I.’ .1. I- Ooschlh IOIII 5'13. ' I. 4I4. ‘ |W~IIII.‘- I- ‘ .1
Nina“? “49...... n... .444“ 44... o. I I.» 47M. 4. 44.4“..u44fu 24%. 44a..vx..I.~.-..4.WWJIILIUL 4 .vln 54IvquII Awmflauw“! 4 4
-4 .4 34.44.31 .. huh-7?... Kin-.4444. WNW-I4. 44.94.44. 2.. “In... I a. .4, . .4». 44In1u4I444nn44I44uI44« 4 4 ...»..P
.I 4 I I I 4 . I 4 .I _ .I 4
.54 :v 4 . 4 H ... Ifiwp. ..V ‘4“.uh16i. w. .I. 1.“! IuaI4. . I 6.4 0 .4 I ‘ nI ... “II: IIII. III I I I». III WI -‘fxn
o 3‘..- 40040“¢ a... T—‘Oo VI 4” “ l- 4 ML) .74 s‘. ' gr‘mo’ol.l- 04”.“... IIW-k “.4I| L ‘ ”VF-WU.“ W‘IP‘I ‘4‘g
4 ¢. 54 .HA .4" . \ukcavwv\.ov“Io\\a I. I + D s? 0.. I...“ .IVIOQIN‘ III . o. \4 4MJ¢1I .' O 4 V4 6’ .‘xfll. 0
4 TI" 1'“ . ..A.naov§ 59+.“ Io. v I . f 0H4 I! I If“. Llo- h“...n ‘vaII ”II... 1.0... ‘Wtfl‘hflxx I I flfio “I“ CQA\UV'I4.(I
“.4.-044 4.4.4....»4424454.4.9“ 4.4... ...-4.3. 4 .44.... --.-4.9.4.... m44....m\.4.444..44 ..xw
I... 4 o 4 4. .I .1.o 4 . . - I, A. l I III. ....D .x. 7 .4. III . I It .' O
. 4 Jan-:9 4 4 .. “NM“; I Tn vwzzer-fl 4-4453. I “IMmegfl ind... If}...th man 4?".w I ..JI. .MII ngflIlIHIHHIIwUHJIrI. .IIIILH. {’4
II. I. 4 444. L ... I 4 u‘ s \V ‘7. 0. ..Qrc...._.~ an»? r! 0n .4. . .ru( 4 a w .1...- 0 4o \-0 o 4II0 III
. L1: .0. .4 Irv-LI... . ...». .433 A . .40”, ... .4 aw.V4u.+h ” s ..WfIJ . I 4 4 .s I . .
4.. .. 4 . 4 II {AI-4.2 2:04.... II?” c I «II-.... .n \894 ‘4» 09‘ .Is I ....I. ..I fit!
44 4 I

 

C
A

...-444.. 4%...
«LI ~

19

 

q, ‘
’9
l
N
,1
- -.*4
§ “
‘ C
.\
D
Y a
,5.
’c“:
.‘ I.
I.

l
3.5
I

“2
{I
I
O
U 3‘
’0
. '
|
(4'
(4
1.?
{I
\I
Y
I
‘I
5
I

1

 

in!
+52}

1
l

 

V... .. z ... . ..n....... 4.. .4.. h .
M”. ..kth" “(OI-10x wow”. “a 3.". nuwuw. ., 4.. . :Il . . 4 4 o
.I? In . 4 IIV... ..3 >4 II~....y. .4. ...IIQI. t I
. 4.4,” «$4.4mw -n “firmwfinfiu ..4.“; ...uhivawvfinxx 443 .3

I
0"

K

i
‘I
7.
2‘45".
m4.
1%;
A,
L
If
4:9-
0’.
'1.
u%
f
4‘
I
1"
‘34s
‘41 §
‘7
a
. ¢b
' 145' .
' 'I.:" -.
:43};
N"¢
f4
3’
‘1
f.
-
V21,
‘0
9“
l O
'\ 4..
9 o.
:I'.
In.
I b g
3:»
4“:

o
o.,...
I.
I
“.

5
.3

                              

  

4' ”I

 

52“}
7‘ f '
1':
I15»
:04
,4
.0
4:139
44
v.51!
:3...
D.‘
IO- f
X
4}
\n’
~ 4*
-I
'I
,3
I I
.0
to-
"v
55.
I" I
Q
:4 4'
.' .3.
'ngI

«.00.

2.15
:A
' I
i:

U

’ '1'

r, -
‘8'
a.
#15?
~ :49 - -
3.x 4

7“,"
9:.‘4

4 1.0%
3-32-
II

’5‘«

- v 1" I

O
, 4".
IA“

01’

I. 3-:
b". u

Q

C-

O
.‘I

A

is

O

L
3’?"
I
I
9
v:
‘ I
14*.
'.

h
~0
V3

V

C
7*
I Q
“I
\

I

‘9

I a
33::
494;;
I 3

C
l
9‘ ¥

.

{A

a

t I.
‘I
#3
fi

4 4.“.

Id
. C
I 1.1.

.u . w. a. .5
.0. I ‘5‘ .. J‘ogu ....
. ..w ¢.«nm~43u?££u.4hh4n&4 II. ..4. 4. «”4444. 4 «AI 44... 4.4 I . .I4. H. 4 I ..
I. 4 “MW! Irv-I44...“ $.W1huv.~‘-.uw.4>$smm4mmv O Wmmikh.w44!~u . «4 .I46I....-.~W.m1 .nwwtrsofi.u”rhm_ .«o .0...-
4. n4. . fl «claw-1. ._ _. . _ u 4 . .3me -« .34 4. 4.... . ...Twfia.
4 4 u -. .. . . . .

 

- A ‘.
4 . .4 . 4. I (“a .HMI afiuwrfoomnbvw v 4.! Ia *40 I 40.4.!“ ... ~.O .IPOO Um 4 .4 “at - .
.~.I @0904. “5‘ I4“. I .1- .n... v. .... . I “‘10-45 u.w.vu . 5%.. 49-. 4VLOIOdIv< ‘44,..4 .I. .nIJI «”926. .J. 4 4
. . - 4 2% ...».....¥...... u. . _ u ~ .. «t. .244. ..4.... . .4.” .9 .4... -L ..4.. I. 44w ...4
.umFa 5a.. . . r wMIfirf "VII .....IW“...HWCI”I . “t. w. ...«u... I... I 1' 4

4I
1
q

9
I
2‘
M:
if
I"?
*3
'-
l 0'
{'5
8"
fi‘
"'\
‘I‘
A
v“:
43-;
3:0:
945
'J
43-5:
7".
‘5
.‘lu
34'.‘
‘L. '
:4.
|
3"
VI
.I
«32:.
m: '.
‘f. II
, 0:? . .. I
34:535. ‘ '
. O}:‘.‘.‘
’
‘1. fl
"5 ,
15:."
"’O'I'l
If
‘3“
‘1
‘0
y I
fl:
9:»
£59
I 3»
(I I
1%:
4b -
“é“
I .‘
I I
$41
I 3..
Y2}-
‘1» 4
t":
in
a.
‘: l

5 s
1 ‘
V'
2'. o I
..;..“
~-‘
1 Ir
’«I
Q
n
4 .4
r V
l
.0

4:
3144'
0 ‘

997:1};

R3

4E5:

4 '3‘: 1‘

m
I.

Fl ‘0

.Q

.rI-b
5‘:
3:1
.‘h
"4
‘4‘.
1‘ I
A.
‘ V
I
‘5
'0?“
* It
’4
.‘I‘
c g.
5.1
Q I
I'
*;:
‘1 ‘
.5“.
$23
.‘I.
'53.
g
‘ I
pt?
I
4‘4
'4 .

 

 

. I J. Iva.“ I. .0. I“ \ chin." l/finv W A “4‘ it. '7‘. I ‘ ‘ l
IHW.PILAO#¢OI 4. .. ‘ :4. 4“ CANADA «.4 p a‘”«‘ IflJ-AKJI 1FI4IO “1.44.4 “MI. 0“ féiWAMI \II‘ c. N.
4 «O . 4w... .r. . I Iol‘ .l O‘filh S\II“I ‘ ~ I I. .l O
4. ....H .5... . .4 . I4. 4“. uw4th..q.~uvh9~x4. 3v ..4.“... . V -r fink

. @343
«I» u « ..WYuymIrm
1&3?- 44.4.444 .....K

44.44.494.12 . vIIII
. 4

.J'

 

 

 

 

gm
‘ f
Emu
”I“
3‘.
0“.
35.244-
,4 4.
‘ .-
.4.‘ ‘
E»

l‘

..fiwffivudmx

. .
4 . o I .. o. . 4 o I . u
. 4 . 4 - . . . -. . . . .
4 . . . - -
I I. A . I u .
. 4. . . 4 4 . . - . . 4. 4
.4 4 .4 .4 4 . 4. . . 4. 4 . . . . .. . .4“. .
. . 4 . 4 4.. . . . 4 4. . . . . . . . . .. .
I . II 4 - . 44. 4 a . .

u. - . . , . . 4 4 I 4 4 . - .4 4 4 I.

. , . .. .. . 4 . .4. - .. . . . . I
3. . . 4 4 . 4. .4 . . 4 .. . . . L 54
.‘ v 4 n .4 - . I . . u . . 4 I . . ~ . 4 . . 4 4 .o I 4

4 I I I 4 . . . 44-. . .n A I I . I 4 4 .I I I 9“ .. . .4.. . . . I . 4
. o I o. 4 I I . A - . . . u - I . - 4
o . . . . 4 . I .. 4 . 4. 4 4 4
. .. I . 4 In. 4. I. . I . v . u I
. II I . .7 IN.
V 4 .

 

 

I
”‘4
‘ .
. 3,
3:. to
I ..

 

 

'I‘I.‘ I
I

I-

‘

.

{C

34'

LI
V4

                          

"
A...

:1.
J ' Jo .,
‘
7
“*4

 

U {ii ’
I‘an.
.35:
a:

.i‘

ll; 4 4.
I531 .4.

vol. ‘5

 

 
    

. . 4 4 .4 I. 4
I I; W .I W. ..WAEE...
. 4.. 4 wfinbwfizadww.

.. .. I}.0,I I? .. .u.
., .. . . 4 “143%. gamma-w.

. I‘l‘
‘L

.3 '

 

.4‘._ '
1‘?

..3.

I
§

3

‘4

.10

I

I
5,.
3

'u
0

I.

‘1

.56

4
“I

I"

I .fl‘
7":
~31

'Yo b

X.
,I’

'4
‘25.

“:52.

g
‘Q.
'7
:II
2}-

.-
’I
is;

l
I"
$5»
ii.-
at '35
0”“:
' 4 f 345:;
4. "55?." .
zinc...‘ ‘;"’_u

4‘3}:-

3:1

V ‘l

«'3'
I I’J‘
L I A‘
I “9
I-gw
a ~“
I: I-
‘9‘

6-4

I 1 4
423‘

360
0&0
)l“

5.3.
‘l
4 , '
.‘.‘£.
‘. '
$4"
I. ‘4‘"
t '4.
‘ “t:
\
I: I"
I}:
Q

. H

‘3“:
‘ h
‘4»:
‘ \‘0

I‘I I
0’“.
”I

2%:
‘1
1...?
.1
‘2 ‘I
b.
‘6'}.
J- I
I):
'9
)

I, Jr"
h’~'. y‘c .
: . A. ‘ ‘

'4'?
‘ I
i:
.‘ |

O

3%“

:25".

I .‘

3‘4

§I~

1

E34

 

.
I

 

‘2
‘q
"-
'4'
4'1
6
,1
:‘O
I
, I
‘I
h: .
b.
It?
'3:
F:
I
I
5.
‘1!
"JV
' 1
a4
. l‘z.“‘
. . ’VJ.‘
- 4 r,‘
.- . 4
’4';
z b
t.
¥
1

,' ' I o -:- Q '
‘. ; 2“...“ I"
...I
“25.
“43%
' .0 “.':;9
my:
I!” ’0'.!1!9
... I:{\.-‘I
‘2‘": ' 1:".
"4S 3
- . ‘ 1'. '1
O ‘ ‘ \‘l
4' I‘ ' '4 ‘I‘
4 : ‘44 .'
1" 12"".542

(43,3
.1 . ’3
3f
3;"
:34
“.4
I, 4!
\f-I
:9
1‘ .
4‘1.
{9"
. . 4r} 5 '
“ 4:
3*.
#3:}
'4 :{
'93: ‘
:49
9‘ “g;
04$- ‘3.
5
'4,
’1
:4 £30
5‘.‘\‘\
4-420
I a I

 
 

       

  

 

   

 

 

 

  

    

     

                    
                           

 

 

 

        

    

    

 

 

I - .‘4 A 0. VI 10‘. M4- . A I O a I I I.

