Resource Guide
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods

Longitudinal Cohort Instruments

The protocols used to measure individual and family characteristics for participants in the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) consisted of several types of assessment instruments, including self-report questionnaires, structured interview formats and educational tests. A list of all instruments which comprised the protocols for Wave 1, Wave 2, and Wave 3 of the PHDCN, along with a brief description and selected citations for each measure, is provided below. Information listed here includes in which waves the protocol was conducted. For the most part, instruments conducted across multiple waves kept the same naming convention. In the cases where the titles of instruments changed from wave to wave but measured the same construct, multiple titles are listed (e.g. Conflict Tactics Scale for Parent and Child / Caregiver-Subject Conflict Scale).

Information about copyrighted content:

Some instruments administered as part of this study may contain in whole or in part contents from copyrighted instruments. Reproductions of the instruments that are available through the PHDCN website are provided as documentation for the analysis of the PHDCN data. Restrictions on "fair use" apply to all copyrighted content. More information about the Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians is available from the United States Copyright Office.

NOTICE
WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS

The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement.

Index

A(opens in new tab) | B | C(opens in new tab) | D(opens in new tab) | E(opens in new tab) | F(opens in new tab) | G(opens in new tab) | H(opens in new tab) | I(opens in new tab) | J | K | L(opens in new tab) | M(opens in new tab) | N(opens in new tab) | O(opens in new tab) | P(opens in new tab) | Q | R(opens in new tab) | S(opens in new tab) | T(opens in new tab) | U | V(opens in new tab) | X | Y(opens in new tab) | Z
  • The Adolescent Dissociative Experiences Scale (A-DES) was a brief self-report measure of the frequency of dissociative experiences.
  • WAVE 3: The A-DES was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations: 
  • Adolescent Dissociative Experiences Scale (A-DES), Version 1.0. Putnam (1997) Dissociation in Children and Adolescents: A Developmental Perspective. The Guilford Press: New York, NY.
  • Armstrong, J. G., Putnam, F. W., Carlson, E. B., Libero, D. Z., & Smith, S.R. (1997). Development and validation of a measure of adolescent dissociation: the Adolescent Dissociative Experiences Scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185 (8), 491-7.
  • The Alcohol Use survey was adapted from the short form of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (UM-CIDI Short Form). It obtained information about the use of alcohol by the subject's primary caregivers (PCs).
  • WAVE 3: The Alcohol Use survey was administered to PCs in Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • Citations: 
    • Kessler & Mrozek (1997) UM CIDI-Short form. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI.
  • The Antonucci Map provided information regarding the subject's close friendships.
  • WAVE 3: The Antonucci Map was administered to subjects in Cohorts 3, 6, 9, and 12.
  • The Asthma History instrument asked a set of questions related to asthma and allergies.
  • WAVE 3: The Asthma History instrument was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 0, 3, 6, and 9.
  • Citations:
    • American Thoracic Society - Division of Lung Diseases-78. Ferris (1978). Epidemiology standardization project. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1978;118:1-88.
  • The Attitudes Toward Mother and Father collected information regarding how the subject felt about their mother (or female in a mothering role) and father (or male in a fathering role).
  • WAVE 3: The Attitudes Toward Mother and Father was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations: 
    • Child Attitude Toward Father (CAF) / Child Attitude Toward Mother (CAM). Hudson (1992). The WALMYR Assessment Scales Scoring Manual. Tempe, AZ: WALMYR Publishing Company.
  • The Alcohol Use Follow-Up survey was adapted from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS-IV) Alcohol Module. It collected information regarding the use of alcohol by the subjects as well as social or health problems resulting from drinking.
  • WAVE 3: The Alcohol Use Follow-Up survey was administered to subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • Citations: 
    • Robins, Cottler, Bucholz & Compton. (1995) Alcohol Dependence and Abuse Module from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM IV (DIS IV). St. Louis: Washington University School of Medicine.
  • A subset of items from the Child Behavior Rating Scale, used in Project Competence, was included in Waves 2 and 3 to obtain an interviewer rating of the behavior of all subjects in Cohorts 3 to 15 in Wave 2 and Cohorts 0 to 15 in Wave 3. The following behaviors are rated on a 5-point scale: rapport with the research assistant(s), degree of cooperation with the research assistant(s), duration of attention span, level of activity, talkativeness, and affective quality of the subject's response to the primary caregiver.
  • WAVE 2: The Child and Adolescent Behavior Rating Scale obtained an interviewer rating of the behavior of subjects. It recorded the amount of time the interviewer spent observing the subject and whether this observation took place only during the interview with the subject or during the interview and at other times during the appointment. The subject was also rated on various behaviors. It was completed by interviewers for Cohorts 3 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Child and Adolescent Behavior Rating Scale was completed by interviewers for Cohorts 0 to 12.
  • Citations:
    • Project Competence. Child Behavior Rating Scale
  • The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) was a parent-report questionnaire on which the child was rated on various behavioral and emotional problems. It was first developed by Thomas M. Achenbach and has been one of the most widely-used standardized measures in child psychology for evaluating maladaptive behavioral and emotional problems in preschool subjects aged 2 to 3 or in subjects between the ages of 4 and 18. It assessed internalizing (i.e., anxious, depressive, and overcontrolled) and externalizing (i.e., aggressive, hyperactive, noncompliant, and undercontrolled) behaviors. Several subareas were measured including social withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety and depression, destructive behavior, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, aggressive behavior, and delinquent behaviors. The full complement of behavior problem items was used in Wave 1, with a reduced set used in Wave 2 and Wave 3.
  • WAVE 1: The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) used for Wave 1 included the full complement of behavior problem items. It was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3 to 15.
  • WAVE 2: The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) used for Wave 2 contained a subset of questions asked in the Wave 1 versions. Each of the questions asked in Wave 2 was also asked in Wave 1. One version of the CBCL was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohort 0, while another version was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) used for Wave 3 was nearly identical to the Wave 2 version. The Wave 3 version contained a question regarding cruelty to animals that was not present in the Wave 2 version. It was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 12.
  • Citations: 
    • Achenbach, T. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3 and 1992 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
    • Achenbach, T. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4 - 18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
  • The Caregivers' Employment instrument collected information related to the employment of the subject's primary female and male caregivers at the time the subject was 18 years old.
  • WAVE 3: The Caregivers' Employment instrument was administered to subjects in Cohort 18
  • The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale assessed recent depressive symptomatology.
  • WAVE 3: The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale was administered to subjects' primary caregivers (PCs) in Cohorts 0 to 15
  • Citations: 
    • Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression Scale (short form). Carpenter, Andrykowski, Wilson, hall, Rayens, Sachs & Cunningham (1998). Psychometrics for two short forms of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression Scale. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 19(5), 481-94.
  • The Children and First Pregnancy instrument collected information related to the number of children the subject had, as well as information regarding the subject's first pregnancy.
