Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
Curated
National Health Examination Survey, Cycle I, 1959-1962: Demographic Data and Symptoms of Psychological Distress (ICPSR 9209)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-17
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1959-10-01--1962-12-01
The National Health Examination Surveys, Cycle I (NHES I), conducted during the period 1959-1962, were designed to secure statistics on the health status of the population of the United States. More specifically, their purpose was to determine the prevalence of certain chronic diseases, the status of dental health, and the distributions of auditory and visual acuity and certain anthropometric measurements. This collection contains demographic, household, and personal information for each sample person including age, race, sex, income, region, size of residence, usual activity, and sampling weight. Also included are responses to 12 items from a medical history questionnaire that were selected as indicators of psychological distress. The items include past experiences with such symptoms as faintness, sleeping problems, and sweaty hands.
Curated
Partially restricted
Pathways to Adulthood: A Three-Generation Urban Study, 1960-1994: [Baltimore, Maryland] (ICPSR 2420)
Released/updated on: 2019-11-26
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
Time period: 1960-01-01--1994-01-01
This collection incorporates both prospective and retrospective data on three generations of families initially living in inner-city Baltimore, Maryland. The prospective data were selected from data collected as part of the Johns Hopkins Collaborative Perinatal Study (JHCPS), a survey of pregnant women seeking prenatal care and delivery at Johns Hopkins Hospital during 1960-1964. JHCPS studied these women (the first-generation mothers, abbreviated as G1) and the children born to them during 1960-1965 (the second-generation children, abbreviated as G2) until the children were 8 years old. The retrospective data come from a follow-up study, conducted in 1992-1994, of G1, G2, and the children born to G2 (the third-generation children, abbreviated as G3). Data from JHCPS on G1 include obstetrical and reproductive history at registration for prenatal care, sociological/family history variables at or around delivery of G2, observations of mother with child when G2 was 4 months old and 8 months old, and family history, demographic, and sociological variables when G2 was age 7. For G2, the data from JHCPS include delivery room observations at birth, pediatric examination data at age 4 months, developmental evaluation data at age 8 months, pediatric-neurological examination data at age 12 months, language, hearing, and speech evaluation summary data at age 36 months, psychological, behavior profile, physical growth, and other tests at age 48 months, psychological, motor, behavior, neurological, vision, physical, and other tests at age 7-1/2 years, and language, hearing, and speech evaluations, physical growth, interval medical history, and other tests at age 8 years. Retrospective data from the follow-up study on G1 include variables on education, employment, family composition, health and health care usage, housing conditions, income and income sources, marital status, partnerships and changes, neighborhood characteristics at registration to JHCPS and current, and reproductive history. For G2, data from the follow-up include information on aspirations, education, schooling, employment, family composition, health and health care usage, housing conditions, income and income sources, legal problems, living arrangements, marriage, partnership and changes, neighborhood characteristics at birth, at ages 11/12 and 16/17, and current, reproductive history, social relationships, smoking, and substance abuse. Data for the assessed third-generation children, i.e., G3s who were 7-8 years old during the follow-up period, include information on cognitive development, academic achievement and behavior, prenatal care, health, day care, and parental aspirations.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Infant Assessment Unit, Wave 1, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 13579)
Released/updated on: 2006-02-17
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
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. 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. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. Part of the Longitudinal Cohort Study was the Infant Assessment Unit (IAU). The objective of the IAU was to observe how prenatal and postnatal conditions affect the health and cognitive functioning of infants during the first year of life. Consisting of several instruments, the IAU sought to measure infant cognition and quantify the experiences of the sampled infants from Cohort 0 during their first 12 months of life. Additionally, the IAU examined the circumstances surrounding the mother's pregnancy and the subsequent care received by the infant.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Young Adult Self Report, Wave 1, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 13606)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-01
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
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. 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. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One of the measures that composed the Longitudinal Cohort Study was the Young Adult Self Report (YASR). The YASR protocol, a self-administered survey, was first developed by Thomas M. Achenbach and has been a widely used measure for evaluating subjects between the ages of 18 and 30 with respect to their functioning in social relationships, level of mental, emotional and physical health, substance use and abuse, as well as tendencies toward anti-social and criminal behavior. The PHDCN version of the Young Adult Self Report provided a thorough self assessment of the respondents belonging to Cohort 18 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study and scored each respondent based on his or her level of psychological and behavioral functioning.