I I o .4. IA II P 0%! HI 7. . UCQ Jan.- .I it! .I .40.]. .Is Moonlqovo ,III. .0. ‘0'! 4 v
....u. LII ...umuvor: . {4.1.4 ”fun. ...“.Ifinfbmuu .. Twanéf... M .444“- L&4.w44\m.444 4 - uM. A (I4.
W...“ 4$mu~§a§4wuw fickuVfiwmm ..4.»u..h‘n*mhfi.wnmv\u4vm.flpn run-fl ...—4&1 I VIM-Nun 7M4. at.” n I My

4 . .o .0 I. 04. 4 w . 4.. I. t 4.. 4.1 a II 0. .4...“ 4 Q If . .l. ‘95‘4‘4I (tul a I I

4. I on .IongIMC . II."- ‘P. ..I I. li‘éfivfil. . I. w t‘iu‘o. 4 ... r . J V .I ..l I I“- I a

\I .I \ . ..E. I ....a. . 4 3%. AL 4‘49”...“ .\.. 4. 44 4. >4 . 1.41:.tu‘v I14. 44.34%"; 4’ (pt I.
4.236%. 4.4.4.5..“ 44.44:? 4 44.44.414.434... 4444.. 3.449.244.2149 . 4 -4 .4.-424.....454nwu4- .I.-. . 4?.“
.III I .. I I .u. :- .1. .I .I... 1‘. .1141» o I 1”. nos. I 4 . 4. 4 . 4... .4-1 I- I I II I b
Lam-44.4w. &%mu..v$4.m9@ in...- .h. 4 .444w.4.m.m.vw444 4 .. . 4 - :4 .474.” ammuwuwvmmI.
1 - .0 4 I III4 .4 Q I A a. a O ‘4 - 4 . I r I. I. I ‘ I I a I n
*J .o‘ Id 4&5 d! .kbv.\~.»h I: 4 II“ 4.I. . O 4 4-.. . I II . I. J II I I 4 I III §‘ LII I“. III II.

r .4 4. I ..~4.44.44V44 .....1....I. c4I..4..4 SQI- ‘ .n .0\Iv. & 4. \I N.
W I. . 4. *anmM‘ w34pvmukuwvm134¢o14fimwmhv«Tanfwr...4W... ..94 Waéfiwflmdwz-L In. 4 wk LVUHXIWIMPWHM hum. «W... (AH/«Mm SUI. «4.4;. 4.9.Iuflh*u.4.:4o.4444.14Iw

'. 4 0-. .o I I (I 46.. 4 . I I I. 4- - .1. ....II .0 4. c o ‘I O 4.V - ‘4. I I." o . . I I 4
- 4.- 44., . . 4... .. 4944.44.44..._..4.4..44.44....1.4.4. 4. x. 4 ..9 ”..., 4” ... .4 4.4T. .32. 5.4:... .4. 449,44... 4. . 4. .4 4. 444443.”..- 4444 2.4.9.444 -.....
N. do .4454; 9.44.. 4. 4- 4. .. 44. «44.49.43. 54%-.{9 4.. 44.4.44? .4 ......3 4.4.4.-.. 4 .24.... M4344. 44.4- 4 . 44s- . 4.4 .4

. . \ o .. C 4... III.“ 4 ... r I 4 a 4 II 4.. I I.0 In 0 \I 4 St I 4 n . I o 4‘
II . 4 . I.” 4.....nII n. A. 4 ..4..)44 ..J1t . 4 4. ..I. 4. . .4". 4. I. pI .4 I. II Wu. . .I.4 .4.... I I . II- 0’. {WW-x4
.r. .44.. “mm-m3... 44.1444“?- 45 ... . .4 44%.! uh«u4».4vaM.r4.n.II44..4-4KI.I fluvwfiig-W ....uI: {ways w.I4.4..4IM..MIN 4w.“ ..4 Id uvfinvmfmuvmwfi #1434425». .Nm» Lnnw
' . I I .4 4..m'w.c-IV ID ...4 I; I ..-. ‘l. .I I . .o I .0... 20.0).- 4 I 4.. 4.0.9 ...I \a. C v. ‘4 . I I‘ l‘ 40k...» .5. Q ‘ ‘- I 4 A
M494: . . 4 4. . .. 4L 4 4 .. .4 . ..4. a: . 4 41.44fim34.4.&.....444w444449fl.w4%4.4-44in .4”, 34.x 4m9_..4..4.4.44.4m4w2tww94n4.v 4.44.3.3 4.44%??? ..“4144M..u...93{»4444 4.x... .4.-4.34.42-44.44 Mn .2. 44..
4 . .II. 4. . ml... .I I . 444.745-44I NIP... . 4 4 .. 43.. 4. - ...-4 411.44 . ..4.-3.2.. 4 4. 4.4- _. 44-44.44.44594... .4 4:4,. .. 44a . . .4 . ...u 4 4- I444 44.4 ...IkfiXAI 4 ..4.
«unwram 4.45444 a..- .4444} Lurk-4.434 g???» 4.42 44.4w... . 4.4».xsflvuumwm.4:nmflqwmxau“4.. ...amwwfiunu .mwmwimhfl :me 4.. «Kim... 44m .. [our .4.-«144.34% 44“.. w.“ Hue-mat...» «mu .. 4 4a.. 44.34%.-.-
4I‘4I43 OII 4- ".01. I 4IH040 IN - . 4 o ’I ..1‘4‘04 4 i I k. .4 4 .4 s u :4II I IN.” .WIK IIQI. .0. I19.- JA l..ul.;. . I .4 I. 10.. IO IUWUR“ H o u. a ..0 4 .4 .|.h 93.44. I ... ..4.-.\ I. “0 III IWIQI I“) I A 0'! I.I. 044\I.
...» ma .4 49.4. 4.4.. 4.4.9 .- .4....44-«4.44_4.m 43%.. . $43944 . .4 {45.4 ....u.._..4.....444....- {m 4m. 4.4T.- ..4.-41.44 4.4.4.4.. .9 - - .4..4.»..n...-.4»._4 .. «4449.34.45.99 444.4 a. I... .4.-.3 4.. 4
Qr‘IVII 4. .de1 Q In 15“.. r r 47:. ’ff‘.. 1' 4h- 0 I {I '- n. - I 4 . n w I. .If‘ Ixafl I“? on ou‘V'Ihux-L. h“.§0..,\Wo‘wru.Jc‘4u JON-00ml“ . JV...”.IOII I .0 1MLI0‘U .vnu‘htfi‘a‘ .0. 5.07,.miwnnwu'foildw sh .UubI-4W...“N. “I” IIIIIImI\II*I‘v.fiH’.I’3II’ "VFJO I . ‘ .....w
I on. I II I - _ 4 . . I IIAIW ...I II. ..thlaél affix-LI I4; II ...)U ...-P“. .I~I «I: I.“ ‘A .I.. .I. Ind I “5.454‘440. N o 5. . I “LII IOIl-V‘O I I. 0.x. 43" I...
Iw ’ . , 4 4 a. 0. ..II I 4 (he IN.I.VI.‘.. uafiflufifl I.MIIILI 4 VOYI. II n 4 «V a a. .II WIN. . \IIV. .vn (any-q. b u-Ih’. It 4. .4 .I‘fl-n «I g
‘4 “I 4 . 4 4. ‘It a I I‘I 4 Ron I M \ WA It‘d" 1.1-II4. .nwp \ 44h :1 I I.“ .. 0 J4 u-4II I' .A l u no, . ‘1? .I ¢_.-IIII.I 4‘
...} r . I qIflaonmflth&Mqu.Nfi4 «WLrIofivtIUluw sI chLatnnvuhnurnfilwwlaouwIwH: «II-III. II“). VOMWW.¢ h-I vhddfi‘flIIHH‘IINHNMHIN II- 1...".II 0+. ..h‘n ’3 .
4' .I I ..4. st 44 4. .o.....h...7a..4 4 ..4.: s. .34“ I4...- 4 IIHII JITII. 4 4. 4.. .I.wr I.I.. 40 . ..4. .I o ...4.
I I. ..Ib... .. .uHIJW I? 4 “I I .- .4 no‘ . I . I4. II).I. 4 IwI .II .....I4> I. . v1 1:4»..qu o 4 I 1N! I44 L ‘14.! \VIII
“4 .4 Qt... Wow-«ADI» III-M Elia? IWH....).$.1 )Woffnmo Ilfl-nmhutiuflqfiwhafio “..huu .I IV 44.0%.». .I lIrIII‘NT‘obHIIr {In 4’ r 4*” «\I... IIIl . I.” Ind.
€040.44- 44-4.4.4-”me. HZKI tuAt I\o4 ....> 44%! In. ... MIMI. II.I . ...IIIVII I ..4. «£44. Iv IrIlI I «......Iu 5.5.50 .I .. ...». -NthYT.‘
.4447. I... ._ .4uuwI.n4....4n4rIuan444 48.. .6 4.444.?»4«w4Iu.mVJnu -quIwma-unw... min». "I .umdkdam..- 4.4... . {...-4%... 4 44n4.4x. ...Xfihqsrfin. .II..
7.. .4.. D ..J‘Mf 4...-4 .3... IIJHW 4 w .I ‘ . 04‘1 .~. ‘46.}... ..4. II - ’4 .04 IJIII. 4.4 I I. IA- II. 4.!- 4. I I I ...."Ib ..II ..0 n.-
.. 244.434.4444. . 4.24%.”..59424. .4 I...............a44m4mu4~.4.44.4.3.x...«...-4.4%,. .w4.-4....u_4m4-4..4...4.-..4....4544424wmmqv4. .44....- .. 344%”?-
. dub-m4 Winn-4e ..4:_.H.,.&.w«....4 .I.4_m44....4.4n4um44.44.444.44%. 4.3.4.... 4 .9 4.4.4443 «flavufi.m._Jw..n...4.4;4.444.uvI mm 43.»...- 414444444 «4.94.4? ..n. 4 :4...ka
.. - .4.. UV . . 5M”. 04.U#W..o... 4.. ”LLIE 4). .l 4-.ufiv4Iw .3Ifl In. 4 . 4. - ..II.QI .HJ LIV. Mu.- ”WI ..I. ..I.IIII\I IEFIILIH . H. wn‘v 1.1 III- INKI40444
4 I I ... I'IA‘imdm.Fu¢I I .WW. .4 oui ‘fl-hin ..4. .III gunmfitI. v.‘ aflfiIII.I 5.4.41 «\ofiIIw.I4.Io.p4IIuI .I v... |-\o 1);“. Q 4 “.I‘Iixo «Wu-GIN - IIaoo-m
. . "am 4. m 44- 4 at.” 1—.qu “‘3; ago“ 4.4.0.. .4“. IMIJ1.4\ {.HIIJ .Ivt‘ 1v In . .0 coco‘u49..c \ o 4044 1“. .w‘!.‘ J. aw» . I IAIN ”duo- .- I.» nII “J4 ,
. .. I4wI ... “I II . .. I I. . ”4.. .On 4 I4. Ion.“ #3: .h4I I}... I flan.» QIP‘.'4.\. “gill‘.c‘4~ P I. 4 .044h .I‘-«I.I 44
. Ilfs v If.‘ N“ .01.... 4L1”! . 40. , Y-uuUr-rrvuxnth Lfiw InLHI‘flI/mewpi-fnmwfi. . WWHwfi. twwlwmfi.‘ saw. I . Ivu4lr.flhheru.ur..r1w.nvév “fitfio «MIQHI ‘ulflVhM.Mh«--.mi .o.‘ v.‘.IthH.
04-- . . I .l' I» I. v 0.. .4. '4. r1. 4... I .I . III I n a ..4.. II 4 IN I I - II II
.... Mama. .4.... .4-.- 4.. A... 9-433944 $444.36}. 440944444 44444.44. A. - m4 . - 4? c4“.3.444.444”4444-\n,444m4 "M4444...u44.4.4.4444.244 .. 4.3.4.”...
I I I r. . I .HI .4 I - I... .I‘u Io. 44 II n 4 .Q . I J. I “I I Ll -
I I; 4 “WNW“..“VHMH . - O“ a .Irdul‘fi. HI l..vl:0.fl.~... NLQI~H£QNI\U4‘“SIHNVWWOD ”MIA I “MINI-OM... ”crum- NnIn ‘4“. . ”Jinx! “4.1. I# W We "”1“ ”IIW‘HWI 3‘ MN!!!” II’II I
u, , :r .I4-4 .....N..:h .4 I I . ..4.. 4 ..w4r..4.u& Irina...» tr 4 4..-. m... ..4.? 443474. IF. L 4 .I- - » ..V -4 I4. .I. I. - II If“: 4.. I 3&4
4 34$” 4. mrfltdIJc. w» . ... I 4. 4 4.4.1.... 4..- fab-......fuamII I n 4L44ro~ ‘IJP444HII I A. If. .A I. I. 4 .Ko... Ir 4 I I I44 I .4.).TI. {4 I
. . v.44! .14 I - I ..mv «L ”I. .4 4 . .. .4441. - 4 It ..I 4 . .34. I II4. ... a It: . 11.44%! o. 4.2““. 44.4.II I.. 4 4
. , . _R.. IonianimfitI 3 4.. «I. 4 4 a 4. . 44-1) I. o A 4.1% v ... 41.4 .4.. o . I I :0 .I .4 4 a 44.5 I gm 1 I. 04$
4 4. 4. . ...;Hfihw...- .....I I... 4 . WI: ’51.- ‘444 m III IIIIII 4. I 0.. 43 :45.- ..)44 A—Ii. Isu o‘\ . I. I I 4 II
LN”. I ,4 . I . I. .541on .1. 4% ‘4”. IN”. II! ‘ IL '5. odd". I 1 hi I“ d a»... V.- II 0.. u VIM fluolflh I . .. - .I . I
II I‘IIHII. . . 4 . 4 IA! 4004- v INS: I. 4. \o 4 II .II .lhn. sin. 0 in .fi‘ I 9. ul. :1 b‘fiiVJD-Z . .I '14 § . I 4a 9 OeI «.9 a. ”an. Q a ‘9“: I 'I I nId .4“
2.44443 . 4. . :4.- .4.... . 443.49 . . .4“ .- 44 m9 .24.... 4.. 4 x4 4 44 4 4 44. v 5.4.9. .4 .444. 434.94%: 4.4... 4. - . - rt.-
o - .4 . 4 II I I. 4 4n 4 . 4 M 4 I o .1 lo I. .I In I. I «,4. . -109-.. Iv! IIIJI IIIIP‘I”). 0
I\I.IIV..\II4.H. twnonunafiur J I. a... 11mg». ..9 4.4. 4 44, . 4 .. II .5 mvw I . m. 3,2... . i L ”..4.... “PI. .4400 ...«fi I...I4\ I $.03. . I... 4... .m. 4... Van 4 .30... 43.1 K
II 4,. I I . .fl I ‘5 . g. A M $st oJRI’IIh var 4 a... .- 4 ( I o 4+1 d.- I? M I. I‘ 3.4? Q.I IV4Q l. l 4 II It. lu‘ . .0 MRI» 0.. L I. I I -IMIQ‘IUI \ I. - I ¥ N
[’4‘ 4 . a .lI III... . 04 .4' I .IH "II-.442 ‘4 I ~‘ .06 '4‘ '\ It! .w\ ~ I 0 I 5 . b ~..In~ *‘ I lg»... DIS .I OI. ‘-
. 4. 2}“ . . WHIP-.3I2 .4 4 4. .I 4...». 340.24.. L I 4 4. e wold... 4 s 4 44 I 4 I 4 I“... a I- 4/. 44h“; - .4.-3&4? 4 v I? .. . 4 .1? I I.
.I I val -4 o I. $5!- . V .0 0 1H ..QN-.4uva .r ..940.‘ . . )\~w 0700 I. I. ,hnhfl III ‘ id .1! ‘l I I III Q. ’F n . I O - \ .4. Q . ~Il'. I t\ I II t :0 i“- in
.- r” .0 “us“. I fiI 0%“: I9. 5:“. 4r .I..F III... 40‘ 4‘ n.‘ ... 4m .90‘\ I I I‘! Q III .0 ‘ I.I I). I - 04‘ I’pI‘I‘I ‘ ‘o 9 p06 4! iIIOI. I A A. 1' .I . 4 4‘7‘ 0
HIM-42.1.244- r 4.444. 4.... ”LT-4......43mwum.4.. 44444.... 4. v.4; xxx-.4....“ {maulerw -....4..4«»..w-,4h_. . wwwéimwwflin 51-... 3.4.3.44... Lawns”... .4 .4... 4.”... I
.I. "4.... {goanuanII-M» IWN \Jq..o...v”va' ”I.” 4 1...“me 4.30%. 14. Jun-III... H?.u\ In Wu“) IO. *IruvIwwWIn. p o. 4 4..~ IIIW‘NH. fivuvi~u.m. “PM” I§obctwmIoI I VkOflIrflmfl 0.rIvI-.4n~..u.o¢4 2. I 4.04.0.1“ u 4‘ r I.I.»I.D I“ 5h
4-4.2 AM‘ u .fldnlfiam .r ‘0 I. .S-II-I‘I 0-. I--.I I; 4...»! L I 4.474..“ {.4 94:; .. .I. M.-..6.4IO\.&N I JII I 4 It... 14"“ 4 ..I. a... .I 1‘ sz .- ..r4.\I IqIV .4.. 4““... I .II In.& ID I. '04. 00 a... I ..I .l I}
.4 .....iéfit ...... 4-. .Wu v4. 44.442.44.444I 124.44.42.34 . 344:.- ..44.....» v.3 4.4m. 4.4444 ... 3.1-... 4 tr". 4? 4.4 .3449... J: .. .. .4. . 4; .4 _ . 4- :4 \4 44 44.34444 -4-
II II .... fl. \ p I 4 "‘5! .4 .54. 4 .I4. uo4d|h N .OuIzI I IV... I nl4.~.u..w.§’ I . H‘ 944+: 4- I... a N" D "I. u 4. . II ”I ..V . ‘.I‘ .| ' «4 I4O4‘I-I
. 4mm. 4.4.4.54 ...-...Iltmfiflwfimflflzpmfiwuk :I A .4"...b!o4.44 n .4 .4 .. .44.! .4, km . 4 ...-... 3.0“. .h . - u .41.... 44* ...-I. 4444.33.54.“ I.. u n T 4». Inm.-.4\.1 I23... .4 4 I ... JP... ..I- 41. a
4 2 gr: 4. 2.43;..34. La. hang-.4.... ammumym £3.45 . :24 Jammufiw I ....mub4flm14u4m - «4.... w... 4w.-44Iw444»§.44 «45.4.4.5..“444444ni....wrn-T..I.I 4.. ..I444W-flm94... .31.».4...
. .,I.¢.UrII$.H.Inw44I$ .. ,rI. any. a 4.4.4.3.»: . . 11 in“, 4.4 Infirwptsfl- 44 3.74.4...»434 744-44....“ ...» ...ro I . 4?. .5. 4.I..I 434..-... a «ILSFTIP. m--. 4 .J.\ .- .. 4I.
.4 '4’ . I” . .4 U . I . . 4 ~IWI.’ 4‘4 4....-.IM.‘ I FJDI ...-odpaodM-h . ‘II ..INUI4 4. .. .m‘vfwfpvu. O I‘. N.'~‘_I..MLW \chI\ ‘4 4 .0464. J “J hr Infla‘HIflNM A‘ofinflo} HM“
. a . I I. I ..0“. .- I‘ ‘ 0.0... ....Iu. '4 «Is,- I. 4‘ . I .v. 4.). 4 . Ii‘. 9 Iv... out. .0 \I ..I4 MK “III. o I.I4 .II- I... -..Iou‘
. I . . 9$4‘.-w%uw.p JJII I-IET A.I.IW¢ If‘JI'I. < .. 41-06Ib ‘04.. I I II; ... ...l o .I‘II
4 . 4": . 4 . .. 4.. . .5494... r4. .4 .44....44 4.1.4.44. 4 I 54.4 ...L w. 1% .... k .--.4 I44. 54“-. .2 . '4‘ _. 4 4
. . +3-4“... 44.N:-mwx.m.u924:4444.“.4uL-w...44.4m..m..2..44 .w...4..4...4--m..m4.-..4m44..4... 4 444.22? 4.43m... .24 44.44-44.44.” .44..444....4...444..I.L44..4.4..74.
.0. 1.31.. .Lvfirwm www4I4,\o-.fluuw.r.l p . I. I.r~..£&.14a~mu.u4 .4... ..‘w... {X‘wHo-I I III... , «2440. .4. .I.. It if.l§n\v. \- — v.1 I “74-51.! 4%...-
L.IL..- :9...“ .44.. «wn‘344mJI-44 IHM-‘w .. but.» 44wfi33fl 7541333.! In. ....qu a. III.I I. III" IIIHJI.“ 4III ..IIIflIunII. .9 ..M 4II? .4 4m.
”2'”! 41.2.... 4wfixiri . ~44. .4.- t..4 4. I].. I. 54...," ........I..~.oI.-l.40.4 ‘ .3 «3.145. «4&14443 \ 4?... . .u .IAHWIV ‘44.). a . ...-4 I a V.
...v . .u 4 ‘k‘ufil I . Vow 1.x...6hJu‘nI .1 n 5 ..ko' p «I i-Ifu .4 u a... 91. k0.).’ I. I" llII.‘ IIor '41 .5 T .In. 0. 9 HO bus’.‘ I 0‘ .
cat. n “I? . \fl‘l’u OI {.- JIO“ .0: WIN 4. h w. d a... QN‘ Ow‘ I I 'Ib %‘ .o 4 ,\ . ..I I 4 HUI II. .46“ -. I I. . I a"
I... «.0 m IAPQI . .49 44 QT. . 4.44 Q 41. I . I \I.‘ 10 . I - D D.I .II.I\- . I I II I I I r I I...‘ \‘A. A O l .
“WWI-44v.” wuqhwmudwuwumxnonumwflwms. ...”uwdxvflwflikfl MRI. .«mru.«1«44.»09.n..4 4M “41%“. wnumfiow. .3444.- IIImthf dfifl‘... JNQ‘34HHIVhI4uIIJ4 M“ 4 mm
HIM-$4 .- I. .4 a m. 3.. hbMHIq a. TubsfihmmnfikhILMIMII.» ..44 ..wmuan.....+4}I.4...¢3v4014I.Im.. - .M .45 pIY~Tfi$MI4I 4- “V". 4:34 1|... 4 . .5th r
£4... 439.44%»: 4.: .. 434.21.142.29443. 2.4.3444. u. .1é4ofl4uafi-z .4.. .4“ An. $4434 any. ....fig .4 I .- . ....v I. - ..I
. I a II . OI 4- I o 4 ..
A...