  • WAVE 3: The Children and First Pregnancy instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • The Circles instrument obtained a measurement of the subject's motor control. Subjects were given a drawing of a circle and then asked to draw a circle, themselves, staying between lines on a sheet of paper given to them. Three different trials were administered. The initial trial served as a baseline. For the second trial, the subject was asked to draw the circle as quickly as possible, and for the third trial the subject was asked to draw the circle as slowly as possible.
  • WAVE 3: The Circles instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 0 and 3.
  • Citations: 
    • Kochanska, Grazyna; Murray, Kathleen T.; Harlan, Elena T. Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology. 2000 Mar. 36 (2): 220-232.
  • The Consequences of Substance Use interview obtained information related to the subject being caught, by school officials, police, or their parents, using alcohol or drugs. Subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18 were asked questions from a slightly different instrument than subjects in Cohorts 9 and 12. Cohorts 15 and 18 were asked more detailed questions regarding what substances and what quantity subjects were caught with.
  • WAVE 3: The Consequences of Substance Use interview was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9 to 18
  • Citations: 
    • Reardon & Buka (1999) . PHDCN scientific group.
  • The parent-child version of the Conflict Tactics Scale was included to obtain information about how parents disciplined the child in the past year. On these scales disciplinary responses are grouped into three types: Verbal Reasoning, Verbal Aggression, and Physical Violence.
  • WAVE 1: The Conflict Tactics Scale for Parent and Child (CTSS) measured psychological and physical maltreatment and neglect of children by their primary caregiver (PC), as well as nonviolent modes of discipline. The CTSS also measured the extent to which a PC carried out specific acts of physical and psychological aggression, regardless of whether the child was injured. It was administered to the PC of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3 to 15.
  • WAVE 2: The Caregiver-Subject Conflict Scale (CSC) was modified from the Wave 1 parent-child version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. It added items related to more positive forms of disciplinary tactics, modified the response scale, and inquired about tactics used not only by the PC, but by any adult household member. The CSC asked if any of several different ways of settling problems with the subject were used by any adult household member in the past year. It was administered to the PC of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0-15.
  • WAVE 3: The Conflict Tactics Scale for Parent and Child (CTSS) measured psychological and physical maltreatment and neglect of children by their PC or any other adult family or household member, as well as nonviolent modes of discipline. The CTSS also measured the extent to which an adult carried out specific acts of physical and psychological aggression, regardless of whether the child was injured. It was modified from the Wave 1 parent-child version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. It was administered to the PC of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 9.
  • Citations: 
    • Straus, M.A. (1979). "Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
    • Moffit, T., Caspi, A., Krueder, R., Magdol, L., Margolin, G., Silva, P, & Sydney, R. (1996). "Do partners agree about abuse? A psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement." Psychological Assessment, 9, 47-56.
  • The partner-spouse version of the Conflict Tactics Scale was included to obtain information about how partners handled arguments in the past year.
  • WAVE 1: The Conflict Tactics Scale for Partner and Spouse measured the extent to which partners in a dating, cohabiting, or marital relationship engage in psychological and physical attacks on each other. It also measured their use of reasoning or negotiation to deal with conflicts. It was administered to either the primary caregiver of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15, or to the subjects in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Physical Abuse Scale measured the extent to which partners in a dating, cohabiting, or marital relationship engage in physical attacks on each other. This Wave 2 study replaced the Wave 1 partner-spouse version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. It was administered to the primary caregiver of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Conflict Tactics Scale for Partner and Spouse measured both the extent to which partners in a dating, cohabiting, or marital relationship engage in psychological and physical attacks on each other. It also measured their use of reasoning or negotiation to deal with conflicts. This Wave 3 study was modified from the Wave 1 partner-spouse version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. It was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 0 to 9 and to subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Straus, M.A. (1979). "Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
    • Moffit, T., Caspi, A., Krueder, R., Magdol, L., Margolin, G., Silva, P, & Sydney, R. (1996). "Do partners agree about abuse? A psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement." Psychological Assessment, 9, 47-56.
  • The Pre-Reading tests of the Oral Reading subtest of the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) provided information about the pre-reading abilities of subjects. It included four tests that assessed the subject's ability to name upper and lower case letters and to determine whether sets of letters and words were identical.
  • WAVE 2: The DAR provided information about the pre-reading ability of subjects. It was administered to subjects in Cohort 3.
  • WAVE 3: The DAR provided information about the pre-reading ability of subjects. It was administered to subjects in Cohort 0.
  • Citations:
    • Roswell, F & Chall, J. (1992) The Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR). Riverside Publishing Company, Itasca, IL.
  • The Demographic and Cultural Information Interview (used in Wave 1) and Demographic Update (used in Waves 2 and 3) were designed to obtain basic demographic information such as education and marital status. They also gathered information relevant to race/ethnicity and family acculturation. More detailed information was obtained in the first year of data collection, with updated information included in subsequent years. Information on income and employment was included within the Demographic Update. The Demographic Update also included sections regarding welfare status and material hardship.
  • WAVE 1: The Demographic File obtained basic demographic information, as well as information relevant to race/ethnicity and family acculturation. It was administered to subjects' caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15 and to the subjects for Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Demographic File obtained basic demographic information including employment, income, race/ethnicity, welfare status, and material hardship. It was administered to subjects' caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15 and to the subjects, themselves, for Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Demographic File obtained basic demographic information including employment, income, race/ethnicity, welfare status, and material hardship. It was administered to subjects' caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 12 and to the subjects, themselves, for Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Brooks-Gunn et al (1997). Sections adapted from Material Hardship and Welfare Knowledge.
    • Burman, M., Telles, C., Hough, R. & Escobar, J. (1987). "Measurement of acculturation in a community population of Mexican-Americans." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 105-130.
    • Vega, W., Zimmerman, R., Gil, A., Warheit, G., & Apospori, E. (1993). "Acculturation Strain Theory: Its application in explaining drug use behavior among Cuban and other Hispanic youth." In LaRosa and Adrados (Eds): Drug Abuse among Minority Youth: Advances in Research and Methodology. (NDA Research Monograph). Rockville: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
  • The Depression module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (UM-CIDI) short form was adapted and used with the primary caregiver (PC) of subjects to obtain information about depressive symptoms experienced by the PC during the past year. The Depression instrument differed from the Dysthymia instrument in that the Depression instrument asked about feelings of sadness or depression for two weeks or more in a row whereas the Dysthymia instrument focused on feelings of sadness or depression most of the time.
  • WAVE 2: The Depression Instrument was adapted from the short form of the UM-CIDI and obtained information about depressive symptoms experienced by the primary caregiver during the past year. It was administered to subjects' primary caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Depression Instrument was adapted from the short form of the UM-CIDI and obtained information about depressive symptoms experienced by the respondent during the past year. It was administered to subjects' primary caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15 and to subjects for Cohort 18.
  • Citations:
    • Kessler & Mrozek (1997) UM CIDI-Short form. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI.