Curated
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Young Adult Self Report, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13666)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
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. 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. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One of the measures that composed the Longitudinal Cohort Study was the Young Adult Self Report (YASR). The YASR protocol, a self-administered survey, was first developed by Thomas M. Achenbach. It has been a widely used measure for evaluating subjects between the ages of 18 and 30 with respect to their functioning in social relationships, level of mental, emotional and physical health, substance use and abuse, and their tendencies toward antisocial and criminal behavior. The Wave 2 PHDCN version of the Young Adult Self Report, including an officially revised version of behavior problem items, offered a thorough self-assessment of the respondents belonging to Cohort 18 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study, scoring each respondent based on his or her level of psychological and behavioral functioning.
Curated
Psychological Classification of Adult Male Inmates in Federal Prison in Indiana, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 2370)
Released/updated on: 2008-04-04
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--1988-01-01
This data collection, conducted in a federal penitentiary and prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana, between September 1986 and July 1988, was undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of psychological classification systems for adult male inmates. The classification systems tested were Warren's Interpersonal Maturity Level (I-level), Quay Adult Internal Management Systems (AIMS), Jesness Inventory, Megargee's MMPI-Based Prison Typology, and Hunt's Conceptual Level. The study sought to answer the following questions: (a) Which psychological classification systems or combination of systems could be used most effectively with adult populations? (b) What procedures (e.g., interview, paper-and-pencil test, staff assessment, or combination) would assure maximum efficiency without compromising psychometric precision? (c) What could the commonalities and differences among the systems reveal about the specific systems and about general classification issues pertinent to this population? and (d) How could the systems better portray the prison experience? The penitentiary was a low-maximum-security facility and the prison camp was a minimum-security one. A total of 179 penitentiary inmates and 190 camp inmates participated. The study employed both a pre-post and a correlational design. At intake, project staff members interviewed inmates, obtained social, demographic, and criminal history background data from administrative records and test scores, and then classified the inmates by means of an I-level diagnosis. Social and demographic data collected at intake included date of entry into the prison, age, race, marital status, number of dependents, education, recorded psychological diagnoses, occupation and social economic status, military service, evidence of problems in the military, ability to hold a job, and residential stability. Criminal history data provided include age at first nontraffic arrest, arrests and convictions, prison or jail sentences, alcohol or drug use, total number and kinds of charges for current offense, types of weapon and victims involved, co-offender involvement, victim-offender relationship, if the criminal activity required complex skills, type of conviction, and sentence length. T-scores for social maladjustment, immaturity, autism, alienation, manifest aggression, withdrawal, social anxiety, repression, and denial were also gathered via the Jesness Inventory and the MMPI. Interview data cover the inmates' interactions within the prison, their concerns about prison life, their primary difficulties and strategies for coping with them, evidence of guilt or empathy, orientation to the criminal label, relationships with family and friends, handling problems and affectivity, use of alcohol and drugs, and experiences with work and school. For the follow-up, the various types of assessment activities were periodically conducted for six months or until the inmate's release date, if the inmate was required to serve less than six months. Data collected at follow-up came from surveys of inmates, official reports of disciplinary infractions or victimizations, and prison staff assessments of inmates' prison adjustment and work performance. The follow-up surveys collected information on inmates' participation in treatment and educational programs, work absenteeism, health, victimization experiences and threats, awards, participation in aggressive, threatening, or other illegal activities, contact with family and friends, communication strategies, stress, sources of stress, and attitudes and beliefs about crime and imprisonment. Follow-up ratings by prison staff characterized the inmates on several clinical scales, according to each rater's global assessment of the interviewee. These characteristics included concern for others, role-taking abilities, assertiveness, inmate's relations with other inmates, authorities, and staff, verbal and physical aggressiveness, emotional control under stress, cooperativeness, need for supervision, response to supervision, maturity, behavior toward other inmates, and behavior toward staff.