4-5"
6

I ~ I u o. I. A. 5“ .u 4v .
4. .Imi..n...| roI4fi4‘V4 I .IWI4WW . a4h4444..w.u. 3.0.. I!!! d-II.M - P. I I I4. 4 I .4 .
-.. “Mex IMNIOJW. I Lu-HIV WuIkuI Mb .nhuorvw (no, ....C huh. ngcpa LII-v.4 o .hWQIn-JI“~ firficuflll- Ham”. “3 4
. II .I I: I

   

Io.w.«

32“.“
A. b

4 ..r...4.,.4...£..444444« use. 4., .4.. 4. 4 ......4. . 4.. - 2.44%...- 44:424. .4.. . 4.x... 4 .4 4 4.4 4 44%}. .
...-4:, m....$...¥.....n.m4~4.44 ...mb.m..$_ n4~4444w44w 4.443. 44.53% S 4.3.... .....44454. ..L. 443.442.”... 3%.“.
4....gawfir»...w¢m 4...muvrpmwufwfifiwfimfi.&mL.-¢x 4 . .. 34-9 4 -. 4 ...4 4. .IaM.4.4-444W44.44C . v?.o.«..¢.... -. 4.»

'l I! I I OI...‘ ”I‘I DIOVI A wt.
5.! AI IA.I ...-v 1‘ 59.4.1 ‘ xflI a . III I In. ,‘I .0 VI 9% III II o ‘2‘? CI.‘ w.» 4‘ ..\I I0. .Jl I|Ju
. ...”trumvaJHuMQAuAI #44 4.245.444.4Tw. 4.4.4.4..444...vw_44x._...M4444%m1 ..wfiwhwmflw .4.. 449.45 {5.1%. ..4.: 4.... 444...»...I4Isim42
.. u ... . ff!" II n O 4» . . I . I. I .0 . .II. b d .1 4o I . 4 . 4 L.‘ 0 1M ... 3‘ , I II
4...... ..I v.4 "lintim IE4...4..M\IJ4...¢ ...«4. 4.31.5.4... ......4.L..\~u4. .H 4.4...» X4.\.M4.dwfiw4.~.mw .4... I wwnfi? r. 1.4444 .Iwkééhwm.‘
. . 0 M p; .I A “lgfidmfl WDWTOQH,INI'. 4 JP." Q I—uAbo '0“. Q. - .00.": I .vn'III.I.v'I OI . .fi .wt,‘_4v 1-7..“ ‘4 O£.Mm)§llw"t IQ C JIF‘l IanI o
40%” . ....) II . 4.; I.o§mn.4 HI VINO. NIIIJWDWWWrNa. 0 I nk.o~( .V... VII .LT. . I I IIII ‘0 o . . .I . .n. .v I I
I a b v . .

-'I
F-‘I
.

n I. :44 I. .4 I 4 :0 .

4w“.- 4... .... . .- ..4. . . 4. .44444444MI4....4.?. Han anu... 4
almammuvwwmlfomrwxrn) Imnnfifiwwtang-.»I.Wfim4 .4443. .. uni. . 4
I . I a .. 44‘ .IO.. 4‘. .v.

I 4 . I. I 44 ..X..\I ...-.4 #4 41%|”. 44 I nommwvw4¢ .I .I” 4
15%...tu.*.31. ...mmmtfiwnrkmwwmmmrmfwflwvmz an“... “44% a. . 4: 5.54.52. 4 . 4

’

||.

‘I .L' I III.

UNIVERSITY LIB

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 01409 922

ms LIBRARY
Z. Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Linking Characteristics of the Adolescent Mothers to
the Context in which Parenting Occurs: A Study on
Adolescent Mothers and Their School-aged Children
of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

presented by

Seungwon Chung

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph,D degreein Family and Child Ecology

Ma r professor

Date \z//j/~/Z_f

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thle checkout from your record.
TO AVOID F INES retum on or before date due. K...— ...—«-

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'L". 21 2:2
{.0 51 5 0‘1
34.3 3 II I
/--a!£'3 912:4 c:

 

 

“‘IWICJ
:32 233 09100
173.0701

_05;_~:II II I

usu IeAn Affirmative Action/Ewe! Opportunity Inetttmton
W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”3-9.1

— —_.__—

LINKING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADOLESCENT MOTHERS TO THE
CONTEXT IN WHICH PARENTING OCCURS:A STUDY ON ADOLESCENT
MOTHERS AND THEIR SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN OF THE

NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF YOUTH

BY

Seungwon Chung

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1995

ABSTRACT

LINKING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADOLESCENT MOTHERS TO THE
CONTEXT IN WHICH PARENTING OCCURS: A STUDY ON ADOLESCENT
MOTHERS AND THEIR SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN OF THE
NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF YOUTH

BY

Seungwon Chung

The primary purpose of the present study was to
identify factors that may influence the quality of care
adolescent mothers provide for their children. The factors
related to the children’s cognitive and behavioral outcomes
were also examined. The analysis in this study was based on
566 children (341 African—American, 225 Caucasian), who were
10 to 17 years-old, from the National Longitudinal Survey
of Youth (NLSY) merged mother-child data set.

Results showed that maternal characteristics at the
beginning of the study influenced the life-course of the
mother, and contexts in which the children were reared,
namely, marital relationships, level of family income, and
number of children in the household. Both maternal
characteristics and contextual factors influenced the
mothers' caregiving practices, and ultimately the
developmental outcomes of their children. Based on
regression analysis, mothers who had higher levels of
intelligence and self—esteem provided better quality home

environments. Children who had higher scores in two PIAT

Seungwon Chung
reading measures tended to come from more supportive home

environments and had mothers who were more intelligent.

Copyright by
SEUNGWON CHUNG
1 9 9 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deep appreciation to many
people who have contributed to the completion of this
doctoral dissertation.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the contribution of
Dr. Thomas Luster, my committee chairperson, and
dissertation director, who consistently challenged me
intellectually, and who demonstrated and required excellent
standards of scholarship. Without his support,
encouragement, and trust in my ability, I could not have
completed this dissertation.

I Sincere appreciation is extended to other members of my
committee, Dr. Ames and Dr. Youatt. Their contribution and
guidance throughout my graduate program is deeply
appreciated. I also want to thank Dr. Raudenbush for his
methodological assistance.

I would like to acknowledge the Center for Human
Resource Research at The Ohio State University in Columbus,
Ohio, for making it possible for me to use the secondary
data set, NLSY, for my dissertation.

My thanks is also extended to the College of Human

Ecology for supporting me through assistantships during my

master’s and Ph.D program.

I would like to express my appreciation to all of my
family and in-laws who have provided endless support and
encouragement. I want to acknowledge my brother—in-law,
Yoon Seon Hong, for his technical assistance. I am
extremely grateful to my parents, Sang Jin Chung and Min
Jung Park who throughout the years have completely and
unselfishly given of themselves and taught me to work and
not to give up. I particularly thank my mother who
patiently and sincerely took care of my son during my
absence.

What's more, my son, Hyunki, who at the age of three,
somehow understood that this long task had to be completed.
In his own way, he continuously provided inspiration, joy,
and strength to work. And, last, but most important, I
would like to acknowledge the contribution of the person who
has meant the most to me --- Joo Sung Kim. He has been a
constant source of support to me during this doctoral
program. He believed in me even when I had neither strength
nor faith to do so. For his love, patience, sacrifice, and

support, I am most grateful.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ...........................
Purpose of the Study ..........................
Rationale for the Present Study ...............
Conceptual Model ........... . ..................
Conceptual and Operational Definitions ........
Assumptions ....................................

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Effect of the Maternal Characteristics and
Contextual Factors on the Achievement and
Adjustment of Children Born to Teenage Mothers ..
Combined Influence of Maternal and Contextual
Factors on Maternal Behavior ..................
Effect of Maternal Behavior on Children’s

Achievement ............................. .....

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY
Research Design .. ....................... . ......
Research Hypotheses .................. . .........

