parental conflict. Here we invoke an explanation based on regression to the mean: over time initially high externalizing scores moved toward the more typical scores of children in the other groups (although externalizing scores for these children exposed to cross-domain risks began and remained higher than for all others). Additionally, among the children experiencing high parental conflict, the effect of maternal acceptance (measured at age 2) seemed to fade over time because externalizing scores in the high versus low acceptance conditions were more divergent at age 2 than at age 6. These findings regarding the joint effect of parental conflict and maternal acceptance may also be relevant to coercion theory (Patterson, 1982). The finding indicates that in families that were high on conflict and low on acceptance (the most coercive), children had the highest

19:59


587 levels of externalizing problems at all time points and their rate of improvement over time was somewhat less than those in the low conflict/high acceptance group (the least coercive), whose average negative slope was the greatest and who at all time points showed the lowest levels of externalizing problems. According to the cumulative, nonspecific risk hypothesis (Rutter, Cox, Tupling, Berger, & Yule, 1975), the total number of risk factors better predicts child behavior problems than does the presence of any particular type of risk factor. Furthermore, a threshold effect is proposed; this means that above a certain cut-point the likelihood of behavior problem development is increased. The finding that maternal depressive symptoms and maternal acceptance conjointly accounted for variance in age6 externalizing problems can be interpreted in light of this hypothesis. The condition in which neither risk factor was present was associated with the lowest level of externalizing problems, whereas the presence of one or both risk factors was associated with higher and statistically equal levels of externalizing problems. Additionally, the cumulative and nonspecific associations between the number of risk factors and levels of behavior problems at each age are apparent in Fig. 4. When neither risk factor (low maternal acceptance or high parental conflict) was present, levels of externalizing problems were lowest at all ages. When either risk factor was present, externalizing problems were intermediate at all ages. When both risk factors were present, externalizing problems were highest at all ages. The primary limitations of our methodology are our exclusively male, low SES sample (which limits generalizability of our findings) and shared method variance between certain predictors (maternal depressive symptoms, parental conflict) and our dependent measure. Additionally, as noted above, our statistical approach did not allow the testing of relations between changes in predictors and the change or growth in externalizing behavior. Because HLM 5 does not allow for the modeling of time-varying Level 2 predictors (even though for two of our predictors we had repeated measures), we needed to model all of our predictors as fixed effects. This misspecification of our model likely inflated the effects of our Level 2 variables to some degree. There are also potentially important differences in when each predictor was measured. In particular, infant negative emotionality and maternal acceptance were each measured only once during infancy; parental conflict and maternal depressive symptoms were aggregated from scores taken across ages 1.5–5.5 years. However, these procedures did not seem to have a notable impact on our findings: earlier-measured predictors and those measured across time all produced significant


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59

588 results. It should also be noted that the variances accounted for by the interaction terms that were identified as significant predictors of externalizing problem change were small. Additionally, our use of multiplicative interaction terms only approximated the transactive processes we wished to assess. In conclusion, we used a recommended and relatively new statistical approach to analyze our repeated-measures data that offers distinct advantages when one is interested in understanding the rate and form of behavior problem continuity and change within and across individuals. We predicted the ultimate level of externalizing behavior from infant negative emotionality, maternal depressive symptoms, maternal acceptance of the child, and parental conflict. But more important, we predicted rates of externalizing behavior change using combinations of these child, parenting, and family factors. Our results add to a small but growing body of literature regarding predictors of behavior problem continuity and change in young children, an understudied area of research with potential to inform the science and practice of developmental and clinical child psychology.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the mothers and sons who generously donated their time participating in our research project. This research was sponsored by a National Research Service Award from NIH to the first author (#MH 12792) and both R01 (#MH 50907) and K awards (#MH 01666) from NIH to the second author.

REFERENCES Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, IA: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1994). Child behavior checklist and related instruments. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 517–549). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Achenbach, T. M., Edelbrock, C., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Empirically based assessment of the behavioral/emotional problems of 2- and 3-year-old children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 629–650. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bates, J. E., Maslin, C. A., & Frankel, K. A. (1985). Attachment security, mother–child interaction, and temperament as predictors of behavior problem ratings at age three years. Society for Research in Child Development Monographs, 50(1/2, Serial No. 209), 167–193. Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Ridge, B. (1998). Interaction of temperamental resistance to control and restrictive parenting in the development of externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 34, 982–995.


