Purpose of the Study: | Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods
The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN)
was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools,
and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. It was
designed to advance the understanding of the developmental pathways of
both positive and negative human social behaviors. In particular, the
project examined the causes and pathways of juvenile delinquency,
adult crime, substance abuse, and violence. At the same time, the
project provided a detailed look at the environments in which these
social behaviors took place by collecting substantial amounts of data
about urban Chicago, including its people, institutions, and
resources.
Longitudinal Cohort Study
One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which
was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over
6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and
their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing
circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics,
that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial
behaviors. The age cohorts include birth (0), 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18
years. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge
various aspects of human development, including individual
differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences.
Walk-A-Line
The data in this collection are from Wave 3 of the Longitudinal
Cohort Study, which was administered between 2000 and 2002. The data
files contain information from the Walk-A-Line protocol. The
Walk-A-Line instrument obtained a measurement of the subjects' motor
skills. Subjects were timed walking on a line six inches wide by six feet
long. In the first trial, the subjects were asked to walk the line at a
regular pace. For the second and third trials, the subject was asked
to walk the line slowly. |
Study Design: | Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods
The city of Chicago was selected as the research site for the PHDCN
because of its extensive racial, ethnic, and social-class diversity.
The project collapsed 847 census tracts in the city of Chicago into
343 neighborhood clusters (NCs) based upon seven groupings of
racial/ethnic composition and three levels of socioeconomic status.
The NCs were designed to be ecologically meaningful. They were
composed of geographically contiguous census tracts, and geographic
boundaries, and knowledge of Chicago's neighborhoods were considered
in the definition of the NCs. Each NC was comprised of approximately
8,000 people.
Longitudinal Cohort Study
For the Longitudinal Cohort Study, a stratified probability sample
of 80 neighborhoods was selected. The 80 NCs were sampled from the 21
strata (seven racial/ethnic groups by three socioeconomic levels) with
the goal of representing the 21 cells as equally as possible to
eliminate the confounding between racial/ethnic mix and socioeconomic
status. Once the 80 NCs were chosen, then block groups were selected
at random within each of the sample neighborhoods. A complete listing
of dwelling units was collected for all sampled block groups.
Pregnant women, children, and young adults in seven age cohorts
(birth, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) were identified through
in-person screening of approximately 40,000 dwelling units within the
80 NCs. The screening response rate was 80 percent. Children within
six months of the birthday that qualified them for the sample were
selected for inclusion in the Longitudinal Cohort Study. A total of
8,347 participants were identified through the screening. Of the
eligible study participants, 6,228 were interviewed in the Wave 1 data
collection, 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection, and
4,850 were interviewed in the Wave 3 data collection.
Data collection for Wave 3 began in 2000 and ended in 2002. It
included a letter sent to study participants notifying them that they
would be contacted to schedule an interview. Additional information on
the contact log included the dates and research assistant ID of the
Wave 2 interview (or the status of the case if incomplete in Wave 2),
a list of household composition and ID numbers of other household
members in the study, the name the telephone was listed under, the
recontact information from Waves 1 and 2, and an updated history of
addresses.
For all cohorts except 0 and 18, primary caregivers as well as the
child were interviewed. The primary caregiver was the person found to
spend the most time taking care of the child. Separate research
assistants administered the primary caregiver interviews and the child
interviews. The primary method of data collection was face-to-face
interviewing, although participants who refused to complete the
personal interview were administered a phone interview. An abbreviated
telephone interview was conducted for the primary caregivers in
Cohorts 0-15 and Cohort 18 study participants in Wave 3 who lived
outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants
were able to travel for interviews. In Wave 3, phone interviews were
also conducted with the study participants in Cohort 15. People who
refused to complete the two-hour in-person interview were administered
the phone interview. A total of 391 telephone interviews were
conducted during Wave 3, representing 6.3 percent of the sample.
Proxy interviews were conducted with study participants who were
emancipated minors (under 18 but married or living independently). The
study participants answered questions from the primary caregiver's
interview on the primary caregiver's behalf. In Wave 3, one primary
caregiver and eleven study participants (young adults) were
interviewed in jail. They were located in either the Cook County Jail
or in one of the state prisons. Those study participants in a state
system outside the nine-county area were also interviewed by phone.
Study participants in foster care could not be interviewed. The
Department of Children and Family Services did not allow interviews of
the foster parent or the child. Permission was granted for a brief
period in Wave 1, therefore there are some children in the sample who
could not be followed up in Waves 2 and 3. Some children were not in
foster care in Wave 1 but were placed in foster care by Wave 2 or
3. They were also not followed up. Lastly, some participants were
interviewed in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, as they were in foster care
during Wave 2.
Some participants in Wave 1 spoke a language other than English,
Spanish, or Polish. In Wave 3, an abbreviated version of the primary
caregiver's protocol was administered, and the research assistant
arranged for someone in the household to translate on the spot. In
Wave 3, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish.
Depending on the age and wave of data collection, participants were
paid between $5 and $20 per interview. Other incentives, such as free
passes to museums, the aquarium, and monthly drawing prizes, were also
included.
Interview protocols included a wide range of questions. For
example, some questions assessed impulse control and sensation-seeking
traits, cognitive and language development, leisure activities,
delinquency and substance abuse, friends' activities, and
self-perception, attitudes, and values. Caregivers were also
interviewed about family structure, parent characteristics,
parent-child relationships, parent discipline styles, family mental
health, and family history of criminal behavior and drug use.
For primary caregivers included in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, an
addendum interview was administered consisting of measures or portions
of measures from the Wave 2 interview. An addendum was also given to
the Cohort 15 and 18 study participants who were not included in Wave
2. A total of 164 primary caregivers and 62 young adult (Cohorts 15
and 18) addendums were completed in Wave 3.
Walk-A-Line
The Walk-A-Line instrument was administered to subjects in Cohort 0
and obtained a measurement of their motor skills. Subjects were timed
walking on a line six inches wide by six feet long. Three different
trials were recorded. In the first trial, the subjects were asked to
walk the line at a regular pace. For the second and third trials, the
subjects were asked to walk the line slowly. |