Research Questions ..... ... ...................

vii

14

16

17

25

31

39

40

43

Sample Selection ..... ................... .......
Sample Characteristics ..........................
Measures ................. ................ ......

Data Analyses ............... ..... .............

CHAPTER IV - RESULTS
Ethnic Group Differences .......................

Differences in Maternal and Contextual Factors ...
Differences in HOME and Children’s Outcomes ......

Relations among the Predictor Variables ...........
Correlates of Maternal and Contextual Factors to the
Quality of Home Environments .....................
Multiple Predictors of the Quality of
Home Environment ................................
Correlations between Maternal and Contextual Factors
and the Children’s Outcomes. .....................
Multiple Predictors of the Children’s Outcomes ....
Home Environment and Maternal Intelligence as
Predictors of Children’s Academic Achievement ....
Paths of Influence ................................

Summary of Results .......... ..... .................

CHAPTER V - DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Factors Related to the Home Environment ...........
The Relation between Characteristics of Mothers in
1979-80 and the Context in which Parent-Child

Transaction Occurs in 1990 . ..... ................

viii

43

46

48

53

56

57
60

62

66

69

72

76

81

84

88

98

102

Factors Related to Individual Differences in
Children’s Outcomes ............................ 104
The Relation between the Home Environment and
Children’s Outcomes ............................ 107
Implications ..................................... 109
Limitations ...................................... 112

Suggestions for Future Research ................... 114

APPENDIX A - Measures of Home Environment ............. 116
Behavior Problem Index ................... 118
Peabody Individual Achievement Test ...... 125

APPENDIXB-Tables ...O......OOOOOO......OOOOOOOOO.... 137

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 142

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Tables

1.

2.

3.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Sample Descriptions

ANOVAS for Differences between African-American
and Caucasian Subsamples in Predictor Variables

Chi-square Analyses for Differences between
African-American and Caucasian Subsamples

ANOVAS for Differences between African-American
and Caucasian Subsamples in HOME Scores and
Children’s Outcomes

Relations among the Predictor variables for
Overall Sample

Relations among the Predictor variables for
African-American Subsample

Relations among the Predictor variables for
Caucasian Subsample

Zero-Order Correlations: The Relations between
the Predictor Variables and the Quality of the
Home Environment

Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors of the
Quality of the Home Environment (HOME 1990)

Relations between the Predictor Variables and the
Children’s Outcomes

Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors of the
Children’s Outcomes

Multiple Regression Analyses: The Quality of
Home Environment and Maternal Intelligence as
Predictors of Children’s Achievement

Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors of the
Quality of the Home Environment (HOME 1990 -

X

Page

46

57

58

6O

63

64

65

67

70

73

77

83

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Unstandardized Betas)

Zero-Order Correlations: The Relations between
the Predictor Variables and the Quality of the
Home Environment (HOME 1986)

Zero-Order Correlations: The Relations between
the Predictor Variables and the Quality of the
Home Environment (HOME 1988)

Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors of the
Quality of the Home Environment (HOME 1986)

Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors of the
Quality of the Home Environment (HOME 1988)

Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors of the
Children’s Outcomes (Unstandardized Betas)

xi

137

138

138

139

140

141

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
1. Conceptual Model
2. Path Model for African-American Subsample
3. Path Model for Caucasian Subsample

4. Conceptual Model Revisited

xii

Page

86
87

99

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

During the last several decades, a considerable amount
of attention has been focused on the issue of adolescent
pregnancy and its consequences for the children born to
these mothers. An abundance of recent literature, mainly
focused on infants, has pointed to the deleterious effects
for adolescent mothers (mothers who began childbearing
during their teenage years are referred to as "adolescent
mothers" or "teenage mothers" regardless of their current
age, hereafter) and their children. Investigations into the
reasons for poor outcomes in these children have led to
ideas about the factors that might be responsible, but they
do not deeply explore the nature of the relationships among
these factors.

Though the empirical base is limited, several studies
have suggested that school-aged children of adolescents
exhibit more behavioral problems and score lower on
intellectual tests than school-aged children of older
mothers (Dubow & Luster, 1990; Furstenberg, Brooks—Gunn, &

Morgan, 1987). However, it is not clear why these children

2
have more developmental problems. Whether the antecedents
of these children’s behavioral and cognitive problems lie in
the mother-child interaction, the absence of a father
figure, socioeconomic disadvantage, the lack of support
system, or all of these variables is yet undetermined.

Several studies have looked at the characteristics of
the person at time 1 and examined how these are related to
the context in which the parent-child relationship occurs at
time 2 (Caspi, Elder, and Bem, 1987, 1988; Polansky, Gaudin,
Ammons and Davis, 1985). In these studies, it is clear that
differences in the mothers’ characteristics ("who they
are"), contribute to vastly different childrearing
environments, which in turn, influence children's behavior.
In other words, characteristics of the person influence
parenting indirectly, through the context in which parenting
occurs, as well as directly (Luster and Okagaki, 1993).

As the evidence on this issue continues to accumulate
due to the availability of more and more longitudinal data,
it becomes clear that more information is needed on what
factors account for parenting behavior and child outcomes.
This research will help us to better understand the
relationships between the characteristics of mothers and
their parenting behavior, and the combined influence of
maternal characteristics and contextual factors on the

developmental outcomes of their children.

3

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study is to identify
factors that may influence the quality of care adolescent
mothers provide for their children, 10-years-old and older.
The study also focuses on how characteristics of the mother
in 1979-1980 (maternal intelligence, self-esteem,
delinquency, and age at first birth) affect characteristics
of the mother (maternal self-esteem and level of education)
and characteristics of the context (marital relationship,
number of children, and level of income) in 1987-1990.
Moreover, the study also examines how these maternal
characteristics and contextual factors relate to the
children's outcomes (in 1990) when the quality of home
environment is controlled. The child outcomes of interest
are cognitive competence and behavioral adjustment.

The reasons for focusing only on mothers are: first,
the availability of maternal variables in the NLSY data set;
second, studies have shown that mothers, rather than
fathers, on average have more influence on children's
development (Bigner, 1989).

An impressive body of work has been generated which
addresses the issue of what accounts for individual
differences in parenting behavior. However, Luster and
Okagaki (1993) write in their review article on multiple

influences on parenting:

4

To understand who the parent is today. we have to
look at who the parent was. where thegparent was.

and what the parent was doing in the years prior to

parenthood (p.30).

The present study considers maternal characteristics as
a part of the history of the mother that she brings to the
situation, and examines the relationship between maternal
characteristics and the contexts in which parenting occurs.

This study will examine the possibility that five
maternal characteristics assessed at the beginning of the
study are predictive of the context in which parenting
occurs ten years later. The four maternal characteristics
are: intelligence, self-esteem, delinquency, and age at
first birth. It seems reasonable that these characteristics
may influence the life-course of the mother, and thus, the
circumstances in which the children are reared. For
example, maternal intelligence may influence level of
education attained, and thus whether or not the mother and
her children are living in poverty. Other maternal
characteristics, such as age at first birth, could influence
marital status, fertility patterns, and level of income.
Both maternal characteristics and contextual factors, such
as poverty, are likely to influence the mothers’ caregiving

practices, and ultimately the developmental outcomes of

their children.

The research objectives of this study are to:

1. Examine which maternal characteristics predict the

5
quality of the home environment mothers provide.
2. Examine which contextual factors predict the quality of
the home environment mothers provide.
3. Determine if the same factors predict the quality of home
environment provided by African-American and Caucasian
mothers.
4. Determine if maternal characteristics in 1979-1980 are
related to the context in which parenting occurs in 1990.
5. Determine if a variety of maternal characteristics and
contextual factors are related to the children’s outcomes,
when the quality of the home environment is statistically
controlled.
6. Determine if the same factors predict the children's
outcomes of two ethnic groups.
7. Determine if the quality of the home environment is
predictive of children’s academic achievement when maternal

intelligence is statistically controlled.

Rationale for the Present Study

The research design applied to this study is a
multivariate model that permit analysis of maternal and
contextual characteristics that may be associated with the
quality of home environment and children's developmental
outcomes at the same time. A review of the literature shows

that studies investigating the factors that contribute to

6
variation within the quality of care adolescent mothers
provide for their children, and the relation between home
environment and child development in the same study, are
scarce. Most studies have either focused on factors
affecting adolescent mothers' parenting behavior or the
effects of their parenting behavior on child outcome.

The present study also is different from earlier
studies in that it uses a large and longitudinal data set,
whereas most previous studies have utilized small samples
and cross-sectional data. This study is based on a
secondary analysis of the data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). These comprehensive,
longitudinal data provide an opportunity for this study to
incorporate both initial characteristics and experiences of
mothers and their children’s current cognitive and
behavioral outcomes in the conceptual model. These
longitudinal data also permit the researcher to examine the
quality of the home environments at three points in time.
This study should contribute to a more integrated and
comprehensive understanding of the life-course of adolescent
mothers and their children.

Although recent studies have examined factors affecting
adolescents' parenting behavior, most studies have dealt
with infants born to adolescent mothers. However, this
study is distinctive in that it looks at school-aged

children. This enables the researcher to examine the long-

7
term effects of differences among teenage parents. This
study also attempts to investigate the unexplored
connections among the mothers’ delinquency in their teens
(age 14-21 in 1979), the quality of home environment mothers
provide, and eventually the cognitive and behavioral

outcomes of their children.

Conceptual Model

The conceptual model guiding this research was
influenced by Belsky’s (1984) work on the determinants of
parenting, and by research on the life-course of mothers by
Caspi, Elder, and Bem (1987; 1988) and Furstenberg et a1.
(1987). The conceptual model for this study is illustrated
in Figure 1.

This conceptual model contains maternal characteristics
and contextual factors which are two of the important
factors in determining parenting behavior, according to
Belsky. The maternal characteristics that were included in
the conceptual model are maternal intelligence, self-esteem,
age at first birth, and delinquency.

As shown in the conceptual model, maternal
characteristics are likely to have a direct effect on the
quality of the home environment. In addition, maternal
characteristics are expected to have an indirect effect on

caregiving, by influencing the broader social context in

mono: 3:33:69 .N oaammh

 

Emmemmfimm
ééfig {A

ZOF<UDQm m0 Amt/m4

 

 

 

 

 

_
$09.55 N g H< mug; dank;

_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eadie Efim Ems
< < .8 mm; ,3. mo...
$28.50 530% 86623 575502st
EEO r so amt/m: 153...:
II “mm—ZOE A TI

0&3 0&3
Bamzofifimm Emmemmfimm
s, a fig 153...:
moZmoHdEZ
$582.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Azania—V N EH. 84. Hung—.780

 

 

 

253433 — E H.4—
mUpwHMH—Ug 4472512

L

 

 

 

 

9
which the mother-child relationship exists, namely marital
relationships, level of family income, and number of
children in the household. For example, maternal
intelligence may affect how mothers interact with their
children on a daily basis, but it may also influence level
of income, which in turn, influences quality of the home
environment. Maternal self-esteem may influence parenting
behavior directly, and it may also influence parenting
indirectly if self-esteem influences marital quality, or
level of education obtained. Past research has examined how
the context in which parenting occurs influences caregiving
practices, but typically, earlier studies have not attempted
to study how characteristics of parents assessed at earlier
points in time may influence the context in which parent-
child transactions occur. This study attempts to understand
how characteristics of the mothers influence their life-
course trajectories, and how the life-course of the mothers
influences the experiences and opportunities of their
children. Do characteristics of the mother assessed in
1979-1980 help us to understand the circumstances of the
mothers and their children in 1990?

Although the proposed conceptual model has not been
tested in previous studies, earlier research has provided
support for many of the paths in the model, or have
suggested that such relationships may exist. Illustrative

studies that provide support for these paths are noted

10
briefly below.

Maternal intelligence has been found to be related to
the quality of care mothers provide for their children and
to children's IQ level (Longstreth, Davis, Carter, Flint,
Owen, Richert, and Taylor, 1981; Scarr, 1985). In another
study, Hannan and Luster (1991) argued for the importance of
parents’ intelligence in providing a supportive environment
for their children.

Studies of general population samples are in agreement
in that high maternal self-esteem is associated with
positive maternal behavior and favorable child outcomes
(Ricks, 1985: Small, 1988). Several studies also found that
maternal age at first birth was related to the quality of
the home environment. Luster and Rhoades (1989) also have
demonstrated that teenage mothers provide less supportive
care for their infants than mature mothers, when quality of
care is assessed with the HOME inventory. However, a
thorough review of studies about adolescent mothers
concludes as follows: " ... Poor social-economic status,
family support systems, marital stability, nutrition, and
prenatal care may be far more important determinants of
development for these children than the age of their
mothers" (Roosa, Fitzgerald, and Carlson, 1982, p.15).

The effect of the mothers’ delinquent behavior in their
teens is expected to relate to their children's behavioral

outcome. Mothers who themselves were delinquent might be

11
assumed to hold somewhat more permissive attitudes, which in
turn might contribute to their children’s antisocial
behavior. Although research has seldom focused on the
effect of maternal delinquency on their children’s outcome,
the results of Martin and Burchinal’s study (1992) is
consistent with the anticipated findings of the present
study. Martin and Burchinal found an association between
the severity of women’s antisocial behavior in their teen
years and the severity of their children’s emotional and
behavioral problems. Although causal relations could not be
determined, Martin and Burchinal concluded that the effects
of parents’ delinquency were transmitted through their
social ecology, such as their family dysfunction and
undesirable community/neighbors.

Martin and Burchinal’s study is one of few studies to
consider a mother’s previous delinquency as a possible
predictor of parenting behavior. However, they did not test
this hypothesis. Thus, the analysis of relation between
maternal delinquency and parenting behavior is exploratory
to determine whether these variables are related to each
other.

Researchers consistently have found that level of
education completed by parents had a positive effect on the
children’s academic competence (Bradley and Caldwell, 1984;
Menaghan and Parcel, 1991). However, level of education is

confounded with maternal intelligence, and seldom have both

12
variables been utilized in the same study.

The contextual factors that were examined in this
conceptual model include marital relationships, family
income, and number of children. Earlier studies have shown
that marital status of the mother per se, when viewed as an
isolated predictor after SES and race were controlled, was
not related to either the child’s social adjustment or
intellectual functioning (Barocas, Seifer, and Sameroff,
1985). However, characteristics of the context, such as the
quality of the marital relationship, influence the parents'
psychological well-being and their parental behavior
(Belsky, 1984; Emery and Tuer, 1993). These studies
suggested that marital discord may place parents at risk for
negative interactions with children. These interactions may
further place the children at risk for poor adjustment.