  • The Discrimination survey was drawn from the Puerto Rican Adolescent Survey. It addressed both actual instances of discrimination and fear of this occurring in specific settings. These questions also appear in PHDCN Personal Identity, Wave 3, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 13717) used with older subjects and young adults.
  • WAVE 3: The Discrimination survey was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 0 to 12.
  • Citations: 
    • Discrimination section of the Puerto Rican Adolescent Survey (1996). Alarcon & Garcia-Coll. Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College.
  • The full version of the Deviance of Peers was a 36-item self-report interview that obtained information about peer involvement in conventional and delinquent activities. In addition, information about peer pressure to use drugs and/or alcohol was collected.
  • WAVE 1: The Deviance of Peers was a self-report interview that obtained information about peer involvement in conventional and delinquent activities. Information about peer pressure to use drugs and/or alcohol was also collected. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Deviance of Peers was a self-report interview that obtained information about peer involvement in conventional and delinquent activities. Compared to the Wave 1 version, a reduced set of items was included in Wave 2, but Wave 2 had additional questions regarding the age and gender of peers involved in particular behaviors. Information about peer pressure to use drugs and/or alcohol was also collected. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Deviance of Peers was a self-report interview that obtained information about peer involvement in conventional and delinquent activities. Compared to the Wave 1 version, a reduced set of items was included in Wave 3, but Wave 3 had additional questions regarding the age and gender of peers involved in particular behaviors. Information about peer pressure to use drugs and/or alcohol was also collected. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations:
    • Huizinga, D. Esbenson, F. & Weihar, A.W. (1991). "Are there multiple paths to delinquency?" The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 83-118.
  • The Drug Use instrument was a self-report measure used to obtain information regarding the subject's use of specific drugs without a doctor's prescription, in larger amounts than prescribed, or for a longer period than prescribed.
  • WAVE 3: The Drug Use Instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • Citations:
    • Kessler & Mrozek (1997) UM CIDI-Short form. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI.
  • The Dysthymia module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (UM-CIDI) short form was adapted and used with the primary caregiver (PC) of subjects to obtain information about depressive symptoms experienced by the PC during the past 2 years. The Dysthymia instrument differed from the Depression instrument in that the Dysthymia instrument asked about feelings of sadness or depression most of the time whereas the Depression instrument focused on feelings of sadness or depression for two weeks or more in a row.
  • WAVE 2: The Dysthymia survey was administered to subjects' primary caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • Citations:
    • Kessler & Mrozek (1997) UM CIDI-Short form. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI.
  • The Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impulsivity (EASI) Temperament Survey was introduced in the mid-1970's by Arnold H. Buss and Robert Plomin. It was designed to evaluate subjects based on four temperaments (emotionality, activity, sociability, and impulsivity). Respondents were asked to determine how accurately behaviors or personality traits mentioned characterized the subject. The responses to the EASI measure were used to evaluate the subjects' various social tendencies, emotional characteristics, and personality traits.
  • WAVE 1: The EASI Temperament Survey was administered to the primary caregivers for Cohorts 3 to 15 and to the subjects for Cohort 18.
  • Citations:
    • Buss, A. & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early Developing Personality Traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • The Extended Family Health instrument obtained information about the physical health, mental health, criminal history, and drug use history of anyone who ever lived in the same household as the subject for any period of time.
  • WAVE 3: The Extended Family Health instrument was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • Citations:
    • Endicott, Andreason & Spitzer (1978). Family History Research Diagnostic Criteria. New York. Biometrics Research. NY State Psychiatric Institute.
    • Selner-O'Hagan, Molnar & Buka (1999). PHDCN scientific group.
  • The Employment and Income Interview was an atypical measure in that its primary concern was not to evaluate the developmental circumstances but rather to assess the economic circumstances surrounding the subjects. The Employment and Income Interview was developed specifically for the PHDCN Longitudinal Cohort Study with the intent of combining the employment and income data obtained with educational status data to create socioeconomic stratifications for the respondents. The Employment and Income Interview sought to obtain data describing the respondent's current or most recent employment and that of his or her partner. The Employment and Income Interview also sought information regarding primary income and additional sources of income as well total working hours, proximity to work, and means of transportation to work for both the respondent and his or her partner.
  • WAVE 1: The Employment and Income Interview was administered to the subjects' primary caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15 and to the subjects for Cohort 18.
  • Questions regarding the subject's fear in certain situations were expanded from the Exposure to Violence instrument to include more locations. It was named Where are you afraid? in Wave 2. These questions appear in Fear and Guns in Wave 3.
  • WAVE 2: The Where Are You Afraid? questionnaire included questions regarding the subject's fear in certain situations. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Fear and Guns instrument obtained information regarding the subject's fear in certain situations and the accessibility and use of guns. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6 to 12.
  • Citations:
    • Buka SL, Selner-O'Hagan MB, Kindlon DJ, Earls FJ. (1997). The "My Exposure to Violence Interviews"; Administration and Scoring Manual, Version 3. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health.
    • Selner-O'Hagan, M., Buka, S., Kindlon, D., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1998). Urban youth exposure to violence, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39 (2), 215-224.
    • Taylor, L., Zuckerman, B., Harik, V. & Groves, B. (1994). Witnessing violence by young children and their mothers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15, 120-123.
  • The Family Environment Scale (FES) was designed to assess the interpersonal relationships and the overall social environment within the family. The FES captured the perception of the family's functioning from one of its own members. The FES specifically sought to quantify three dimensions of the family environment: interpersonal relationships, directions of personal growth, and basic organization and structure. In addition to acting as a self-report measuring the family environment, the FES was also used as an instrument to observe the effect of the family environment on the individual subjects. Three scales (Conflict, Control, and Moral-Religious Emphasis) from the FES were used in this questionnaire to further evaluate the functioning of the family.
  • WAVE 1: The FES was administered to the subjects' primary caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15 and to the subjects for Cohort 18.
  • Citations:
    • Moos, R. & Moos, B. (1994). Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, Applications, Research - Third Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
  • In the Flagged Instrument List, Wave 3 instruments were identified for which there may have been problems. These problems included such things as another person being present while the respondent was interviewed, the respondent not being totally honest, or the respondent not understanding. The list was compiled by interviewers for nearly every Wave 3 instrument administered.
  • WAVE 3: The Flagged Instrument List was compiled by interviewers for Cohorts 0 to 18.
  • The Forward Memory instrument was taken from the attention and memory battery of the Leiter International Performance Scale. It assessed cognitive function in subjects by measuring visuospatial memory.
  • WAVE 3: The Forward Memory instrument was administered to subjects in Cohort 0.
  • Citations:
    • Roid, G.H. & Miller, L.J. (1995, 1997). Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Co.
    • Madsen, David (2000). Personal Communication.
  • The Family Mental Health and Legal History was based on the Family History Assessment Module. It included questions to screen family members for psychiatric disorders and substance use. It also contained questions regarding any family member's involvement with the law. Lifetime information was obtained in Wave 1. During Wave 2 and Wave 3, information on legal involvement since the previous visit was obtained in the Family Legal Update.
