Search results

Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.

Curated

Immigrant Second Generation in Metropolitan New York (ICPSR 30302)

Released/updated on: 2011-04-01

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31

The study analyzes the forces leading to or impeding the assimilation of 18- to 32-year-olds from immigrant backgrounds that vary in terms of race, language, and the mix of skills and liabilities their parents brought to the United States. To make sure that what we find derives specifically from growing up in an immigrant family, rather than simply being a young person in New York, a comparison group of people from native born White, Black, and Puerto Rican backgrounds was also studied. The sample was drawn from New York City (except for Staten Island) and the surrounding counties in the inner part of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region where the vast majority of immigrants and native born minority group members live and grow up. The study groups make possible a number of interesting comparisons. Unlike many other immigrant groups, the West Indian first generation speaks English, but the dominant society racially classifies them as Black. The study explored how their experiences resemble or differ from native born African Americans. Dominicans and the Colombian-Peruvian-Ecuadoran population both speak Spanish, but live in different parts of New York, have different class backgrounds prior to immigration, and, quite often, different skin tones. The study compared them to Puerto Rican young people, who, along with their parents, have the benefit of citizenship. Chinese immigrants from the mainland tend to have little education, while young people with overseas Chinese parents come from families with higher incomes, more education, and more English fluency. Respondents were divided into eight groups depending on their parents' origin. Those of immigrant ancestry include: Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union; Chinese immigrants from the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Chinese Diaspora; immigrants from the Dominican Republic; immigrants from the English-speaking countries of the West Indies (including Guyana but excluding Haiti and those of Indian origin); and immigrants from Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. These groups composed 44 percent of the 2000 second-generation population in the defined sample area. For comparative purposes, Whites, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans who were born in the United States and whose parents were born in the United States or Puerto Rico were also interviewed. To be eligible, a respondent had to have a parent from one of these groups. If the respondent was eligible for two groups, he or she was asked which designation he or she preferred. The ability to compare these groups with native born Whites, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans permits researchers to investigate the effects of nativity while controlling for race and language background. About two-thirds of second-generation respondents were born in the United States, mostly in New York City, while one-third were born abroad but arrived in the United States by age 12 and had lived in the country for at least 10 years, except for those from the former Soviet Union, some of whom arrived past the age of 12. The project began with a pilot study in July 1996. Survey data collection took place between November 1999 and December 1999. The study includes demographic variables such as race, ethnicity, language, age, education, income, family size, country of origin, and citizenship status.

Curated

Partially restricted

Kentucky Professional Development Framework Impact on Quality and Child Outcomes, 2006-2007 (ICPSR 26341)

Released/updated on: 2010-12-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Kentucky

Time period: 2006-01-01--2007-12-31

In 2000, the Kentucky General Assembly passed historic early childhood legislation (Kentucky's KIDS [Kentucky Invests in Developing Success] NOW Initiative) of which a component included the development of a seamless professional development system. The professional development system includes core content, articulation, credentials, scholarships and a training framework. This comprehensive professional development system, along with other initiative components in assuring maternal and child health, supporting families, enhancing early care and education, and establishing a support structure, have moved the field of early childhood care and education forward in the state and improved child and family outcomes.

This study was designed to build on the KIDS NOW Initiative by conducting research investigating the degree to which a statewide unified professional development system impacted the educational level of early care and education providers and subsequent classroom quality. It focused on three major predictors of professional development outcomes:

Individual teacher characteristics, including learning readiness, education (level and type), training experience, attitudes towards training, personality (conscientiousness, self-efficacy), job satisfaction (perceptions of support)
Characteristics of the program administrator, including administrator education and administrator support of professional development
Characteristics of the teacher's work setting, including program administration, and policies and procedures, and classroom setting (Child Care, Head Start, or Public Preschool)

The impact of these three predictors was measured on two major outcomes: (a) professional development outcomes, as measured by job status, learning and transfer of learning, and (b) organizational outcomes, as measured by program quality, child outcomes and staff retention.