Level of family income or poverty status was found to
be a significant predictor of the quality of care adolescent
mothers provide for their children (Hannan and Luster, 1991;
Luster and Dubow, 1990). Poverty is likely to influence
parenting by affecting the parents’ level of psychological
well-being and availability of resources.

In examining the relationship between the number of
children and home environment, studies typically find a
significant correlation. The presence of a greater number
of children in the family is associated with a less

supportive home environment (Blake, 1989; Luster and Dubow,

 

13
1990).

As indicated earlier, the factors that influence the
children’s outcomes also are of interest in this study. One
factor that is likely to contribute to individual
differences among children is the quality of the home
environment in which they are reared. Some factors that may
influence the child indirectly, via the home environment,
also may have a direct effect on child outcomes (or at least
one that is not mediated by home environment). For example,
poverty may affect children's experiences in the home, but
it may also affect children's experiences in the schools and
the neighborhood. Number of children may affect aspects of
experience tapped by the HOME inventory, but may also
influence children's experience in ways not captured by the
HOME.

Similarly, maternal characteristics may have an effect
on child outcomes that are not mediated by HOME environment.
An obvious example is maternal intelligence. Maternal
intelligence is likely to influence caregiving, but it is
also likely to be related to children's cognitive competence
because the mothers and children are genetically related.
Likewise, mothers with a history of delinquency may have
children who display similar behavior due to experience
(e.g., home environment, marital quality), or because of
shared genes, if an antisocial disposition is a heritable

trait.

 

14
One of the difficulties of this study is that none of
these predictor variables occur in isolation. Rather, they
are intertwined, so that it is difficult to disentangle the

separate effects of these variables.

Conceptual and Operational Definitions

The following section will provide definitions of the
major variables used in this study. Operational definitions
will follow the conceptual definitions. In this study, the
adolescent mother is conceptually defined as a women who was
less than 20 years of age at the time of the birth of the
first child. The dependent variables are the children’s
cognitive competence and behavioral adjustment. The
predictor variables are maternal intelligence, maternal
self-esteem, maternal age at first birth, maternal
delinquency, quality of the marital relationship, level of
family income, number of children, and level of education.
Home environment is viewed as a mediating variable that is
influenced by maternal characteristics and the context, and

in turn, influences child outcomes.

MATERNAL INTELLIGENCE: Conceptually this is defined as
the ability to learn and understand or to deal with new
situations. Maternal intelligence was measured by the Armed
Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). This test was
administered to all the mothers in the 1980 phase of the
study (U.S. Department of Defense).

15

MATERNAL SELF-ESTEEM: Conceptually this is defined as
one’s perception of self—worth or value. The mother’s level
of self-esteem is scored on Rosenberg’s 10-item self-esteem
scale (Rosenberg, 1965), administered in 1980 and 1987.

MATERNAL DELINQUENCY: Conceptually this is defined as
mothers' violation of the law or social norms while still a
minor. Operationally, this refers to mother’s self-reports
of delinquency from the 1980 surve . This is a self report
measure of the mother’s participation in any delinquent
activities such as skipping school or running away from home
(17 questions) during the previous 12 month period.

MARITAL RELATIONSHIP: Conceptually this is defined as
the quality of relationship between couples. This was
measured by 13 questions in three areas: global happiness
with marriage (1 item), communication between spouses (3
items), and marital discord (9 items).

MATERNAL BEHAVIOR: This is defined as the quality of
the childrearing environment provided by the mother for her
child. Operationally, mothers were interviewed and observed
to complete the Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment - Short Form (HOME-SF: see_Appendix A) (Baker
and Mott, 1989).

CHILDREN'S ACADEMIC COMPETENCE: Conceptually this is
the ability to perform at a specified level on intellectual
skills such as reasoning, problem solving, and recalling.

It was measured through 3 different subscales of the Peabody
Individual Achievement Test (PIAT; see Appendix A):
Mathematics Assessment, the PIAT Reading Recognition, and
the PIAT Reading Comprehension (Dunn and Markwardt, 1970).

CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS: Conceptually this is
the ability or the lack of ability to function in various
roles as designated and/or expected by a given society. It
was assessed through the mother’s responses to the
statements in the Behavior Problem Index (BPI; see Appendix
A) in 1990 (Peterson and Zill, 1986). Based on maternal
res onses, behavioral problems such as antisocial,
anx1ous/depressed, headstrong, hyperactive, immature
dependency, and peer conflict/social withdrawal were
defined. In the present study, the BPI total standard score
and the antisocial subscale standard score are used.

16

ASSUMPTIONS

The assumptions underlying this conceptual model are:
1. No single factor identified here uniquely enhances or
limits children’s cognitive and behavioral outcomes.
2. From the ecological perspective, the individual’s

development is embedded in a social context.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. EFFECT OF THE MATERNAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTEXTUAL
FACTORS ON THE ACHIEVEMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF CHILDREN
BORN TO TEENAGE MOTHERS

The first section of the literature review will focus
on the studies that determine the relations between the
various predictor variables (maternal and contextual
factors) and children’s achievement and adjustment level.

Over the years, numerous studies continue to document
the link between teenage parenthood and the outcomes of
their children. In all the studies, maternal
characteristics, especially maternal age at first birth,
were most commonly focused on as predictor variables.

Baldwin and Cain (1980), in their review article on children

of teenage parents, reported on Sheppard Kellam's

longitudinal study of 1,242 children and their families in a

low-income, urban, black community (Kellam, 1978, cited in

Baldwin and Cain, 1980). Kellam found that children who

were born to mothers 17 years old or younger were less

likely to adapt to school, as rated by their first grade
teachers, than were children born to older mothers.

Measures were taken 10 years later with the same group

17

18
of children. Mother’s age at first birth was not found to
have a direct effect on the l6-year-old children’s
psychiatric symptoms rating. However, failure to adapt to
school at age six was strongly related to more intense
psychiatric symptoms as a teenager. The psychiatric
symptoms at 16 years were associated with first-grade
adaptation problems, and this association was particularly
strong for boys. The researcher suggested that adolescent
childbearing affected the child’s teenage emotional
adjustment indirectly through its effect on early adaptation
to school. According to their findings, the negative
effect of having an adolescent mother was offset by the
presence of either a father or a grandmother in addition to
the mother in the household.

Although this study has strengths related to the large
sample and longitudinal research design, the conclusions
drawn from this study seem to suffer from a number of
weaknesses. Foremost among the weaknesses is the sample.
The subjects were mainly low-SES blacks residing in an urban
area. Maternal age at first birth might be confounded with
other factors such as SES, ethnicity, and residence, and
therefore it is difficult to assess the contribution of
maternal age only to the outcome.

Davis and Grossbard (1980) examined the relationship
between a mother’s age and a child's intellectual and school

performance, using a subsample from the Health Examination

19
Surveys (HES) Cycle II data. The HES data were collected at
40 locations across the United States on the physical and
psychological characteristics of the civilian
noninstitutionalized population. Cycle I, an initial wave
of the project, examined adults. Cycle II included data on
7,119 children between the ages of 6 and 11 during 1964-
1965.

A subsample of 1,750, 10 and 11-year-old children were
all from intact families. Children’s intellectual
development was measured by the vocabulary and Block Design
subsets of the WISC, and school performance was measured by
grade repetition and reading scores. Davis and Grossbard
(1980) reported that children's IQ scores declined by
approximately one point for every year of schooling that
their mother did not complete. Within the group of children
born to teenage mothers, financially disadvantaged children
did significantly poorer in school, as measured by grade
repetition and reading scores, than those more financially
secure. These findings were supported by Maracek (1979),
who also found that among the children of adolescent
mothers, every additional year of mother’s education
retained in grade by almost 50 percent. Similarly, Kinard
and Reinherz (1984) found that mother’s education was the
major factor affecting children's achievement scores, with
substantial and consistent differences on almost every

measure favoring children of more educated mothers.

20

Taking into account the weakness of simple approaches
in comparing adolescent and older mothers in terms of age at
first birth, Furstenberg, Brooks-Gunn, and Morgan (1987)
considered various factors associated with adolescent
parenthood in the Baltimore study. In a 17-year study of
Black teenage mothers and their children, they examined
possible negative outcomes associated with teenage
parenthood at three different stages: infancy, preschool,
and high school years. At the 17-year follow-up, interviews
were conducted with the adolescents, their parents (or
parent surrogates), and their teachers to collect
information on the adolescents’ social and psychological
adjustment, school performance, sexual and fertility
experience.

In attempting to interconnect the mothers’ life course
and their children’s developmental trajectories over the 17
years, this follow-up study revealed that the children of
the women in the Baltimore sample generally had average
scores on an achievement and aptitude test when they were
evaluated as four- and five-year-olds: however, these
children experienced "massive school failure" by age 16.
Half of the sample had repeated at least one grade during K-
12, whereas only 17% of the children of late child—bearers
(20 & over) in the 1981 National Survey of Children (NSC)
had repeated one grade. The children of the Baltimore study

group also experienced higher rates of school-related

21
behavioral problems, such as receiving a note from the
school about a behavior problem (56%) or being suspended or
expelled from school (49%), compared with late child-bearers
sampled in the NSC (15% and 19% respectively, according to
parental report).

The Baltimore study also showed that the 16-year-old
children of adolescent mothers tended to exhibit higher
levels of juvenile delinquency and antisocial behavior ---
for example, running away from home, stealing, being stopped
by police, and feeling in need of emotional, mental, or
behavioral help --- than children of late child-bearers in
the NSC. This association was generally weak and was less
significant than findings for educational achievement, yet
maternal age seemed to influence social-emotional
development indirectly through unstable family structure and
low socioeconomic status.

As another indication of misbehavior, substance abuse,
also occurred frequently in the adolescents of the Baltimore
study group. Fifty percent of 15-to 16-year—olds born to
teen mothers said they had drunk alcohol, 44% had smoked
marijuana, and 4% had tried other drugs.

Strengthening the notion that the factors affecting
children of teenage mothers include a variety of
interconnected forces, Dubow and Luster (1990) observed
findings consistent with those of Furstenberg and his

colleagues. Using data from a subset of the merged mother-

22
child data set of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(NLSY), they examined the association between teenage
mothers’ personal and family characteristics and the social
and academic adjustment of school-aged children born to
them. The investigators focused on 721 children aged 8-15
who were born to teenage mothers.

Seven factors which were expected to place children at
risk of behavioral or academic problems were: absence of a
father or father figure at home, crowdedness (4 or more
children living in the home), urban residence, poverty level
income, maternal education of less than 12 years, a mother
who was younger than 17 when the first child was born, and
low maternal self-esteem.

Dubow and Luster found that three—of these risk factors
wera.significantly related to an increased risk of
behavioral and academic problems: poverty, low maternal
self-esteem, and a mother younger than 17 at first child’s
birth. When multiple regression analysis was performed,
poverty and low maternal self-esteem emerged as being
associated with an increased risk of behavioral problems,
whereas urban residence was associated with low mathematics
scores and poor reading recognition and comprehension.

An important finding of this study was that as the
number of risk factors increased, the child's risk of having
academic and behavior problems also increased. However,

these children appear to overcome the risks if they have

23
specific protective factors: above average intelligence,
high self-esteem, emotionally supportive home environments,
and cognitive stimulation in the home. An average or better
than average intelligence score (PPVT IQ) protected at-risk
children from academic difficulties, but not from behavioral
problems. High self-esteem appeared to prevent antisocial
behavior as well as academic problems. Among children who
had been exposed to at least one risk factor, high emotional
support, indicated by favorable scores on the HOME inventory
(Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment,
Caldwell and Bradley, 1984), was associated with fewer
behavior problems. For academic outcomes, both emotional
support and cognitive stimulation were associated with fewer
difficulties.

The researchers pointed out that there may have been
other variables influencing the outcome, which could not be
examined with the data available, such as the quality of the
schools and the children's involvement with other supportive
adults or peers. They also indicated that efforts to
enhance the educational and employment prospects of teenage
mothers, and the self-esteem of the mothers and their
children, may reduce the negative effects of adolescent
childbearing.

Dubow and Luster’s study is significant in terms of
considering the effect of child characteristics (verbal

intelligence and self-esteem) and contextual factors

24
(emotional support and cognitive stimulation at home) as
well as maternal characteristics. From this study we know
which factors put children of adolescent mothers at risk,
yet we still do not know which risk factors are impinging on
children the most. What remains to be addressed is the
relative contribution made by each of these factors.

A study of NLSY women and children by Martin and
Burchinal (1992) provided further evidence for the influence
of maternal characteristics on children's outcome. The
study determined if women’s antisocial behaviors are related
to the later emotional and behavioral health of the their
children. A total of 1425 NLSY young women and their first-
born children were involved in this study. The results of a
multiple regression showed that the mother’s severity of
non-drug offenses was significantly related to the
children’s problem behavior (measured by Behavioral Problem
Index scale). However, interestingly, neither the
children’s BPI Total Problem nor any subscale scores were
associated with the mothers' severity of drug offenses.

Martin and Burchinal (1992) pointed out two limitations
of the study: the relatively small size of the drug offenses ‘
group, and possible biases of self-report data. They also
argued that causal relations cannot be determined from this
study. However, they proposed that the effects of mothers’ I
early antisocial behavior on children's problem behavior are

likely to be indirect, via the parents' social ecology such

25
as family dysfunction and undesirable community or

neighborhoods.

2. COMBINED INFLUENCE OF MATERNAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS ON
MATERNAL BEHAVIOR

This second section of the literature review will focus
mainly on the relation between predictor variables and
maternal behavior. As Luster and Okagaki (1993) write, it
is necessary to look at the relation between characteristics
of the parent and characteristics of the context over time
to enhance our understanding of parenting behavior at the
present time.

A study of younger children by Coll, Hoffman, and Oh
(1987) provided evidence for the combined influence of
maternal and contextual factors on maternal behavior. A
total of 50 primiparous, Caucasian mothers (25 adolescent
and 25 non-adolescent mothers) and their 4-month-old infants
were involved in the study. The results showed that
adolescent mothers provided less optimal home environments
than non-adolescent mothers.

According to the results of a Multivariate Analysis of
Variance (MANOVA), adolescent mothers spent less time in
positive verbal interactions with their infants after
controlling for SES. Adolescent mothers also were found to
be less responsive, showed less involvement with their

infants, and had significantly lower total HOME scores.

