Objective-Although widely reported among Latinos, contradictory evidence exists regarding the generalizability of the immigrant paradox; that foreign nativity is protective against psychiatric disorders. We examine whether this paradox applies to all Latino groups by contrasting estimates of lifetime psychiatric disorders among Latino immigrants, Latino U.S-born, and non-Latino whites.Method-Data from the National Latino and Asian American Study and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication represent some of the largest nationally-representative samples with psychiatric information.Results-In aggregate, Latinos are at lower risk of most psychiatric disorders compared to nonLatinos whites and, consistent with the immigrant paradox, U.S.-born Latinos report higher rates for most psychiatric disorders than Latino immigrants. However, rates vary when data are stratified by nativity and disorder and adjusted by demographic and socioeconomic differences across groups. Among Mexicans, the immigrant paradox consistently holds across mood, anxiety and substance disorders while it is only evident among Cubans and Other Latinos for substance disorders. No differences were found in lifetime prevalence rates between migrant and U.S.-born Puerto Ricans.Conclusions-Caution should be exercised in generalizing the immigrant paradox to all Latinos and for all psychiatric disorders. Aggregating Latinos into a single group masks great variability in lifetime risk for psychiatric disorders, with some subgroups, like Puerto Ricans, suffering from psychiatric disorders at rates comparable to non-Latino whites. Our findings thus suggest that the protective context in which immigrants lived in their country of origin possibly inoculated them against risk for substance disorders, particularly if they immigrated as adults.

This paper provides a rationale and overview of procedures used to develop the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS). The NLAAS is nationally representative community household survey that estimates the prevalence of mental disorders and rates of mental health service utilization of Latinos and Asian Americans in the United States. The central aims of the NLAAS are to: 1) describe the lifetime and 12-month prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the rates of mental health services use for Latino and Asian American populations using nationwide representative samples of Latinos and Asian Americans, 2) assess the associations among social position, environmental context, and psychosocial factors with the prevalence of psychiatric disorders and utilization rates of mental health services, and 3) compare the lifetime and 12-month prevalence of psychiatric disorders, and utilization of mental health services of Latinos and Asian Americans with national representative samples of non-Latino whites (from the National Comorbidity Study-Replication;

Rates of mental health service use among Latinos appear to have increased substantially over the past decade relative to rates reported in the 1990s. Cultural and immigration characteristics should be considered in matching mental health services to Latinos who need preventive services or who are symptomatic but do not fulfill psychiatric disorder criteria.

This study seeks to identify risk factors for psychiatric disorders that may explain differences in nativity effects among adult Latinos in the USA. We evaluate whether factors related to the processes of acculturation and enculturation, immigration factors, family stressors and supports, contextual factors, and social status in the U.S. account for differences in twelve-month prevalence of psychiatric disorders for eight subgroups of Latinos. We report results that differentiate Latino respondents by country of origin and age at immigration (whether they were U.S.-born or arrived before age 6 [IUSC] or whether they arrived after age 6 [LAI]). After age and gender adjustments, LAI Mexicans and IUSC Cubans reported a significantly lower prevalence of depressive disorders than IUSC Mexicans. Once we adjust for differences in family stressors, contextual factors and social status factors, these differences are no longer significant. The risk for anxiety disorders appears no different for LAI Correspondence to: Margarita Alegria. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptSoc Sci Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 July 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript compared to IUSC Latinos, after age and gender adjustments. For substance use disorders, family factors do not offset the elevated risk of early exposure to neighborhood disadvantage, but coming to the U.S. after age 25 does offset it. Family conflict and burden were consistently related to the risk of mood disorders. Our findings suggest that successful adaptation into the U.S. is a multidimensional process that includes maintenance of family harmony, integration in advantageous U.S. neighborhoods, and positive perceptions of social standing. Our results uncover that nativity may be a less important independent risk factor for current psychiatric morbidity than originally thought.

This paper describes the development, translation and adaptation of measures in the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS). We summarize the techniques used to attain cultural relevance; semantic, content and technical equivalency; and internal consistency of the measures across languages and Latino sub-ethnic groups. We also discuss some of the difficulties and challenges encountered in doing this work. The following three main goals are addressed in this paper: (1) Attaining cultural relevance by formulating the research problem with attention to the fundamental cultural and contextual differences of Latinos and Asians as compared to the mainstream population; (2) Developing cultural equivalence in the standardized instruments to be used with these populations; and (3) Assessing the generalizability of the measures -i.e., that the measures do not fluctuate according to culture or translation. We present details of the processes and steps used to