Owens and Shaw Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory. Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. E., & Erbaugh, J. K. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571. Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81–95. Boyle, M. H., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Multilevel modeling of hierarchical data in developmental studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 141–162. Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1988). Using the HOME inventory to assess the family environment. Pediatric Nursing, 14, 97–107. Burchinal, M. R. (1999). Statistical methods for describing developmental patterns. Early Education and Development, 10, 83–99. Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Manual for the home observation for measurement of the environment. Little Rock: University of Arkansas. Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 113–149. Campbell, S. B., Breaux, A. M., Ewing, L., & Szumowski, E. K. (1984). A one-year follow-up of parent-identified “hyperactive” toddlers. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 23, 243–249. Campbell, S. B., & Ewing, L. J. (1990). Follow-up of hard-to-manage preschoolers: Adjustment at age 9 and predictors of continuing symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 871– 889. Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dating aggression: Empirical evaluation of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 549–558. Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Li, B. (1997). Maternal acceptance and social and school adjustment in Chinese children: A four-year longitudinal study. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 43, 663–681. Chess, S. A., & Thomas, A. (1984). Origins and evolution of behavior disorders. New York: Brummer/Mazel. Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotions and emotional regulation in developmental psychopathology. Developmental Psychopathology, 7, 1–10. Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1997). The moderating effects of children’s fear and activity level on relations between parenting practices and childhood symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 251–263. Colder, C. R., Mott, J. A., & Berman, A. S. (2002). The interactive effects of infant activity level and fear on growth trajectories of early childhood behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 1–23. Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and children’s functioning. Social Development, 3, 16–36. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 31–63. Cummings, E. M., Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1989). Aggression between peers in early childhood: Individual continuity and developmental change. Child Development, 60, 887–895. Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411. Earls, F., & Jung, K. G. (1987). Temperament and home environment characteristics as causal factors in the early development of childhood psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 491–498. Eddy, J. M., Dishion, T. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (1998). The analysis of intervention change in children and families: Methodological and conceptual issues embedded in intervention studies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 53–69. Egeland, B., Kalkoske, M., Gottesman, N., & Erickson, M. F. (1990). Preschool behavior problems: Stability and factors accounting


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

Early Externalizing Growth Curves for change. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 891–909. Elardo, R., Bradley, R., & Caldwell, B. M. (1975). The relation of infants’ home environments to mental test performance from six to thirty-six months: A longitudinal analysis. Child Development, 46, 71–76. Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1/2, Serial No. 209), 147–167. Gardner, F. E. (1994). The quality of joint activity between mothers and their children with conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 935–949. Gelfand, D. M., & Teti, D. M. (1990). The effects of maternal depression on children. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 329–353. Goodman, S. H., & Gotlib, I. H. (1999). Risk for psychopathology in children of depressed mothers: A developmental model for understanding mechanisms of transmission. Psychological Review, 106, 458–490. Gotlib, I. H., & Goodman, S. H. (1999). Children of parents with depression. In W. K. Silverman & T. H. Ollendick (Eds.), Developmental issues in the clinical treatment of children and adolescents (pp. 415–432). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., DeKlyen, M., & Jones, K. (2001). Correlates of clinical referral for early conduct problems: Variable- and person-oriented approaches. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 255–276. Harnish, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Valente, E. (1995). Mother–child interaction quality as a partial mediator of the roles of depressive symptoms and socioeconomic status in the development of child behavior problems. Child Development, 66(3), 739– 753. Harrist, A. W., & Ainslie, R. C. (1998). Marital discord and child behavior problems: Parent–child relationship quality and child interpersonal awareness as mediators. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 140– 163. Jouriles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., Farris, A. M., Smith, D. A., Richters, J. E., & Waters, E. (1991). Marital adjustment, parental disagreements about child rearing, and behavior problems in boys: Increasing the specificity of marital assessment. Child Development, 62, 1424– 1433. Keiley, M. K., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2000). A crossdomain growth analysis: Externalizing and internalizing behaviors during 8 years of childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 161–179. Keller, T. E., Gilchrist, L., & Lewis, S. M. (2001). Distinguishing different trajectories of preschool problem behaviors based on early conditions of risk. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, April, Minneapolis, MN. Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33, 228–240. Kochanska, G., Kuczynski, L., & Maguire, M. (1989). Impact of diagnosed depression and self-reported mood on mothers’ control strategies: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 493–511. Lengua, L. J., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., & West, S. G. (2000). The additive and interactive effects of parenting and temperament in predicting problems of children of divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 232–244. Mann, B. J., & MacKenzie, E. P. (1996). Pathways among marital functioning, parental behaviors, and child behavior problems in school-age boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 183– 191. McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Patterns of change in early childhood aggressive–disruptive behavior: Gender differences in predictions from early coercive and affectionate mother–child interactions. Child Development, 67, 2417–2433.