  • WAVE 1: The Family Mental Health and Legal History assessment included questions designed to obtain family members' history of psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, and any involvement with the law. It was administered to the primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Family Legal Update included questions designed to obtain any family member's involvement with the law since the Wave 1 interview. It was administered to the primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15 and to the subjects, themselves, in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Family Legal Update included questions designed to ascertain any family member's involvement with the law in the past year. It was administered in two separate studies. It was administered to the primary caregivers of subjects in Cohorts 0 to 15 in the Wave 3 Family Legal Update and to the subjects, themselves, in Cohorts 15 and 18 in the Wave 3 Family Legal Update (Young Adult).
  • Citations:
    • Janca, A., Bucholz, K., & Janca, I. (1992). Family History and Assessment Module. Washington University of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
  • A listing of the Household Composition of the subject was obtained in each wave. In Wave 1, this was incorporated into the Family Structure and Health History. In Waves 2 and 3, this information was collected with the Household Composition instrument.
  • WAVE 1: The Family Structure and Health History assessment included each household member, their relationship to the subject, and designation as a biological/non-biological and maternal/paternal relative. It was administered to the primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15 and to the subjects, themselves, belonging to Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Household Composition instrument obtained basic information on the composition of the subject's household and included each household member's age, gender, and relationship to the subject. It was administered to the primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15 and to the subjects, themselves, belonging to Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Household Composition instrument obtained basic information on the composition of the subject's household and included each household member's age, gender, and relationship to the subject. It was administered to the primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 12 and to the subjects belonging to Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • The Gangs instrument obtained information related to gangs in the subject's neighborhood as well as any involvement in gangs by the subject.
  • WAVE 3: The Gangs instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6 to 18.
  • Citations:
    • Youth Interview Schedule (1991). Denver Youth Survey.
  • The Gift Wrap instrument was designed to observe the impulsivity and restraint of the subject. A research assistant (RA) was provided with a previously wrapped gift for the subject along with other wrapping supplies. The RA informed the subject that he/she had a gift for the subject but that the gift needed to be wrapped so it would be a surprise. The RA then asked the subject not to look and positioned the subject so that the subject was facing away from the RA. The RA then stood approximately three feet behind the subject and pretended to wrap the gift by crinkling and shaking the wrapping supplies. The RA observed the subject in this manner for 60 seconds and coded the subject's reaction to the gift wrapping noises. After the allotted time, the subject was presented with the gift that had previously been wrapped.
  • WAVE 3: Gift Wrap instrument was administered to subjects in Cohort 0.
  • Citations:
    • Kochanska, Grazyna; Murray, Kathleen T.; Harlan, Elena T. Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology. 2000 Mar. 36 (2): 220-232.
    • Kochansak, G. (2000). Personal communication.
    • Members of the "Welfare Reform and Children: A Three-City Study" (principle investigators Angel, R.,Burton, L., Chase-Lansdale, P.L., Cherlin, A.J., Moffitt, R., Wilson, W.J.; personal communication with Pittman, Laura).
  • The Gun Ownership interview obtained information related to the accessibility and use of guns. Sections of this interview addressed carrying a hidden weapon, whether there was a gun in the household, and how accessible guns were for teens in the subject's neighborhood.
  • WAVE 2: The Gun Ownership instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Gun Ownership instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Hemenway, Prothrow Stith, Bergstein, Ander, & Kennedy. (1996). Gun carrying among adolescents. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 39-54.
  • The Header Data files contain information regarding dates of Wave 1 and Wave 2 interviews as well as when interviews were coded, edited, and scored by research assistants and supervisors.
  • WAVE 2: The Header Data files contain information regarding dates of Wave 1 and Wave 2 interviews as well as when interviews were coded, edited, and scored by research assistants and supervisors. It contains data for Cohorts 0 to 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Header Data (Primary Caregiver) files contain information regarding dates of Wave 3 primary caregiver assessments as well as language, version, and type of interview. They contain data for Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • The Header Data (Subject and Young Adult) files contain information regarding dates of Wave 3 subject assessments as well as language, version, and type of interview. They contain data for Cohorts 0 to 18.
  • The Health Screen was a parent and subject self-report measure (depending on wave and cohort) that consisted of questions regarding health-related quality of life. It was taken from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey. Both physical and emotional health were screened on this form.
  • WAVE 1: The Health Screen was used to obtain the general health condition of the subjects, the frequency with which they were not in good physical or mental health, and if this prevented them from doing usual activities, such as playing. It was administered to subjects' caregivers for Cohorts 3 and 6 and to the subjects for Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Health Screen was used to obtain the general health condition of the subjects. The Wave 2 instrument contained a more detailed health history than the Wave 1 instrument. The Wave 2 instrument included information regarding lifetime illnesses and past-year health. It was administered to subjects' caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 15 and to the subjects for Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Health Screen was used to obtain information regarding the general health condition of the subjects. It was administered to subjects' caregivers for Cohorts 0 to 12 and to the subjects for Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey. (1994) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 43, 375-380.
    • CHIP (1993) Health Survey. John Hopkins School of Public Health, Dept. of Health Policy and Management.
    • Communities Use of Resources Among Latinos (CURL)
    • Infant Health and Development Project (IHDP - Age 8)
    • Ferris (1978). Epidemiology Standardization Project. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1978; 118:1 88
    • Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID)
  • The PHDCN version of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) was a semi-structured interview in which the primary caregiver was asked about daily routines, other activities, and ways that the home environment was structured to accommodate the child's needs. The PHDCN Scientific Directors revised the original HOME to facilitate the standard assessment of home environments of children ranging in age from newborns to teenagers. Observational items about the interior and exterior physical environment were added and included questions taken from the Systematic Social Observation Checklist, which was also developed by the PHDCN staff. This instrument was again revised for Wave 2 based on staff feedback. A structured interview for use with all age participants was developed and named the Home and Life Interview. In Wave 3, a reduced version of this instrument was used. These instruments sought to observe the developmental environment in which children belonging to the Longitudinal Cohort Study sample were raised. They were designed to capture the absence or presence of certain cognitive stimuli, including varied learning experiences and diverse educational materials.
  • WAVE 1: The HOME inventory measured the extent and nature of the interactions that occurred between the subject and his or her primary caregiver, the subject and the subject's father (if the father was not the primary caregiver), and the subject and other family members. The PHDCN version of the HOME inventory also assessed the physical conditions in and around the respondent's home, taking careful note of the layout of the streets and buildings comprising the neighborhood. It was administered to primary caregivers of subjects in Cohorts 0 to 15 and to subjects, themselves, in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Home and Life Interview was a structured interview based on the HOME inventory used in Wave 1. The Home and Life Interview also measured the extent and nature of the interactions that occurred between the subject and his or her primary caregiver. In contrast to Wave 1, particular emphasis was placed on evaluating the relationship between the subject and the subject's father or, in the father's absence, a male father figure. Data collected to describe the interior and exterior conditions of the respondent's home and neighborhood were included in the Interviewer Impressions protocols in Wave 2. The Home and Life Interview was administered to primary caregivers of subjects in Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Home and Life Interview was a structured interview based on the HOME inventory used in Wave 1. The Wave 3 Home and Life Interview instrument was a reduced version of the Wave 2 Home and Life Interview instrument that did not include an emphasis on evaluating the relationship between the subject and the subject's father or, in the father's absence, a male father figure. It was administered to primary caregivers of subjects in Cohorts 0 to 9.