26

In an attempt to find multiple influences on the
quality of care adolescent mothers provided for their
children, Luster and Dubow (1990) sought to distinguish
between adolescents who provided high quality home
environments for their school—aged children and those who
did not. Utilizing data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (NLSY), they focused on 898 mothers from
three ethnic groups (356 African-Americans, 391 Caucasians,
and 151 Hispanics). The possible influences included
(a)maternal characteristics, (b)current SES, (c)SES of the
family of origin, and (d)current household composition.

Luster and Dubow's results showed that current poverty
status was a significant predictor of the quality of the
home environment the mothers provided. The presence of
spouse or a male partner in the home and grandfather’s
education were positively correlated with the quality of the
home environment the mothers provided for their children.
Number of children in the home was negatively related to the
measure of home environment. The age of the mother at
child’s birth was related to home environment when other
factors were controlled, but the direct effect was modest.
Maternal self-esteem also was predictive of the outcome when
other factors were controlled.

Surprisingly, the presence of a grandmother in the home I
was not a strong predictor. Yet, because the children were

of school age, these results make sense. Stronger effects

27
may have been expected if the children were infants or
toddlers. Moreover, teen mothers who maintain a long-term,
dependent relationship on their mothers may differ from
other teens on a number of dimensions.

One unique aspect of this study was that the
researchers did separate analysis for blacks, whites, and
Hispanics to see whether a variable would predict the
quality of the home environment for one group and not the
other, or have a greater influence for one group than the
other. For instance, grandfather's education appeared to be
more strongly related to HOME scores for Hispanics than for
the other groups. There could have been greater variability
in this group on that particular item, which might have
contributed to the magnitude of the correlation. Thus, it
appears that not all of the factors examined are equally
important for all groups. The authors explain that this
analysis is exploratory in nature and should be viewed
cautiously.

It appears then that adolescent mothers differ in the
quality of home environment they provide for their school
aged children. Living in poverty seems to stand out as an
important predictor of home environment, as does maternal
self-esteem. A corresponding study of school-aged children
who live in varying home environments could explore whether
the quality of the home environment predicts favorable

outcome in achievement and adjustment, and also, which other

28
variables are related to individual difference among the
children.

Hannan and Luster’s (1991) study on 602 NLSY mothers
and their infants was consistent with Belsky's concept of
multiple determinants of parenting. In the multiple
regression analyses, six factors were significantly related
to the quality of the home environment. They were two
maternal characteristics (level of intelligence and age at
first birth), three contextual factors (presence of spouse
or partner, number of children, and family income), and a
child characteristic (infant temperament). The
investigators concluded that maternal characteristics,
contextual factors, and child characteristics all
contributed to the quality of the home environment mothers
provided for their infants.

Menaghan and Parcel (1991) investigated if working
conditions, current family circumstances, and maternal and
child characteristics are related to the home environments
that working mothers provided for their young children. The
sample for the study consisted of 795 employed mothers with
their three to six-year-old children from the NLSY 1986
Mother-Child Supplement.

The researchers found that mothers who worked in more
complex occupational conditions and who had higher wage
levels had higher scores on the NLSY-HOME measure. Of the

family variables, a greater number of children in the family

29
was negatively related to the home environments mothers
provide for their children. However, the presence of a
spouse and higher spousal earnings were positively
associated with home environments.

In examining the relationship between maternal
characteristics and home environment scores, Menaghan and
Parcel found that mothers with higher self-esteem scores,
higher internal locus of control, and higher intelligence
scores provided more supportive home environments for their
children. In addition, mothers who were older in age and
had more schooling provided a higher quality home
environment.

Menaghan and Parcel argued that all of the maternal
working conditions, current family characteristics, and
maternal and child characteristics are the determinants of
the home environment mothers created for their children.
However, the researchers suggested that of all the
predictors, maternal-characteristics (age, education, self-
esteem, ethnicity, and locus of control) were the most
erucial.

In the very well-known study that focused upon the
implications of parental characteristics for the context in
which the parent-child relationship develops, Caspi, Elder,
and Bem (1987) utilized data from the Berkeley Guidance
Study (Macfarlane, Allen, and Honzik, 1954). They

identified children with a pattern of temper tantrums in

30
late childhood and traced the continuities and consequences
of this behavioral style across the subsequent 30 years of
their lives.

The results of a path analysis showed an indirect link
between a history of child-tantrums, erratic work life, and
inadequate parenting. The early tendency toward explosive,
undercontrolled behavior was evoked in new roles and
settings, such as the work-place and parenting situations.
Children with a stable pattern of temper tantrums in late
childhood experienced difficulties across many life tasks.
As adults, women with a history of childhood tantrums became
ill-tempered mothers as well. These women were perceived by
both their husbands and their children as less adequate and
more ill-tempered mothers than women with no history of
childhood tantrums.

In a parallel study (Caspi, Elder, and Bem, 1988),
Caspi and his colleagues identified individuals who were shy
and reserved in late childhood and traced the continuities
and consequences of this behavioral style across the
subsequent 30 years of their lives. Men with childhood
histories of shyness were more likely than their peers to
delay entry into marriage, parenthood, and stable careers.
Shy men who delayed entry into a stable career were at risk
for marital instability. In contrast to the men, women
characterized by shyness in childhood were more likely than

their peers to follow a conventional pattern of marriage,

31
childbearing, and homemaking.

In these two studies by Caspi and his colleagues,
evidence indicates that personality characteristics in
childhood are predictive of parents’ educational attainment,
occupational prestige, marital quality, and the timing of

family formation.

3. THE EFFECT OF MATERNAL BEHAVIOR ON CHILDREN’S
ACHIEVEMENT

In an early study, Wolf (1966) attempted to associate
home conditions with children's intellectual development.
He created the Home Environment Interview, consisting of 63
questions. Wolf reported significant correlations between
Home Environment scores and child IQ (.69) and with
achievement test scores (.80). With these high
correlations, Wolf concluded that, " A measure of what
parents do in the home can be used to predict school
achievement with a fairly high degree of accuracy" (p.498).

Over the years there have been efforts made to develop
other measures of children's home environments (Bradley and
Caldwell, 1978). Bradley and Caldwell devised a measure of
the overall quality of the home environment parents provide
for their children, called the Home Observation for
Measurement of the Environment (HOME).

Elardo, Bradley, and Caldwell (1975) administered this

HOME inventory to 77 poor, working-class families when their

32
children were 6-month-olds and 24-month-olds. Then,
children's IQs were tested when they were 36-month-olds and
54-month-olds. The study found positive relations between 6
and 24 months HOME scores and 54 months Binet IQ scores.

In keeping with earlier observations of the role of
home environment, Bradley and Caldwell (1984) also found
strong positive correlation between children's early HOME
scores and their later intellectual and academic performance
scores. All 37 families were administered the HOME
inventory infant version when their children were 12 and 24-
months-old. When these children became 3 years old, the
Early Childhood version was administered. To assess
children’s academic competence, the MDI (from the Bayley
Scales of Infant Development) at age 1, the Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Test at age 3, and the Science Research
Associates achievement battery in first grade were used.

Bradley and Caldwell found that the "maternal
responsivity" subscale was less strongly related to
'achievement test scores than it was to IQ scores. However,
the "variety of stimulation" subscale was strongly related
to achievement scores. The researchers concluded that as
children develop, different subscales of the HOME inventory
showed a stronger relation to cognitive competence. For
example, as children grow, their cognitive development is
more strongly related to providing "varied materials and

experiences" or "encouraging achievement" than "parental

33
responsivity".

Bradley and his associates (1988) developed a new
version of the HOME inventory for families with children
ages 6 to 10. The investigators gathered evidence
suggesting that the Elementary version of the HOME may
function in much the same manner as the Infant and the Early
Childhood versions. Analyses showed low to moderate
correlations between Elementary HOME scores and socio-
demographic measures, similar to those found for the Infant
and Early Childhood versions of the HOME. Children's
achievement scores, measured by the SRA (Science Research
Associates) achievement battery, were modestly correlated
with Elementary HOME scores (.3 to .4). These coefficients
were somewhat lower than those obtained between the Infant
HOME or the Early Childhood HOME and children’s IQ scores,
but still indicate a significant relationship.

More recently, findings by Bradley and his associates
(1989) parallel previous evidence on the effect of the home
environment on child’s IQ. In their study, they assessed
the HOME of 931 children and families in North America. The
sample, which came from six cities in North America,
consisted of 497 Caucasians, 161 African-Americans, 262
Mexican Americans, and 11 other. The quality of the home
environment was assessed with Caldwell and Bradley’s HOME
Inventory. The cognitive development of the children was

assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and

34
the Stanford-Binet.

This collaborative study found that among the three
ethnic samples, HOME scores for Caucasians were most highly
correlated with the cognitive measures. The investigators
also found that children's cognitive development was more
strongly related to specific aspects of the home environment
such as parental emotional and verbal responsivity, and
parental acceptance of, and involvement with the child, than
non-specific measures of the environmental quality such as
SES indices.

Overall, several studies (Bradley and Caldwell, 1984;
Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Barnard, Gray, Hammond, Mitchell,
Siegel, Ramey, Gottfried, and Johnson, 1989; Bradley,
Caldwell, Rock, Hamrick, and Harris, 1988; Elardo, Bradley
and Caldwell, 1975) indicated that the HOME inventory is a
useful measure for assessing the home environments of
children and further predicting their IQ and subsequent
academic achievement.

The importance of aspects of the home environment on
cognitive development also was studied by Sigman and her
associates (1988). A total of 110 Embu toddlers in Kenya
(52 boys and 58 girls) between the ages of 15 and 30 months
were involved in the study. The overall findings from this
study showed that children who were raised in an environment
where responsivity to vocalizations, frequency of talking,

and engagement in social interactions were high, had higher

35
scores on a revised version of the Bayley Mental Scale than
children who had been less engaged in verbal and social
interaction.

With the notion that measuring only home environment to
determine its influence on child IQ and other achievement
scores is oversimplified, Longstreth et al. (1981) attempted
to measure the separate influences of maternal intelligence
and home environment on the child’s IQ while partialling out
the influence of the confounding variable. The 80 families
participating in this study were diverse in their ethnicity,
but many of them (68%) were Caucasian. They also were
educationally and intellectually above average. Parental
intelligence and child’s IQ were assessed by Raven’s
Standard Progressive Matrices (RPM), which tests nonverbal,
spatial reasoning, and the Peabody Pictured Vocabulary Test
(PPVT). Home environment was assessed through Wolf's Home
Environment Interview with the mother.

Maternal IQ (average) correlated .45 with child IQ
(average). The total Home Environment ratings correlated
.32 with child IQ. Using hierarchical regressions, the
relative contributions of maternal IQ and home environment
to child IQ were estimated. The results showed that the
relation between home environment and child IQ was
nonsignificant when the effect of maternal IQ was removed.
On the other hand, maternal IQ remained a significant

predictor of the child's IQ when the effects of the home

36
environment was statistically controlled. Drawing from
their findings, Longstreth and his associates argued for the
relative importance of genetic factors in determining
children's intelligence rather than environmental factors.

In an attempt to replicate and extend Longstreth et
al.’s research (1981), Yeates et al. (1983) adopted a
longitudinal design and studied 46 black children at risk
for sociocultural mental retardation from birth to 4 years
of age. Maternal IQs were measured by the WAIS even before
their children were born. Children were tested with the
Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 6 and 18 months of
age, and with the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale at 24,
36, and 48 months of age. The home environments of the
families were assessed using the HOME inventory at 6, 18,
30, and 42 months of age.

The path analyses revealed the increasing contributions
to child IQ by both maternal IQ and home environment.
According to the results of the multiple regression
analysis, when the effect of home environment was
statistically controlled, maternal IQ was significantly
related to child's IQ at 24 months but not at 36 and 48
months. On the other hand, when the effect of maternal IQ
was controlled, home environment was not related to child's
IQ at 24 and 36 months but was related at 48 months.

Using a dynamic and ontogenetic perspective, the

researchers found that both maternal IQ and home environment

37
accounted for 11%, 17%, and 29% of the variance in the
child’s IQ at 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. They
observed an increase in the predictability of child’s
intellectual development within the context of a shift in
the relative importance of maternal IQ and home environment
as predictors.

In examining the relationship between maternal behavior
and children’s development, Luster and Dubow (1992) looked
at 3 to 5—year-olds and 6 to 8-year-olds to determine the
extent to which home environment and maternal intelligence
are predictive of verbal intelligence among children, using
the NLSY data set. Children’s verbal intelligence was
measured by Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-
R). The possible influences included maternal intellectual
ability, and HOME scores as an index of the quality of
cognitive stimulation and emotional support provided in the
home.

The results of a hierarchical regression found that for
both groups of children, a significant relation was found
between home environment and children’s verbal intelligence
as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised
(PPVT-R) scores, when the effect of maternal intelligence
was statistically controlled. Maternal intelligence also
was a significant predictor of children’s verbal
intelligence when the effect of home environment was

partialled out. For the preschoolers, the relative

38
contributions of maternal intelligence and home environment
to children’s PPVT-R scores were of similar magnitude,
whereas for the elementary school children, maternal
intelligence was a stronger predictor of PPVT-R scores than
was home environment.

The researchers explained these results in two ways;
one explanation was that the version of the HOME for
elementary school children may be a less adequate measure of
the quality of the home environment than the version for
preschoolers. The second explanation was that since older
children get to experience different settings (e.g.,
schools) other than the home and select environments where
they want to be, the influence of the home environment is
expected to be less important for older children.

In previous analyses of the importance of the nature
and the quality of the home environment for various age
groups of children and its relation to the child’s cognitive
and socioemotional development, researchers found that home
environment was an important predictor of children’s
cognitive and socioemotional development (Bradley and
Caldwell, 1984; Bradley et al., 1989). Clearly, the HOME
inventory has been the most widely used instrument to assess

the quality of the home environment.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The primary purposes of this study are to identify
factors that may influence the quality of care adolescent
mothers provide for their children, and to examine, how
these factors are related to the children’s outcomes of
interest. The methods used to achieve these goals will be
discussed here. This chapter is divided into six sections
as follows: (a) research design, (b) research hypotheses,
(0) research questions, (d) sample selection, (e) sample

characteristics, (f) measures, and (g) data analyses.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In order to meet the objectives most adequately, a
correlational research design was used. The research design
applied to this study is a multivariate model that permits
simultaneous analysis of maternal and contextual
characteristics. This correlational study of the adolescent
mother’s characteristics and contextual factors as
predictors of their parenting behavior and child-outcome is
non-experimental in nature. This study used selected data

from a longitudinal survey with the unit of analysis being

39

4O
teenage mothers and their first-born children who are 10 to

17 year-old.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
For this study, the following hypotheses were proposed:

1. To examine which maternal characteristics and contextual
factors predict the quality of the home environment mothers
provide;

Ho 1: Mothers' level of intelligence is not related to the
quality of home environment mothers provide for their
children.