The research questions guiding this research were focused on determining the degree to which (1) a unified professional development framework initiated at the state level results in positive child outcomes, and (2) the educational level of early care and education providers enhances the quality of classroom environments. Specifically:

What components of a professional development framework are more effective in encouraging and supporting individuals to remain in early care and education settings?
What components of a professional development framework are more effective in supporting early care and education professionals in enhancing classroom quality and child outcomes?
Are there specific factors that impact early care and education professionals' ability to participate in professional development activities at various levels?
Does the level and intensity of professional development experiences impact classroom quality and child outcomes?
What personnel factors have the highest impact on quality classroom environments and child outcomes?
What is the interaction between the personnel, professional development, and program variables on classroom quality and child outcomes?

Curated

Restricted

National Survey of American Life Self-Administered Questionnaire (NSAL-SAQ), February 2001-June 2003 (ICPSR 27121)

Released/updated on: 2010-04-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2001-02-01--2003-06-30

The National Survey of American Life, 2001-2003 (NSAL) was followed up by a self-administered interview (NSAL SAQ) as a way to reduce respondent burden following the 2 1/2 hour NSAL survey. The SAQ includes additional questions about social, group, and individual characteristics: psychological resources (i.e., John Henryism), group and personal identity (racial awareness and identity), as well as ideology and racial relations (i.e., social dominance; stratification beliefs; egalitarianism; national pride; work ethic; authoritarian, interracial contact; and exposure to Black social contexts); political attitudes (i.e., Race-conscious Policy Index, Race-blind Policy Index, Non-Electoral Participation Index); care of elderly values; job and financial stressors; and wealth. Demographic variables include age, race, and sex.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Swedish Adoption/Twin Study on Aging (SATSA), 1984, 1987, 1990, 1993, 2004, 2007, and 2010 (ICPSR 3843)

Released/updated on: 2015-05-13

Geographic coverage: Sweden, Global

Time period: 1984-01-01--2010-12-31

The Swedish Adoption/Twin Study on Aging (SATSA) was designed to study the origins of individual differences in aging and the environmental and genetic factors that are involved. SATSA began in 1984, and six additional waves were conducted in 1987, 1990, 1993, 2004, 2007, and 2010. The questionnaire was initially sent to all twins from the Swedish Twin Registry who were separated at an early age and raised apart; the survey was also administered to a control sample of twins who were raised together. The respondents were surveyed on items that included health status, how they were raised, work environment, alcohol consumption, and dietary and smoking habits, as well as questions about personality and attitudes; this information comprised the first component. The second component was collected from a subsample composed of 150 pairs of twins raised apart and 150 pairs of twins raised together. This subsample participated in seven waves of in-person testing, which included a health examination, structured interviews, and tests on functional capacity, cognitive abilities, and memory. The data are represented according to questionnaire and time number, and correspond to each wave/year: Questionnaire 1 and In-Person Testing Time 1 were in 1984; Questionnaire 2 and In-Person Testing Time 2 were in 1987; Questionnaire 3 and In-Person Testing Time 3 were in 1990; Questionnaire 4 and In-Person Testing Time 4 were in 1993; Questionnaire 5 was in 2003; In-Person Testing Time 5 was in 2004; Questionnaire 6 and In-Person Testing Time 6 were in 2007; In-Person Testing Time 7 was in 2010. The Administrative and Cognitive datasets include data from all years/waves. The Smell Survey dataset only includes data from 1990. No years were specified for the Contact measures and Separation measures datasets. Demographic and background information includes age, sex, education, family history, household composition and employment.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Work, Family, and Health Study (WFHS) (ICPSR 36158)