  • Citations:
  • The Personal Identity instrument obtained information related to racial and ethnic identity, which was originally collected in PHDCN Demographic File, Wave 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13581) and PHDCN Demographic File, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13609). It also contained future orientation and discrimination questions, as well as questions relating to group importance that were drawn from the Puerto Rican Adolescent Survey.
  • WAVE 3: The Personal Identity instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6 to 18.
  • Citations:
    • Youth Interview Schedule (1991). Denver Youth Survey.
    • Teplin, L.A. (1994). Assessing ADM Service Needs Among Juvenile Detainees (R01-MH54197). Northwestern Juvenile Project.
    • Discrimination section of the Puerto Rican Adolescent Survey (1996). Alarcon & Garcia-Coll. Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College
  • A set of interviewer impressions was completed at the end of each interview. In each, the interviewer was asked to rate behavior during the interview, the likelihood of participating next year, difficulty in locating next year, and language of the interview. Interviewers also recorded whether difficulties communicating hindered the interview or if there were problems with the interview, including the presence of others, general problems, or the respondent's understanding of questions. Basic demographic information was also listed here and included the subject's gender, birth date, and age cohort. Identification of the household as having more than one subject and an assessment of the type of dwelling unit are also included. Two sets of questions taken from the Wave 1 Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment were included. For these, the interviewer rated the PC's behavior toward the interviewer and the PC's behavior/attitude toward the subject and other household members. The interviewer also rated both the interior and exterior of the home.
  • WAVE 2: The Interviewer Impressions (Primary Caregiver) set of questions was completed by the interviewer at the end of each interview with a primary caregiver (PC). It was completed for Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Interviewer Impressions (Primary Caregiver) set of questions was completed by the interviewer at the end of each interview with a primary caregiver (PC). It was completed for Cohorts 0 to 12.
  • Citations:
    • Caldwell & Bradley (1984). Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) - Revised Edition. University of Arkansas, Little Rock.
    • Barnes-McGuire & Reiss (1993). Systematic Social Observation, unpublished manual
    • Selner-O'Hagan & Earls (1995). PHDCN version of the HOME Inventory, wave 1 manual
    • Selner-O'Hagan, Leventhal, Brooks-Gunn, Bingenheimer, Earls (submitted).The Homelife Interview from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Assessment of parenting and home environment for 3 to 15 year olds. Child Development.
  • A set of Interviewer impressions was completed at the end of each interview. In each, the interviewer was asked to rate behavior during the interview, the likelihood of participating next year, difficulty in locating next year, and language of the interview. Interviewers also recorded whether difficulties communicating hindered the interview or if there were problems with the interview, including the presence of others, general problems, or the respondent's understanding of questions. Basic demographic information was also listed here and included the subject's gender, birth date, and age cohort. Identification of the household as having more than one subject and an assessment of the type of dwelling unit are also included. A set of questions was taken from the Wave 1 Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. For this, the interviewer rated both the interior and exterior of the home.
  • WAVE 2: The The Interviewer Impressions (Subject) set of questions was completed by the interviewer at the end of each interview with a subject. It was completed for Cohorts 3 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The The Interviewer Impressions (Subject) set of questions was completed by the interviewer at the end of each interview with a primary caregiver (PC). It was completed for Cohorts 0 to 12.
  • Citations:
    • Caldwell & Bradley (1984). Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) - Revised Edition. University of Arkansas, Little Rock.
    • Barnes-McGuire & Reiss (1993). Systematic Social Observation, unpublished manual
    • Selner-O'Hagan & Earls (1995). PHDCN version of the HOME Inventory, wave 1 manual
    • Selner-O'Hagan, Leventhal, Brooks-Gunn, Bingenheimer, Earls (submitted).The Homelife Interview from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Assessment of parenting and home environment for 3 to 15 year olds. Child Development.
  • A set of interviewer impressions was completed at the end of each interview. In each, the interviewer was asked to rate behavior during the interview, the likelihood of participating next year, difficulty in locating next year, and language of the interview. Interviewers also recorded whether difficulties communicating hindered the interview or if there were problems with the interview, including the presence of others, general problems, or the respondent's understanding of questions. Basic demographic information was also listed here and included the subject's gender, birth date, and age cohort. Identification of the household as having more than one subject and an assessment of the type of dwelling unit are also included. A set of questions was taken from the Wave 1 Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. For this, the interviewer rated both the interior and exterior of the home.
  • WAVE 2: The The Interviewer Impressions (Young Adult) set of questions was completed by the interviewer at the end of each interview with a subject. It was completed for Cohorts 18.
  • WAVE 3: The The Interviewer Impressions (Young Adult) set of questions was completed by the interviewer at the end of each interview with a primary caregiver (PC). It was completed for Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Caldwell & Bradley (1984). Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) - Revised Edition. University of Arkansas, Little Rock.
    • Barnes-McGuire & Reiss (1993). Systematic Social Observation, unpublished manual
    • Selner-O'Hagan & Earls (1995). PHDCN version of the HOME Inventory, wave 1 manual
    • Selner-O'Hagan, Leventhal, Brooks-Gunn, Bingenheimer, Earls (submitted).The Homelife Interview from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Assessment of parenting and home environment for 3 to 15 year olds. Child Development.
  • The Language Screen was administered to subjects or their primary caregiver to determine whether the subject used any language(s) other than English and, if so, to document the usage of English and/or other languages at home, school, and with friends.
  • WAVE 2: The Language Screen determined whether the subject used languages other than English. It was administered to the subject's primary caregiver in Cohort 3 and to the subject in Cohorts 6 to 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Language Screen determined whether the subject used languages other than English. It was administered to the subjects in Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18.
  • The Life History Calendar was a structured interview utilizing a grid-like format to facilitate rapid and accurate recall, on a month-to-month basis, of life events experienced by young adults. Categories of life events included arrests, imprisonment, disability, victimization, and deaths.
  • WAVE 2: The Life History Calendar was administered to Cohort 18.
  • Citations:
    • Freedman, D., Thornton, A., Camburn, D., Alwin, D. & Young-DeMarco, L. (1988). The life history calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. Sociological Methodology, 37-68.
  • The Master Data File contains the administrative variables necessary to track the participation of subjects and primary caregivers. It also contains information about the date and language of the interview, whether or not respondents moved between interview waves, basic demographic information about subjects and primary caregivers, and neighborhood cluster identification, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and neighborhood ethnic composition.
  • WAVE 1: The data file contains administrative and basic demographic information (gender, age, residency, language, ethnicity, education, and employment regarding the subject, primary caregiver, partner of primary caregiver, and subject's biological father and mother) across all cohorts.
