Examining the Historical Developments and Contemporary Relevance of the Longitudinal–Experimental Design of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study: Utility for Research on Intergenerational Transmission of Offending

Abstract

Founded in 1939, the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study represents the earliest longitudinal-experimental study in developmental crime prevention, combining the aims of understanding how the developmental process is related to future offending (i.e., longitudinal focus) as well as attempting to prevent offending through an experimental intervention during early adolescence. This article examines the historical context in which this novel design arose and provides a review of studies performed by Joan McCord based on her age-45 follow up of the study. The study made possible decades of research on developmental risk factors for delinquency and criminal offending. A central question that arises from McCord's body of research is how these risk factors are transmitted from parents to children. This article reviews extant research on the transmission of intergenerational offending, and discusses the potential of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study to contribute to this literature. Specifically, the prospective longitudinal design makes it possible to include the children of the study participants and investigate the intergenerational transmission of offending, while the longitudinal-experimental design allows for the investigation of the transmission of treatment effects. This potential research stands as a testament to the study's design and vision.

Can the group harm the individual? Reviewing potential iatrogenic effects of group treatment for adolescent substance use.

“…Dimidjian and Hollon (2010) also catalogue an array of underutilized conventions that can help determine whether a given treatment is harmful versus helpful: establish independent systems for monitoring adverse events in clinical practice; propagate case studies and qualitative research with content dedicated to harm detection; and analyze clinical trial data to their fullest extent by examining treatment mechanisms, moderators, and a broad range of outcomes measured over time. This includes assessing potentially harmful effects of group intervention other than deviancy training, such as labeling and other stigma-related impacts (Weiss et al, 2005; Zane, Welsh, & Zimmerman, 2017). Researchers also need to assess the extent to which group participants are exposed to the given treatment.…”