Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Young Adult Self Report, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13666)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

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.

Young Adult Self Report (YASR)

The data files contain information from the Young Adult Self Report (YASR) protocol. The YASR was an extension of the Youth Self Report, designed to obtain a self perceived assessment for subjects between the ages of 18 and 30 in order to measure behavioral and emotional functioning. The widely used YASR has been shown in a variety of experiments to produce excellent results evaluating its respondents' psychological and behavioral functioning. As a result, it proved to be the ideal instrument to evaluate the subjects belonging to Cohort 18 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study. In Wave 2 of the PHDCN, the YASR focused primarily on obtaining information on specific aspects of the respondents' lives, such as interpersonal relationships and conflicts, tendencies toward various behavior problems, and habits regarding nonmedical drug and alcohol consumption. The YASR also sought to identify personality traits and behaviors that might be viewed as unusual. The goal of the YASR was to obtain an overall score for each respondent based on the answers provided that could be used to make observations and determinations regarding their psychological, emotional, and behavioral health and overall quality of life.

Study Design View help for 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, and 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection.

Data collection for Wave 2 began in 1997 and ended in 2000. It included a letter sent to study participants notifying them that they would be contacted to schedule an interview. This letter explained the study, reimbursements, and offered a monthly drawing prize of $1,000 for those participants who kept their first scheduled appointment. A toll free number was also included in the letter, so participants could call and schedule their own interviews or ask questions.

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 2 who lived outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants were able to travel for interviews. A total of 221 telephone interviews were conducted during Wave 2, representing 3.55 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 2, four primary caregivers and two study participants were interviewed in jail. 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 2, 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 2, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish, and a subset of the primary caregiver's interview was translated into Polish.

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.

Young Adult Self Report (YASR)

Completed between 1994 and 1995, the Young Adult Self Report was filled out by the subjects belonging to Cohort 18 of the Wave 2 PHDCN Longitudinal Cohort Study. The PHDCN version of the Young Adult Self Report consisted of 119 questions, some with multiple parts, and was designed to obtain information regarding various aspects of the respondents' psychological and behavioral functioning. Because of the potentially sensitive nature of much of the information sought by the YASR, the fact that the YASR was self-administered was important for ensuring that the respondents would feel comfortable responding honestly, without the inhibitions and fear of judgment that might have resulted had the measure been administered by an interviewer. Respondents were asked to rate themselves on how truthfully each statement characterized their behaviors, thoughts, and actions. Respondents rated themselves on nine different facets of psychological and behavioral functioning. For example, the YASR attempted to record information indicating whether the respondents could be characterized by having internalizing problems. To achieve this, subjects were asked if they believed statements such as "I feel lonely" or "I am shy or timid" to be true of themselves. The Wave 2 YASR instrument varied somewhat from the Wave 1 version, including some questions that were not previously used and omitting others that had been present in the Wave 1 instrument. The response format was unchanged. The majority of questions asked the respondent to answer questions in the following manner: 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, and 2 = very true. As in Wave 1, multiple responses were not permitted. The final three questions pertained to substance abuse. Respondents were asked to disclose the frequency of their tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drug use within the past six months.

Sample View help for Sample

Stratified probability sample.

Universe View help for Universe

Children, adolescents, young adults, and their primary caregivers, living in the city of Chicago in 1994.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

The Wave 2 data includes, in addition to the variables containing the responses to the YASR, the same nine scale variables that appeared in the Wave 1 data. These scale variables give each respondent a score with respect to the various syndromes that the YASR attempted to identify. Respondents were assigned a withdrawn score, somatic problems score, anxious/depressed score, show-off problems score, delinquent behavior score, aggressive behavior score, strange behavior score, internalizing score, and an externalizing score based on their responses to the questions composing the YASR protocol. The internalizing score variable is a combination of the anxious/depressed score and the withdrawn score, while the externalizing score is composed of the delinquent behavior score and the aggressive behavior score. A tenth variable contains the respondent's total YASR score, which is simply the sum of the other nine scores. Higher scores suggest the presence of behavioral and emotional problems. As such, lower scores are more desirable. Finally, the data also include a number of administrative variables to record identification numbers for the respondents and the interviewers, as well as the time and date that the respondent completed the YASR.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

The overall response rate for Wave 2 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study was 85.94 percent or 5,338 participants. The response rates for subjects by cohort were:

1. 0 percent for Cohort 0
2. 87.5 percent for Cohort 3
3. 88.0 percent for Cohort 6
4. 85.6 percent for Cohort 9
5. 86.2 percent for Cohort 12
6. 82.7 percent for Cohort 15
7. 80.2 percent for Cohort 18

The response rates for primary caregivers by cohort were:

1. 83.3 percent for Cohort 0
2. 88.3 percent for Cohort 3
3. 88.3 percent for Cohort 6
4. 86.6 percent for Cohort 9
5. 87.2 percent for Cohort 12
6. 85.9 percent for Cohort 15
7. 0 percent for Cohort 18

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2005-07-18

Version History View help for Version History

Weight View help for Weight

none