  • WAVE 2: The data file contains administrative and basic demographic information (gender, age, residency, language, ethnicity, education, and employment regarding the subject and primary caregiver) across all cohorts.
  • WAVE 3: The data file contains administrative and basic demographic information (gender, age, and residency) across all cohorts.
  • The Exposure to Violence (Primary Caregiver) interview was administered to primary caregivers. It obtained information about the subject's fear in certain situations and exposure to 4 different types of violent acts. These included: (1) seeing someone shoved, kicked, or punched, (2) seeing someone attacked with a knife, (3) hearing a gunshot, and (4) seeing someone shot. This measure was adapted by PHDCN staff to include questions that assessed the location and frequency of such events, as well as how familiar the participant was with the victim(s) and/or perpetrator(s).
  • �A much more detailed instrument was developed for Waves 2 and 3 to assess exposure to violence, gathering information regarding the subject's lifetime and past year exposure to violence events, using the same basic items, with some modifications in follow-up questions included.
  • WAVE 1: The Exposure to Violence instrument assessed the primary caregiver's perception of the subject's experience of exposure to different types of violent acts. It also assessed how exposure to violence may have affected the subject, his or her family, and friends. It was administered to the primary caregiver of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3 to 15.
  • WAVE 2: The My Child's Exposure to Violence instrument for Wave 2 was a much more detailed version of the instrument than was used in Wave 1. This detailed primary caregiver report instrument obtained information regarding the subject's lifetime and past year exposure to violent events. It was administered to primary caregivers of subjects in Cohorts 0 to 15
  • WAVE 3: The My Child's Exposure to Violence instrument for Wave 3 was a much more detailed version of the instrument than was used in Wave 1. This detailed primary caregiver report instrument obtained information regarding the subject's lifetime and past-year exposure to violent events. It was administered to primary caregivers of subjects in Cohorts 0 to 9.
  • Citations:
    • Buka SL, Selner-O'Hagan MB, Kindlon DJ, Earls FJ. (1997). The "My Exposure to Violence Interviews"; Administration and Scoring Manual, Version 3. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health.
    • Selner-O'Hagan, M., Buka, S., Kindlon, D., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1998). Urban youth exposure to violence, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39 (2), 215-224.
    • Taylor, L., Zuckerman, B., Harik, V. & Groves, B. (1994). Witnessing violence by young children and their mothers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15, 120-123.
  • A primary caregiver self-report version of the Exposure to Violence was included to obtain information regarding past year exposure of primary caregivers of young children.
  • WAVE 2: The primary caregiver self-report version of the Exposure to Violence instrument assessed the primary caregiver's past year exposure to different types of violent acts. It was administered to the primary caregiver of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 6.
  • WAVE 3: The primary caregiver self-report version of the Exposure to Violence instrument assessed the primary caregiver's past year exposure to different types of violent acts. It was administered to the primary caregiver of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 and 3.
  • Citations:
    • Buka SL, Selner-O'Hagan MB, Kindlon DJ, Earls FJ. (1997). The "My Exposure to Violence Interviews"; Administration and Scoring Manual, Version 3. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health.
    • Selner-O'Hagan, M., Buka, S., Kindlon, D., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1998). Urban youth exposure to violence, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39 (2), 215-224.
    • Taylor, L., Zuckerman, B., Harik, V. & Groves, B. (1994). Witnessing violence by young children and their mothers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15, 120-123.
  • The Exposure to Violence (Subject and Young Adult) interview was administered to study participants to obtain information about the participants' fear in certain situations and exposure to 4 different types of violent acts. These included: (1) seeing someone shoved, kicked, or punched, (2) seeing someone attacked with a knife, (3) hearing a gunshot, and (4) seeing someone shot. This measure was adapted by PHDCN staff to include questions that assessed the location and frequency of such events, as well as how familiar the participant was with the victim(s) and/or perpetrator(s).
  • A much more detailed instrument was developed for Waves 2 and 3 to assess exposure to violence, gathering information regarding the subject's lifetime and past year exposure to violence events, using the same basic items, with some modifications in follow-up questions included.
  • WAVE 1: The Exposure to Violence (ETV) assessed the subject's experience of exposure to different types of violent acts, as well as how exposure to violence may have affected the subject, his or her family, and friends. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • WAVE 2: The subject self-report version of the Exposure to Violence for Wave 2 was a much more detailed version of the instrument than was used in Wave 1. This detailed subject self-report instrument was administered to Cohorts 9 to 15 and obtained information regarding the subject's lifetime and past year exposure to violent events. In addition, a short form of the subject self-report instrument was used with subjects in Cohort 6.
  • WAVE 3:The subject self-report version of the Exposure to Violence for Wave 3 was the same instrument as that was used in Wave 1 This detailed subject self-report instrument was administered to Cohorts 6 to 15 and obtained information regarding the subject's lifetime and past year exposure to violent events. In addition, a short form of the subject self-report instrument was used with subjects in Cohorts 3 and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Buka SL, Selner-O'Hagan MB, Kindlon DJ, Earls FJ. (1997). The "My Exposure to Violence Interviews"; Administration and Scoring Manual, Version 3. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health.
    • Selner-O'Hagan, M., Buka, S., Kindlon, D., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1998). Urban youth exposure to violence, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39 (2), 215-224.
    • Taylor, L., Zuckerman, B., Harik, V. & Groves, B. (1994). Witnessing violence by young children and their mothers.Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15, 120-123.
  • The Perceptions of Drug Risk instrument included questions about the perceived harm involved in using substances, the difficulty of obtaining different substances, and the experience of being approached to buy drugs within the past month.
  • WAVE 2: The Perceptions of Drug Risk instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, 15, and 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Perceptions of Drug Risk instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations:
    • National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1991). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates, 1991. Rockville, MD.
  • The Pubertal Development Scale consisted of items used to ascertain pubertal status for subjects. This was interviewer administered in Wave 1. It was in a self-report format in Wave 2 and Wave 3 and was referred to as the Physical Development Scale.
  • WAVE 1: The Pubertal Development Scale was administered by the interviewer to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, and 15.
  • WAVE 2: The Physical Development Scale was a self-report measure administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, and 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Physical Development Scale was a self-report measure administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations:
    • Petersen, A., Crockett, L., Richards, M., & Boxer, A. (1988). "A self-report measure of pubertal status: Reliability, validity, and initial norms." Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17(2), 117-133.
  • The Prenatal and Early Health interview was adapted from the National Maternal and Infant Health Survey which was developed by the National Institute of Health. It included questions regarding the mother's pregnancy and delivery of the subject, as well as questions regarding the subject's early health.
  • WAVE 2: The Prenatal and Early Health interview was administered to the subject's primary caregiver for Cohort 0.
  • Citations:
  • The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) was designed as a test of receptive vocabulary achievement and verbal ability. Subjects were shown four numbered pictures and were read a word by a research assistant. The subject was then asked to point to the picture or say the number of the picture that corresponded to the word spoken by the research assistant.