19:59


589 Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Munson, J. A., McMahon, R. J., & Spieker, S. J. (2001). Structure and variability in the developmental trajectory of children’s externalizing problems: Impact of infant attachment, maternal depressive symptomatology, and child sex. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 277–296. Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Parental and early childhood predictors of persistent physical aggression in boys from kindergarten to high school. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 389– 394. Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86(4), 852–875. Osofsky, J. D., & Thompson, M. D. (2000). Adaptive and maladaptive parenting: Perspectives on risk and protective factors. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. M. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 54–75). New York: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach: Vol. 3. Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (April, 2001). An intra-individual search for growth in overt antisocial behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. Peterson, L., Ewigman, B., & Vandiver, T. (1994). Role of parental anger in low-income women: Discipline strategy, perceptions of behavior problems, and the need for control. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 435–443. Pettit, G., & Bates, J. (1989). Family interaction patterns and children’s behavior problems from infancy to 4 years. Developmental Psychology, 25, 413–420. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2000). HLM for Windows (Version 5.01) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Richman, N., Stevenson, J., & Graham, P. J. (1982). Preschool to school: A behavioural study. London: Academic Press. Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance–rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rose, S. L., Rose, S. A., & Feldman, J. F. (1989). Stability of behavior problems in very young children. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 5–19. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley. Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K. S., Pott, M., & Beatty, M. (1995). Early parent– child relationships and later problem behavior: A longitudinal study. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 41(2), 133–151. Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1995). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and preschoolers’ social adaptation. Developmental Psychopathology, 7, 49–62. Rutter, M., Cox, A., Tupling, C., Berger, M., & Yule, W. (1975). Attainment and adjustment in two geographical areas: 1. The prevalence of psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 493–509. Sameroff, A. (1975). Transactional models in early social relations. Human Development, 18, 65–79. Sanson, A. V., Smart, D., Prior, M., & Oberklaid, F. (1993). Precursors of hyperactivity and aggression. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 1207–1216. Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K., & Vondra, J. I. (1994). Developmental precursors of externalizing behavior: Ages 1 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 30, 355–364. Shaw, D. S., Vondra, J. I., Hommerding, K. D., Keenan, K., & Dunn, M. (1994). Chronic family adversity and early child behavior problems: A longitudinal study of low income families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1109–1122. Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E. B., Owens, E. B., Vondra, J. I., Cohn, J. F., & Bell, R. Q. (1998). The development of early externalizing


PP1022-jacp-474828

October 14, 2003

19:59

590 problems among children from low-income families: A transformational perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 95–107. Spieker, S. J., Larson, N. C., Lewis, S. M., Keller, T. E., & Gilchrist, L. (1999). Developmental trajectories of disruptive behavior problems in preschool children of adolescent mothers. Child Development, 70, 443–458. Stoolmiller, M. (1995). Using latent growth curve models to study developmental processes. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 103–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stoolmiller, M. (2001). Synergistic interaction of child manageability problems and parent-discipline tactics in predicting future growth in externalizing behavior for boys. Developmental Psychology, 37, 814–825.


Owens and Shaw Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88. Willet, J. B., & Sayer, A. G. (1994). Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates and predictors of individual change over time. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 363–381. Willett, J. B., Ayoub, C. C., & Robinson, D. (1991). Using growth modeling to examine systematic differences in growth: An example of change in the functioning of families at risk of maladaptive parenting, child abuse, or neglect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 38–47. Wolchik, S. A., Wilcox, K. L., Tein, J., & Sandler, I. N. (2000). Maternal acceptance and consistency of discipline as buffers of divorce stressors on children’s psychological adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 87–102.