Ha 1: Mothers with higher levels of intelligence will
provide better quality home environments than mothers with
lower levels of intelligence.

Ho 2: Mothers' level of self-esteem is not related to the
quality of home environment mothers provide for their
children.

Ha 2: Mothers with higher levels of self-esteem will provide
a better quality home environment than mothers with lower
levels of self-esteem.

Ho 3: Maternal age at first birth is not related to the
quality of home environment mothers provide for their
children.

Ha 3: Mothers who delayed child bearing are likely to
provide better quality home environments than mothers who
started child bearing earlier.

Ho 4: Mothers’ level of education is not related to the
quality of home environment mothers provide for their
children.

Ha 4: Mothers with higher levels of education are likely to
provide better quality home environments than mothers With
lower levels of education.

Ho 5: Mothers’ marital relationships are not related to the
quality of home environment they provide for their children.
Ha 5: Mothers with higher quality marital relationships will
provide a better quality home environment than mothers with
lower quality marital relationships.

Ho 6: Level of income is not related to the quality of home
environment mothers provide for their children.

Ha 6: Mothers with higher levels of income will provide
better quality home environments than mothers with lower

41
levels of income.

Ho 7: Number of children is not related to the quality of
home environment mothers provide for their children.

Ha 7: Mothers who have smaller numbers of children will
provide better quality home environments than mothers who
have more children.

2. To examine how a variety of maternal characteristics and
contextual factors are related to children’s achievement
level, when the quality of the home environment is
statistically controlled;

Ho 8: Mothers’ level of intelligence is not related to the
children's level of cognitive competence when the quality of
the home environment is controlled.

Ha 8: Mothers with higher levels of intelligence are likely
to have children who perform at higher levels on cognitive
competence when the quality of the home environment is
controlled.

Ho 9: Mothers’ level of intelligence is not related to the
children’s level of behavioral problems when the quality of
the home environment is controlled.

Ha 9: Mothers with higher levels of intelligence are likely
to have children who show fewer behavioral problems when the
quality of the home environment is controlled.

Ho 10: Maternal self-esteem is not related to the children's
level of cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

Ha 10: Mothers with higher levels of self-esteem are likely
to have children who perform at higher levels on cognitive
competence when the quality of the home environment is
controlled.

Ho 11: Maternal self-esteem is not related to the children's
level of behavioral problems when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

Ha 11: Mothers with higher levels of self-esteem are likely
to have children who show fewer behavioral problems when the
quality of the home environment is controlled.

Ho 12: Mother's age at first birth is not related to the
children’s level of cognitive competence when the quality of
the home environment is controlled.

Ha 12: Mothers who delayed childbearing are likely to have
children who perform at higher levels on measures of
cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

Ho 13: Mother’s age at first birth is not related to the

42

children’s level of behavioral problems when the quality of
the home environment is controlled.

Ha 13: Mothers who delayed childbearing are likely to have
children who show fewer behavioral problems when the quality
of the home environment is controlled.

Ho 14: Mothers’ level of education is not related to the
children's level of cognitive competence when the quality of
the home environment is controlled.

Ha 14: Mothers with higher levels of education are likely to
have children who perform at higher levels on cognitive
competence when the quality of the home environment is
controlled.

Ho 15: Mothers’ level of education is not related to the
children’s level of behavioral problems when the quality of
the home environment is controlled.

Ha 15: Mothers with higher levels of education are likely to
have children who show fewer behavioral problems when the
quality of the home environment is controlled.

Ho 16: The qualit of the marital relationship is not
related to the children's level of cognitive competence when
the quality of the home environment is controlled.

Ha 16: Mothers with supportive marital relationships are
likely to have children who perform at higher levels on
cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

Ho 17: The quality of the marital relationship is not
related to the children’s level of behavioral problems when
the quality of the home environment is controlled.

Ha 17: Mothers with supportive marital relationships are
likely to have children who show fewer behavioral problems
when the quality of the home environment is controlled.

Ho 18: Level of income is not related to the children's
level of cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

Ha 18: Mothers with higher levels of income are likely to
have children who perform at higher levels on cognitive
competence when the quality of the home environment is
controlled.

Ho 19: Level of income is not related to the children’s
level of behavioral problems when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

Ha 19: Mothers with higher levels of income are likely to
have children who show fewer behavioral problems when the
quality of the home environment is controlled.

Ho 20: Number of children in the family is not related to

43

the children's level of cognitive competence when the
quality of the home environment is controlled.

Ha 20: Mothers who have fewer children in the family are
likely to have children who perform at higher levels on
cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

Ho 21: Number of children in the family is not related to
the children’s level of behavioral problems when the quality
of the home environment is controlled.

Ha 21: Mothers who have fewer children in the family are
likely to have children who show fewer behavioral problems
when the quality of the home environment is controlled.

3. To examine if the quality of the home environment is
related to the achievement of children when maternal
intelligence is statistically controlled;

Ho 22: The quality of the home environment is not related to
the children’s academic achievement when maternal
intelligence is controlled.

Ha 22: The qualit of the home environment is related to the
children’s academic achievement when maternal intelligence
is controlled.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

In addition to the hypotheses listed above, the
questions that follow are explored. Thus, these are
presented in terms of research questions rather than
hypotheses.

To examine the relationship between maternal
delinquency and the quality of the home environment mothers
provide as well as child outcomes;

1. Does the mothers’ degree of previous delinquency predict
the quality of home environment mothers provide for their
children?
2. Is there a direct or indirect relationship between
maternal delinquency and children’s level of cognitive and
behavioral outcomes?
SAMPLE SELECTION

The original NLS samples were drawn to represent the

civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United

States at the time of the initial survey. Initial

44
interviews with the original four cohorts consist of four
samples: 5,020 men who were 45-59 years of age in 1966;
5,083 women who were 30-44 years of age in 1967; 5,225 young
men ages 14-24 in 1966; and 5,159 young women ages in 14-24
in 1968. Youth survey (NLSY) that includes 12,686 civilian
and military young people was added in 1979.

NLSY who can be considered representative of all
American men and women born in the late 19505 and early
19605 is comprised of three subsamples: 1) a cross-sectional
sample representing the total civilian population living in
the United States and born January 1, 1957 through December
31, 1964; 2) a supplemental sample which overrepresents
civilian Hispanic, black and economically disadvantaged non-
black/non-Hispanic youth living in the United States and
born January 1, 1957 through December 31, 1964: and 3) a
military sample representing the youth population serving in
the armed forces as of September 30, 1978 and born January
1, 1957 through December 31, 1961. The military sample was
dropped as of 1985, and the economically disadvantaged non-
black/non-Hispanic sample was last interviewed in the 1990
survey.

This study utilizes the merged mother-child data set
from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). The
NLSY is concerned with the employment, educational and
family-related experiences of the subjects (Baker & Mott,

1990).

45

The first wave of the NLSY data was collected in 1979
to investigate factors that influence the labor force
participation of American young people and sampled 6,282
females between the ages of 14 and 21, with an
overrepresentation of African Americans, Hispanics, and
economically disadvantaged Caucasian youth. Attempts to re-
interview these women were made each year from 1979 until
the present. Sample retention of NLSY respondents has been
very high; by 1986, over 90% (n = 5,403, 92.7%) of the
original female sample remained intact. In 1986, the
mothers were given supplemental questionnaires regarding
maternal and child health, the home environment, family
relationships, child’s behavior and activities, and child-
care histories. As part of the 1986 survey, extensive data
on the social, emotional, and cognitive functioning of the
children born to these women were collected for the first
time, and data were collected on the children again in 1988
and 1990, thus permitting the longitudinal examination of
the development of these children.

The NLSY data are especially well-suited to the study
of the consequences of early childbearing because they
follow young women through the teenage and young adult years
when life events such as marriage and childbearing take
place.

For purposes of this study, the 1990 merged mother-

child data set was utilized. Children aged ten and above in

46
1990 were selected for the study sample. They were the
children who were born before the maternal delinquency
measure was assessed in 1980. Thus, the delinquency scores
were not affected by the presence or absence of children in
this subsample of the NLSY. Only first-born children were
selected for this study. This insures that only one child
per family is included in the sample.

These criteria yielded a subsample of 566 mothers
between the ages of 25 and 33 years, with their first-born
children between the age of 10 and 17 as of January 1, 1990.
Three hundred and forty-one of the mothers were African-
American and 225 were Caucasian. The sample size for each
ethnic group was large enough to do separate analyses.

The number of subjects varied for the type of measures
because all of the children and the mothers did not complete
every assessment. For example, since a large portion of
people in the sample were unmarried or not living with their
spouse/partner when marital quality was measured, only 169
subjects responded to the questions regarding marital

quality.

Sample Characteristics

Demographic characteristics of the study samples are
summarized in Table 1. The target children ranged in age
from 120 months to 214 months (mean = 154.72, SD = 23.12)

with girls and boys being equally represented in the sample

Table 1

Sample Description

 

 

Overall sample African-American Caucasian

Variables (n = 566) (n = 341) (n = 225)
Age of child(in months)

Mean 154.72 156.51 152.01

SD 23.20 23.58 22.40
Sex of child

% males 50.9 53.4 47.1

% females 49.1 46.6 52.9
Age of mother

Mean 30.02 29.94 30.13

SD 1.91 1.92 1.92
Presence of spouse/partner
in household

% Yes 31.8 17.8 47.2

% NO 68.2 82.2 52.8
Number of children

Mean 2.56 2.64 2.42

SD 1.15 1.19 1.04
Age of mother at first birth

Mean 17.05 16.83 17.30

SD 1.36 1.37 1.28
Level of education

Mean 11.38 11.64 10.99

SD 1.91 1.87 1.89
Family income

Mean 24,075 19,748 30,142

SD 18,841 16,314 20,449
Poverty status

% in poverty 34.3 44.9 18.7

% not in poverty 65.7 55.1 81.3

 

48
(288 boys [50.9%] and 345 girls [49.1%]).

The mean age of the mothers was 30.02 years, with a
range from 25 to 33. The majority (68.2%) of those sampled
were not living with a spouse or partner in 1990. The
average number of children of these mothers was 2.56, with a
range from one to nine children. The age of the mothers at
the birth of their first child ranged from 13 to 19 years,
with a mean of 17.05 years.

The level of educational attainment of the mothers in
1990 ranged from 1 to 18 years, with a mean of 11.38 years
(SD = 1.91). The mean family income of the sample was
$24,075 (SD = $8,841). Thirty-four percent of the sample
were living in poverty at the time of the 1990 survey.

The children in the sample appeared to perform within
the average range across academic achievement tests (PIAT
Math, mean = 96.4, SD = 13.37; PIAT Reading Recognition,
mean = 99.4, SD = 15.76; PIAT Reading Comprehension, mean =
96.21, SD = 14.6). However, these children scored slightly

above the population mean on the BPI Total Standard score

(mean = 108.03, SD 14.3) and the Antisocial Subscale score

13.83). High scores are less

(mean 109.68, SD

desirable.

MEASURES
The AFQT, which was used to assess maternal

intelligence is the sum of four subtests of the Armed

49
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) including word
knowledge, arithmetic reasoning, paragraph comprehension,
and numeric operations. This scale was administered to all
the mothers in the 1980 survey. Reliability coefficients of
alternate form and internal consistency for the AFQT
subtests were from .7 to .9 (U. S. Department of Defense,
1982).

The level of maternal self-esteem was measured by
Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965). The scale
was designed to measure an individual’s feeling of self-
worth. The respondent indicates whether he or she strongly
agrees, agrees, disagrees, or strongly disagrees with each
of 10 statements. A high score on this scale indicates high
self-esteem. The self-esteem scale was administered to the
mothers in the NLSY project in 1980 and 1987. This scale is
widely used and has been shown to be valid and highly
reliable (Baker and Mott, 1989).

During the 1980 interview, the Self Reported
Delinquency Index was assessed to investigate the mothers'
antisocial activities (e.g., shoplifting, vandalism, and
stealing). Mothers responded to the listing of 17 specific
antisocial behaviors by noting the frequency of their
participation in each of the behaviors during the past year.
Response choices were: 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (twice), 3
(three to five times), 4 (six to ten times), 5 (eleven to

fifty times), to 6 (more than 50 times). For this study,

50
each item was recorded in a binary fashion (0 = 0 and 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6 = 1). A score of 0 indicated that no delinquent
behaviors were displayed, while 1 indicated that delinquent
behavior was displayed. Then, a summary index was created
by summing the subject’s scores on each of the items.

The marital relationships were assessed using 13 items
which were categorized into three subsets of the measure:
global happiness, marital communication, and marital
discord. Global happiness measures the level of marital
happiness based on mothers’ responses to one item ( 1 = not
too happy, 2 = happy, and 3 = very happy). Marital
communication assesses the mothers' levels of communication

with their husbands. This was measured by 3 items using a 4

point Likert-type scale (1 less than once a month, 4 =
almost every day). A sample item is, " How often do you and
your husband tell each other about your day?" The
reliability coefficient for this scale was .72 for the
overall sample of the present study. The marital discord
measure includes 9 specific questions on conflict (e.g., How
often do you and your husband argue about chores and
responsibilities?). Mothers' responses on these items
ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (often). The reliability
coefficient for this scale was .82 for this study sample.
Significant correlations were found among these three

measures: .48 (p <.001) between global happiness and marital

communication, .25 (p <.001) between marital communication

51
and marital discord, and .35 (p <.001) between marital
discord and global happiness.

The dependent and mediating variable, the quality of
home environment, was measured by the elementary version of
the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment -
Short Form (HOME-SF) in 1986, 1988, and 1990 (Baker and
Mott, 1989). The original elementary version of the HOME
contains 59 items, and the abbreviated version contains 26
items. The total raw score for the HOME-SF is a summation
of the recorded individual item scores and has one imputed
decimal place (i.e., a total standard score of 929.23 is
really 92.923).

These data permitted the researcher to examine the
quality of the home environments at three points in time.
The HOME is a highly regarded and widely used measure for
assessing aspects of the stimulation provided in the home
environment. This assessment has been found to have
adequate reliability and validity, and predicts later
cognitive outcomes of children (Bradley, Caldwell, Rock,
Hamrick, and Harris, 1988). This shortened version has a
lower internal consistency estimate than the original
version of the HOME (.70 vs. .90 respectively) (Caldwell and
Bradley, 1984). The items in the HOME-SF are presented in
Appendix A.