  • WAVE 3: The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was administered to subjects in Cohort 0.
  • Citations:
    • Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Third Edition.
  • The Prenatal Health Screen was administered only to pregnant women or mothers of infants under 12 months of age. It was designed to obtain information on the conception and due date of their unborn/newborn infants.
  • WAVE 1: The Prenatal Health Screen was administered to subjects' primary caregivers for Cohort 0.
  • The Provision of Social Relations (Primary Caregiver) (PSRP) instrument evaluated the social support received by the primary caregiver from family and friends.
  • WAVE 1: The PSRP was administered to the primary caregivers of the subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The PSRP was administered to the primary caregivers of the subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • Citations:
    • Turner, R.J., Frankel, B., & Levin, D. (1983). Social support: Conceptualization, measurement, and implications for mental health. In J.R. Greenley (Ed.), Research in Community and Mental Health (pp. 67-111), vol. 3, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • The Provision of Social Relations (Subject / Subject and Young Adult) (PSRS) instrument evaluated the social support received by the subject from family and friends.
  • WAVE 1: The PSRS was administered to subjects belonging to Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • WAVE 3: The PSRS was administered to subjects belonging to Cohorts 6 to 18.
  • Citations:
    • Turner, R.J., Frankel, B., & Levin, D. (1983). Social support: Conceptualization, measurement, and implications for mental health. In J.R. Greenley (Ed.), Research in Community and Mental Health (pp. 67-111), vol. 3, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • The Relationships instrument was a booklet which could be administered by an interviewer or self-administered to subjects. It obtained information about dating, attitudes toward sex and having babies, and experience with sexual intercourse.
  • WAVE 2: The Relationships instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 12, 15, and 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Relationships instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, 15, and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Youth Interview Schedule (1990). Philadelphia Family Management Study.
    • Remafedi, Resnick, Blum, & Harris (1992). Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics. 89 (4). 714-721.
    • Leserman, Drossman, & Li ( 1995). The reliability and validity of a sexual and physical abuse history questionnaire in female patients with gastrointestinal disorders. Behavioral Medicine, 21 (3), 141-150.
  • The Routine Activities instrument was drawn from Osgood's Unstructured Routine Activities instrument to ascertain the frequency with which the subject engaged in various activities during his/her free time.
  • WAVE 2: The Routine Activities instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, 15, and 18 with Cohorts 9, 12, and 15 receiving additional questions regarding employment.
  • WAVE 3: The Routine Activities instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations:
    • Osgood, D. Wayne, Janet K. Wilson, Patrick M. O?Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and Lloyd D. Johnston. ?Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior.? American Sociological Review 61, no. 4 (1996): 635?55. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096397.
  • Traditionally, the Stanford-Binet (SB) Intelligence Scale was a wide-range individual test, assessing intelligence from age two through the superior adult level. It was an age scale, requiring subjects to solve problems, give definitions, memorize new material, and use some visual-motor skills at various age levels. For the PHDCN, the SB included a vocabulary subtest that consisted of providing both names of pictures and definitions of words.
  • WAVE 1: The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale was administered to Cohort 3.
  • WAVE 2: The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale was administered to Cohort 3.
  • Citations:
    • Turman, E. & Merrill, M. (1973). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Manual for the Third Revision, Form L-M. Boston: The Houghton-Mifflin Company.
  • The School/Day Care Screen was developed by PHDCN staff and obtained information regarding schools, day care, and after-school programming. It also obtained information regarding enrollment in any special programming and parental involvement in school.
  • WAVE 1: The School Screen obtained information regarding schools attended, involvement in day care and after-school programming, and enrollment in any special programming. It was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 3 to 15 and to subjects in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 2: The School and Day Care Screen obtained information regarding the subject's current educational situation, parental involvement in school and expectations for the subject, and the characteristics of the childcare setting and provider. It was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 0 to 15.
  • WAVE 3: The School Screen focused on parental involvement at school and educational expectations for the subject. It also obtained information related to the history of special classifications of the subject and after-school activities of the subject. The protocol also focused on the absence or presence of certain cognitive stimuli, including varied learning experiences and diverse educational materials, and contained some of the school-related questions from the Wave 2 Home and Life Interview. It was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 3, 6, and 9.
  • Citations:
  • The School Interview was adapted from the school section of the Youth Interview Schedule used in the Philadelphia Family Management Study. It included sections addressing school climate, school safety, types of classes the subject had taken, and the subject's attitude toward school.
  • WAVE 2: The School Interview instrument included questions regarding past history of repeating or skipping grades. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, and 15.
  • WAVE 3: The School Interview instrument included questions regarding after-school activities. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations:
    • Youth Interview Schedule (1990). Philadelphia Family Management Study.
  • The Service Use and Mental Health Services interviews were adapted from the Service Utilization module of the Use, Need, Outcomes, and Costs in Children and Adolescent Population (UNOCCAP) study. They obtained information about services the subject had received for emotional, behavioral, drug, or alcohol problems.
  • WAVE 2: The Self Report (Young Adult) instrument was administered to subjects in Cohort 18.
  • The Service Use and Mental Health Services interviews were adapted from the Service Utilization module of the Use, Need, Outcomes, and Costs in Children and Adolescent Population (UNOCCAP) study. They obtained information about services the subject had received for emotional, behavioral, drug, or alcohol problems.
  • WAVE 2: The Service Use instrument was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 and to subjects in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Mental Health Services instrument was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12, and to subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Horowitz et al (1997) UNOCCAP Service Utilization Module.
  • The Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (SMAST) obtained information about the primary caregiver's use of alcohol and alcohol-related problems.
  • WAVE 2: The Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test was administered to subject's primary caregivers in Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15.
  • Citations:
    • Selzer, Vinokur, & Van Rooijan. (1975) A self-administered Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 117-126.
  • The Self Perceptions instrument obtained preliminary information about subjects' views of their abilities in math and reading, as well as overall self worth, social competence, and safety in their neighborhoods.
  • WAVE 3: The Self Perceptions instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 3 and 6.
  • Citations:
    • Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld (1993). Age and gender differences in childrens self- and task perception during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847.
    • Panel Study of Income Dynamics - Child Development Supplement (1996)
    • Selner-O'Hagan (2000) member of PHDCN scientific group
  • The Self Report of Offending was a self-report questionnaire focused on a participant's involvement in antisocial behavior and the legal consequences of that behavior. It was adapted from the Self-Report of Delinquency Questionnaire and the Self-Report of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire. Information about lifetime and past-year involvement in delinquent and criminal behaviors (including theft, assault, and public disorder) was obtained with follow-up prompts designed to obtain information about age of onset and date of recent involvement. Other factors such as police involvement or solitary versus group offending were included. Information regarding the participant's involvement with the police and court system was also obtained.
  • WAVE 1: The Self Report of Offending was administered to Cohorts 9, 12, 15, and 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Self Report of Offending was administered to Cohorts 9, 12, 15, and 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Self Report of Offending was administered to Cohorts 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Huizinga, D., Esbenson, F. & Weihar, A. (1991). "Are there multiple paths to delinquency?" The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 83-118.
    • Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W., & Farrington, D. (1989). "Development of a new measure for self-reported antisocial behavior for young children: prevalence and reliability." In M. Klein (Ed.): Cross National Research in Self-Reported Crime and Delinquency, 203.
  • The Substance Use Interview was a self-report measure that inquired about the types of substances used and patterns of use (e.g., quantity and frequency).
  • WAVE 1: The Substance Use interview recorded the subject's reported use of various substances, such as tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, barbiturates, tranquilizers, amphetamines, steroids, and intravenous drugs. It was administered to Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • WAVE 2: The Substance Use interview recorded the subject's reported use of various substances, such as tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, barbiturates, tranquilizers, amphetamines, steroids, and intravenous drugs. It was administered to Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Substance Use interview recorded the subject's reported use of various substances, such as tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, methamphetamine, barbiturates, tranquilizers, amphetamines, steroids, and intravenous drugs. It was administered to Cohorts 6 to 18.
  • Citations:
    • National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1991). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Population Estimates, 1991. Rockville, MD.
    • Robins, Cottler, Bucholz & Compton. (1995) Alcohol Dependence and Abuse module from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM-IV (DIS-IV). St. Louis: Washington University School of Medicine.
    • World Health Organization. Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), Version 1.0. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1990.
  • The Suicide Interview was adapted from a section of the Major Depression Disorder module of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC 4) and obtained information about the subject in terms of lifetime occurrence and frequency in the past year of suicidal thoughts. It also contained a more detailed set of questions regarding past suicide attempts.
  • WAVE 2: The Suicide Interview also included a set of questions regarding completed suicide of any friends or family. It was administered to Cohorts 12 to 18.
  • WAVE 3: The Suicide Interview was administered to subjects for Cohorts 9 to 18.
  • Citations:
  • The Things I Can Do If I Try survey was a self-efficacy instrument designed for children. This instrument was developed specifically for the PHDCN design. It included an assessment of efficacy in five domains: future, school, neighborhood, home, and social.
  • WAVE 2: The Things I Can Do If I Try survey was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, and 15.
  • WAVE 3: The Things I Can Do If I Try survey was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9 and 12.
  • Citations:
    • Eccles, Wigfield., Harold, & Blumenfeld (1993). Age and gender differences in children's self and task perception during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830 847.
    • Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) Child Development Supplement (1996).
    • Selner-O'Hagan, M., Shenassa, E., & Earls, F. (1996). I think I can, I think I can: Assessing self-efficacy in children. In preparation.
  • The Voting Practices instrument obtained information regarding the subject's voting behavior.
  • WAVE 2: The Voting Practices instrument was administered to subjects in Cohort 18.
  • The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), was a general test of intelligence, which David Wechsler, the test's author, defined as "the global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment." In keeping with this definition of intelligence as an aggregate of mental aptitudes or abilities, the WAIS-R has traditionally consisted of 11 subtests divided into two parts, verbal and performance. For this study, the WAIS-R included definitions of words only. The official Spanish versions of the WAIS (EIWA) was used when appropriate.
  • WAVE 1: The WAIS-R was only administered to subjects in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 2: The WAIS-R was administered only to subjects in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 3: The WAIS-R was administered only to subjects in Cohort 12.
  • Citations:
    • Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
  • The Walk-A-Line instrument obtained a measurement of the subject's 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 subjects were asked to walk the line slowly.
  • WAVE 3: The Walk-A-Line instrument was administered to subjects in Cohort 0.
  • Citations:
    • Kochanska, Grazyna; Murray, Kathleen T.; Harlan, Elena T. Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology. 2000 Mar. 36 (2): 220-232.
  • The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R), a general test of intelligence, which David Wechsler, the test's author, defined as "the global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment." In keeping with this definition of intelligence as an aggregate of mental aptitudes or abilities, the WISC-R has traditionally consisted of 13 subtests divided into two parts, verbal and performance. For PHDCN, the WISC-R included definitions of words only. The official Spanish version of the WISC-R (EIWN-R) was used when appropriate.
  • WAVE 1: The WISC-R was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, 12, and 15.
  • WAVE 2: The WISC-R was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, 12, and 15.
  • WAVE 3: The WISC-R was administered to subjects in Cohorts 3, 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations:
    • Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
  • The Reading/Word Decoding subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test-3 (WRAT-3) was used to assess reading ability and spelling.
  • WAVE 1: The WRAT-3 was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6 to 18.
  • WAVE 2: The WRAT-3 was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6 to 18.
  • WAVE 3: The WRAT-3 was administered to subjects in Cohorts 3 to 18.
  • Citations:
    • Wilkinson, G. (1993). WRAT-3: Wide Range Achievement Test, Administration Manual. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.
  • The Young Adult Self Report (YASR) was included as a self-administered survey used to obtain information on specific aspects of the respondent's life. Included were such topics as interpersonal relationships and conflicts, tendencies toward various anti-social behaviors, and habits regarding non-medical drug and alcohol consumption. The YASR also sought to identify personality traits and behaviors that might be classified 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 his or her psychological, emotional, and behavioral health and overall quality of life.
  • WAVE 1: The YASR was administered to subjects in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 2: The YASR included an officially revised version of behavior problem items. It was administered to subjects in Cohort 18.
  • WAVE 3: The YASR instrument featured a reduced version that was used in Wave. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18.
  • Citations:
    • Achenbach, T. (1990; 1997) Young Adult Self Report. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
  • The Youth Self Report (YSR) protocol, a self-administered survey, was first developed by Thomas M. Achenbach and was derived from another widely-used standardized measure in child psychology, the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The YSR was designed to assess emotional and behavioral problems in adolescents in a standardized format. It assessed internalizing (i.e., anxiety, depression, and overcontrolled) and externalizing (i.e., aggressive, hyperactivity, noncompliant, and undercontrolled) behaviors. Different sub-scale symptoms were also measured, depending on the wave.
  • WAVE 1: Eight sub-scale symptoms were measured (Withdrawn, Somatic Complaints, Anxiety and Depression, Social Problems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Aggressive Behavior, and Delinquent Behaviors). The YSR was administered to Cohorts 12 and 15.
  • WAVE 2: Six sub-scale symptoms were measured (Withdrawn, Somatic Complaints, Anxiety and Depression, Attention Problems, Aggressive Behavior, and Delinquent Behaviors). The Wave 2 version of the YSR contained a reduced set of items compared to the Wave 1 version. It was administered to Cohorts 9, 12, and 15.
  • WAVE 3: Six sub-scale symptoms were measured(Withdrawn, Somatic Complaints, Anxiety and Depression, Attention Problems, Aggressive Behavior, and Delinquent Behaviors). The Wave 3 version of the YSR contained a reduced set of items compared to the Wave 1 version. It was administered to Cohorts 6, 9, and 12.
  • Citations:
    • Achenbach, T. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.