Effects of cumulative risk on behavioral and psychological well-being in first grade: Moderation by neighborhood context

Abstract

This study builds upon existing research by examining whether risk indices for child psychological well-being behave in the same way in different types of neighborhoods. Specifically, we sought to determine if neighborhood characteristics acted to exacerbate or, alternatively, to buffer risk factors at the family and/or child level. Families with a child entering first grade in Fall 2002 were recruited from Baltimore City neighborhoods, defined as census block groups. This study included 405 children, and data came from an interview with the primary caregiver and an assessment of the first grader. The dependent variables were externalizing behavior and internalizing problems. A family risk index consisting of 13 measures, and a child risk index consisting of three measures were the main independent variables of interest. We examined the effects of these indices on child psychological well-being and behavior across two neighborhood characteristics: neighborhood potential for community involvement with children and neighborhood negative social climate. Results of multivariate analyses indicated that cumulative family risk was associated with an increase in both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Perceived negative social climate moderated the effect of family risks on behavior problems such that more risk was associated with a larger increment in both externalizing behavior problems and psychological problems for children living in high versus low risk neighborhoods. These findings further emphasize the importance of considering neighborhood context in the study of child psychological well-being.

Neighborhood disadvantage and physical aggression in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of multilevel studies

“…Sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding nine studies (Caughy, Nettles, & O'Campo, 2008;Delany-Brumsey et al, 2014;Fabio, Li-Chuan, Loeber, & Cohen, 2011;Farrell et al, 2014;Ge, Brody, Conger, Simons, & Murry, 2002;Kohen, Oliver, & Pierre, 2009;Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2011;Lima, Caughy, Nettles, & O'Campo, 2010;Winslow & Shaw, 2007) with relatively wide 95%CIs. No substantial change was observed in the pooled effect.…”

Cumulative risk effects for the development of behaviour difficulties in children and adolescents with special educational needs and disabilities

“…Children with SEND experience a greater number of risks, as having lower economic status (Schonberg & Shaw, 2007), speaking English as an additional language (Brown & Schoon, 2008), and lower academic achievement (Mcintosh et al, 2008), are key risk factors for developing behaviour difficulties generally and also salient characteristics of the SEND population (Department for Education, 2014). Multiple risk factors therefore influence behaviour problems by working in a cumulative manner, where exposure to each additional risk factor results in an increase in the problem behaviour, irrespective of the specific risks (Appleyard et al, 2005;Atzaba-Poria, Pike, & Deater-Deckard, 2004;Forehand et al, 1998;Lima, Caughy, Nettles, & O'Campo, 2010;Raviv, Taussig, Culhane, & Garrido, 2010).…”

“…These risks are not weighted and each factor has no greater importance than any other (Flouri & Kallis, 2007). Cumulative indices do not constitute an exhaustive list of risks, and there is no consistently identified set of risks which should be considered the 'gold standard' (Lima et al, 2010).…”

“…Usually risk variables are defined as such when the correlation between them and the response variable is significant (Lima et al, 2010) or equal to/ exceeds 0.25 (Atzaba-Poria et al, 2004). For binary variables, risk is coded as 1 if present and 0 if absent.…”

“…This relationship suggests that there is a disproportionate increase in problem behaviour displayed as the level of cumulative risk increases. The combined effect of risk on a certain outcome has been termed mass accumulation (Gerard and Buehler, 2004a), signifying that the total effect of cumulative risk exerts an influence on problem behaviour greater than the sum of its parts (Lima et al, 2010;Flouri & Kallis, 2007). This model therefore proposes that risk variables potentiate one another to produce a more serious effect on behaviour.…”