Released/updated on: 2018-10-03

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2009-09-01--2012-12-31

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) formed the Work, Family and Health Network (WFHN) as a transdisciplinary research effort designed to enhance understanding of the impact of workplace practices and policies on work, family life, and health outcomes. The Work, Family and Health Network also seeks to illuminate the processes through which such practices and policies are adopted by employers and implemented by managers and employees. The Work, Family, and Health Study (WFHS) was conducted via group-randomized field experiments, one at each of two employers representing different industries. The information technology division of a Fortune 500 company (pseudonym: Tomo) had 26 total sites made up of 56 study groups with 7-60 employees each. Within the extended-care company (pseudonym: Leef), 30 work sites of 30-89 employees each were randomly assigned to intervention or usual practice (UP) conditions. All employee and manager participants were assessed at baseline and at 6-, 12-, and 18-months post baseline. Opinions were elicited from employees and managers regarding the amount of hours they work, balance between work and family, opportunities to work from home, the ability to take vacation and time off when desired, and decision-making authority at work. Responses were also gathered on issues such as talking with a manager about conflicts outside of work, willingness to help other coworkers when they have been absent, workplace safety, and obligations to come into work when sick. Information was also collected on the likelihood of respondents quitting the company, whether respondents were looking for work elsewhere, job performance ratings of self and others, opinions about supervisors, and a series of questions relating to psychological distress and well-being.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Youth Development Study, 1988-2020 [St. Paul, Minnesota] (ICPSR 24881)

Released/updated on: 2023-09-28

Geographic coverage: United States, St. Paul, Minnesota

Time period: 1988-01-01--2020-12-31

The Youth Development Study (YDS) was initiated as a school-based study of adolescent children and their parents to examine the consequences of formative experiences in adolescence for mental health, value formation, educational achievement, and multiple facets of behavioral adjustment. Particular attention was directed to the impacts of early work experience. Data were also obtained about parent-child and peer relationships and experiences in school. As the study continued, the focus shifted to adult development and attainment and, most recently, mid-life adjustment and health. This comprehensive longitudinal study now encompasses three generations: the initial cohort studied from adolescence to mid-life (G2), their parents (G1), and their adolescent children (G3). Data from three generations in the same families enable study of intergenerational relationships and differences in the experience of adolescence and transition to adulthood across parent and child cohorts. The YDS covers a wide range of topics of interest to sociologists, social psychologists, developmental psychologists, and life course scholars, including the development and impacts of agentic resources, socioeconomic attainment, processes of inter- and intra-generational mobility, objective and subjective work conditions, family relationships, intergenerational relationships, mental and physical health, and well-being.

In-school administration of paper surveys during the first four years of the study was supplemented by mailed surveys. Subsequent data collection took place entirely by mail, with 19 surveys conducted between 1988 and 2011. A final survey was conducted on-line in 2019. Survey data was obtained from the parents (G1) of this cohort during the first and fourth waves of the study (1988 and 1991). Surveys of the children (G3) began in 2009, continued in 2010 and 2011 (by mail) and in 2019-2020 (online).

The Youth Development Study measures a wide range of formative experiences and both psychological and behavioral variables, using survey methodology.

The G1 surveys obtained information about socioeconomic background as well as attitudes toward teenage employment, the parents' own employment as teenagers, their current work experiences, and educational expectations for their children.

The G2 surveys during the high school years included detailed questions about students' work and volunteer experiences, as well as experiences in their family, school, and peer groups, with an emphasis on the ways that working affected other life domains, mental health, and well-being. Shorter surveys containing many of the same topics were administered to students in 1992, 1993, and 1994, and included questions about current family and living arrangements. In 1995, a full survey was administered covering the wide range of topics included in previous surveys as well as information about career plans and life events that had occurred in the past five years. G2 Waves 9 through 19 (1997-2011) included many of the same questions contained in earlier surveys and additional sections that focused on the respondents' educational experiences, family relationships, sources of living expenses, and health and well-being. The most recent G2 survey (2019), administered on-line, included questions about support of aging parents. The YDS is unique in its coverage of both objective and subjective work experiences from adolescence to mid-life.

The topics covered by the G3 surveys are very similar to the G2 variables described above. Variables in each G2 and G3 wave are included in cross-wave codebooks, available at the Data Archive Codebook website.

For an overview of the Youth Development Study, see Mortimer, Jeylan T. (2012) "The Evolution, Contributions, and Prospects of the Youth Development Study: An Investigation in Life Course Social Psychology." Social Psychology Quarterly 75(1, March):5-27.