The dependent variable, the behavioral problems of the

child, was measured using the Behavior Problem Index (BPI)

52
(Peterson and Zill, 1986), derived from Achenbach and
Edelbrock's (1981) Behavior Problems Checklist. The
respondent, typically the child’s mother, indicates whether
the child exhibited any specific childhood problem behaviors
or symptoms within the past 3 months. There are 28 items in
the scale and possible responses are "often true,"
"sometimes true," or "not true." Positive responses to the
item are summed to create a Total Problem score and six
subscale scores were defined based on factor analysis: 1)
Antisocial, 2) Hyperactive, 3) Anxious/Depressed, 4)
Headstrong, 5) Peer Conflict/Social Withdrawal, and 6)
Immature Dependency (see Appendix A). Children’s scores
have been standardized within age and gender based on
general population samples (with mean = 100 and standard
deviation = 15). Reliability estimates of the Total Problem
score ranged from .86 to .89 (Baker and Mott, 1990). The
Total Problem score and Antisocial subscale score were used
in the analyses. Higher scores indicate more behavior
problems.

The other dependent variable, the cognitive competence
of the child, was measured by the Peabody Individual
Achievement Test (PIAT) (Dunn and Markwardt, 1970). The
PIAT assessment is widely used and is generally considered
to be highly reliable (test-retest reliability) and valid
(concurrent validity). PIAT scores reported here are based

on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Three

53
subtests (mathematics, reading recognition, and reading
comprehension) from the full PIAT battery were administered
to the NLSY children. The items in three subtests are
presented in Appendix A.

The PIAT Math, which measures a child’s attainment in
mathematics as taught in mainstream education, consisted of
84 multiple-choice items. The test requires the child to
look at the problem and then to point to the answer.

The PIAT Reading Recognition subtest measures the
child's skills in translating sequences of printed
alphabetic symbols which form words, into understandable
words. This test contains 84 items and is found to be
moderately correlated with PIAT Mathematics scores.

The PIAT Reading Comprehension subtest which consists
of 66 items of increasing difficulty is designed to measure
the child’s ability to understand what he/she reads
silently. The child is required to pick one of four
pictures which he/she decides is the best delineation of the

meaning of the sentence.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics were used to determine the
frequency distribution of each of the variables, i.e.,
independent, dependent, and intervening variables for the
overall sample and African-American and Caucasian

subsamples. ANOVAS and Chi-square statistics were

54
calculated to test if the differences between ethnic groups
in maternal and contextual factors were statistically
significant. Zero-order correlations were used to explore
the extent of associations among the predictor variables of
interest, the relations between the predictor variables and
the quality of the home environment, and the relation
between the predictor variables and the children’s cognitive
and behavioral outcomes.

Linear regression analysis was conducted to explore the
potential associations between mothers’ antisocial behaviors
and the quality of the home environment the mothers
provided. Multiple regression was performed to examine if
maternal delinquency was related to the cognitive and
behavioral measures when other factors were controlled.

Several multiple regression analyses were performed to
determine which of the variables were related to the quality
of the home environment when other variables are controlled.
The method used was a forced entry procedures. All of the
variables listed under maternal characteristics and
contextual variables were entered simultaneously.

Similar multiple regression analyses were performed to
determine the combined influence of maternal and contextual
factors, including the quality of the home environment, on
the children’s achievement. The regression analyses were
done for the overall samples, and then separate analyses

were done for the two ethnic groups.

55

To test the hypothesis that the regression coefficients
differ in the African-American and Caucasian population, the
unstandardized regression coefficients were compared to see
if the difference in magnitude is statistically significant.
Only if the coefficients are significantly different from
each other, it can be concluded that different predictors
are important for different ethnic groups.

Paths of influence Assessing the influence of these
various competing sets of factors was the primary analytic
task of this study. Path analysis was used to explore
possible causal relationships among the variables in the
conceptual model. According to Hunter and Gerbing (1982),
one of the major contributions of path analysis is that it
decomposes relations among variables into numerical
components, so separate effects and directions of
relationships among variables can be observed.

In this study, path analysis examines if much of the
influence of maternal characteristics and contextual factors
are transmitted via the home environment. The possible
influences of all the predictor variables and home
environment on PIAT Reading Recognition for each ethnic
group are presented as an illustration. The results of the
path analyses are presented in Figures 2 and 3, at the end

of Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter presents the differences in predictor
variables, HOME scores, and children’s outcome scores
between the African-American and Caucasian subsamples.
Next, the relationships among the predictor variables are
presented for the entire sample, the African-American
subsample, and Caucasian subsample. The results of zero-
order correlations between the predictor variables and
the quality of home environment at three different points
in time are discussed. The presentation of regression
analyses on multiple predictors of the home environment
follows the zero-order correlations. This shows how
maternal and contextual factors are related to the
quality of the home environment in which the children are
reared.

The correlational analyses between the predictor
variables and the children's outcomes are presented in
the fifth part of this chapter. Multiple regression
analysis is used to determine which of the predictor
variables are related to the children’s outcomes when

confounding factors are controlled. Finally, two path

56

57
models are illustrated to discuss the fit of the data to
the conceptual model (Figure 1) presented in Chapter I.
A summary of the research findings are presented in terms
of the research hypotheses and research questions posed

in Chapter III, at the end of this chapter.

Ethnic Group Differences

1. Differences in maternal and contextual factors

A number of ANOVA and Chi-square analyses on
maternal and contextual variables were performed in order
to determine if there were differences between the
African-American and Caucasian subsamples. A summary of
the results is presented in Table 2 and Table 3. As can
be seen from the Tables, several differences were found
between the two groups. To the extent that differences
between the two ethnic groups exist, such differences
suggest different levels of risk or protector status in
the socio-ecological environments of the children.

As can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, in comparison to
African-American mothers, Caucasian mothers were
significantly advantaged on most of the variables
included in this analysis. For the maternal
characteristics, Caucasians had significantly higher AFQT
scores than African-American mothers at the time of the
1980 survey. In terms of the time of mother's first
birth, Caucasian mothers were significantly older than

African-American mothers. However, there was a

58
Table 2

ANOVAS for Differences between African-American and
Caucasian Subsamples in Predictor Variables

 

 

 

Mean (SD)

Predictor African-American Caucasian F Sig.

Variables (n = 341) (n = 225)

Intelligence 461.95 650.21 140.90 .0000

(171.85) (193.33)

Self-Esteem (1980) 31.68 31.16 2.29 .1306
(3.99) (3.85)

Age at First Birth 16.83 17.39 24.23 .0000
(1.37) (1.28)

Maternal Delinquency 1.89 2.07 1.02 .3123

Level of Education 11.64 10.99 16.15 .0001
(1.87) (1.89)

Self-Esteem (1987) 32.45 32.46 .001 .9709
(3.95) (4.4)

Global Happiness 2.51 2.73 11.8 .0007
(0.59) (0.5)

Marital 7.23 7.45 4.13 .0431

Communication (0.98) (0.85)

Marital Discord 10.82 9.69 14.35 .0002
(2.44) (2.54)

Family Income 19,748 30,142 38.10 .0000
(16,314) (20,449)

Number of Children 2.65 2.42 5.05 .0250
(1.19) (1.04)

 

59
Table 3

Chi-square Analyses for Differences between
African-American and Caucasian Subsamples

 

number of response (%)

 

 

African-American Caucasian Chi- Prob.

Variables (n = 323) (n = 213) Square
SpouseZPartner

absent 263(82.2%) 100(47.2%)

present 57(17.8%) 112(52.8%) 70.53 .0000
Poverty Status

in poverty 124(44.9%) 37(18.7%)

not in poverty 152(54.5%) 161(81.3%) 37.37 .0000
Maternal Delinquency

displayed 226(74.9%) 248(69.5%)

not displayed 85(25.1%) 55(3o.5%) 16.68 .1147

 

difference in the level of educational attainment of the two
groups of mothers, with African-American mothers' attainment
being significantly higher (F = 16.15, p = .0001).
Furthermore, mothers’ level of self-esteem measured at two
different points in time (1980 and 1987) was found to be
similar in the two groups of mothers.

Several differences also existed for the contextual
factors for the two ethnic groups. African-American mothers
were found to have significantly lower family incomes than
Caucasian mothers. Additionally, on the marital
relationship measure, Caucasian mothers were found to be
significantly happier than African-American mothers.

Similarly, African-American mothers were shown to have a

60
higher incidence of marital discord than Caucasian mothers.
The pattern of marital communication between the two groups
was found to be marginally different. Additionally,
African-American mothers, on average, were found to have

more children in the household than Caucasian mothers.

2. Differences between ethnic groups in HOME scores and
children's outcomes

With respect to the quality of the childrearing
environment mothers in the two ethnic groups provide for
their children, significant differences were found (see
Table 4). Caucasian mothers were shown to provide a more
supportive home environment for their children than African—
American mothers for Total Home Score (1990) as well as two
subscale scores (cognitive stimulation and emotional
support). Caucasian mothers also received significantly
higher scores on the HOME in 1986 and 1988.

Significant differences were found between African-
American and Caucasian children in their outcomes. In terms
of academic achievement, the children of Caucasian mothers
were shown to have higher scores on all three achievement
measures (Math, Reading Recognition, and Reading
Comprehension) when compared to the children of African-
American mothers.

With respect to the Total Behavioral Problem score, no

difference was found between the two groups of children.

Table 4

61

ANOVAS for Differences between African-American and
Caucasian Subsamples in HOME Scores and Children’s Outcomes

 

 

 

Mean (SD)
African-American Caucasian F Sig.
Variables (n = 341) (n =225)
HOME (1986) 92.9 103.4 64.77 .0000
(15.0) (14.2)
HOME (1988) 92.6 103.7 70.53 .0000
(15.6) (13.5)
HOME (1990) 91.7 102.8 76.61 .0000
(14.7) (13.4)
Cognitive 95.1 101.9 27.37 .0000
Stimulation (1990) (14.3) (14.8)
Emotional 91.1 102.5 65.12 .0000
Support (1990) (16.1) (13.2)
PIAT Math 93.78 100.64 34.61 .0000
(12.97) (12.95)
PIAT Reading 96.90 103.48 22.39 .0000
Recognition (15.26) (15.73)
PIAT Reading 93.73 100.24 25.37 .0000
Comprehension (14.36) (14.11)
BPI Total 108.33 107.59 .35 .5544
(14.51) (14.02)
BPI Antisocial 111.70 106.71 17.68 .0000
(13.67) (13-57)

 

62
However, a significant difference was found between African-
American and Caucasian children on the Antisocial subscale.
Caucasian children received more favorable scores on the

Antisocial subscale.

Relations amongythe Predictor Variables

Correlational analyses were performed to examine the
relations between the maternal characteristics in 1979-80
and the maternal characteristics in 1987-88. It was also of
interest to examine how these maternal characteristics are
associated with the context where parenting occurs. The
zero-order correlations among the predictor variables for
the overall samples, African-American subsample, and
Caucasian subsample are presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7,
respectively.

As expected, mothers in the overall samples and the two
ethnic subsamples who experienced their first birth at a
later age had more schooling, had higher family incomes, and
thus were less likely to be living in poverty. Mothers who
had higher AFQT scores tended to have higher self-esteem at
two different points in time compared to the mothers who had
lower AFQT scores.

In the overall sample and Caucasian subsample, the
delinquency measure was negatively related to mothers’ self-

esteem (only the 1980 assessment for the entire group), age

63

 

 

Soda... 8.Va.. mode.
8.2.5
8;. 8.. eehr. mo; 00.: 8.- eeeDFf FOE eeemFF 8.. eeVPC *0 5.5632
068:—
OO._. NO... 00. NO. ee PN. eeeNN. eeVF... eeeVN. eeeON. eeeg. >=EOL
E850
OO.—. eeemN.o eemm; PO: no: OP. ee@—... eOP.c eeeNN.o _g.2
COmHOOE-JEEOU
00; o. omfi. 3. 00.. m0. mo. #0. .OF. .3t02
«pecan-I
00.? no. 00. For mo. 50. mo. .0920
Anna S
00... o . LN. 50.. c on _.. o 6 one. o o . mm. Ensuméom
0°.F 00.: e e emN. e e e00. e e e8. C9530“
5:33:00
004. omor .9..- mo. .ncuopic‘
Saga
8; ...t. .22. 02.1.6.3.
5mm 5
8. F e e e O”. Chasm-20m
00;, 00:09:09....
5.2.8 2.8:. 28.6 8865658 88.6%: .82 .... 8:83.“. 6:32.25 5.5 Er 63. .e 852.8...
.0 39:52 SEQ".— _5tae‘ .0332 20.6 Egéom 35802 «I 094 5003.3
I. Ii

 

nae-m ...!6 6. 3658> 88.3... .5 938.4 86.5.:

m 304...

64

 

 

Soda... 8.x... 89a.
8.23
00.— No. 0 FN. 00. $0.. .09.. .2.me mo. comp: 00.- o F ...- *0 a3.5.52
0580:
00... m0. OF. 8. oooVN. ooomN. o??? ooON. OOOMN. ooomm. >=Eflm
28.5
ooé :VNI ...nm: ..0. Mr. no. :t No: mo. into—2
COVCOZEEOU
00.? oooOm. No. ..0. mo. or. 00. 0... 333.2
068%.:
004 m... ..NN. VP: Mr. 00. No. .320
Ram S
OO.F Otowm. NO? comp. 000 Pm. ooohm. E8H0w|=0m
oo.—. 3.- OCOMN. 0000*. ooon. £03833“
3:033:00
ooé 3.. No: no. 35052
£5
8; ...3. :9. Ease?
69m 5
00. F o o o 0?. Sugar.“
8. F 852:8...
8.320 2:8... 283° c385628 «858.: .32 s. con-Sum 6:32.39 5.5 SE 82: s. 8c§=o§
3 26:2 2.6.”. .83: .332 .320 685;; 3.3-2 8 8< 6854.8

 

{Esau cactoE<éaoE< .8 «03.35) .8062; 05 ucoE< 3090.3.

m 3m(h

65

 

 

809a... 8.2... 8.2..
5.2.6
00. _. F0. m0. no: no: No: m0: mo: 00.- 3.- .....- «o .3532
068:—
ooé mo: 00... No. :ON. o o com. comp: .. .ON. ooNN. ...mN. >=Eau
9085
8;. OOMN3 ooomNF mo.- oomN.. omP. OOPC OOMN.o toome Evin:
COWGnXC-JEEOU
004 o o . 3. mo. no. mo. mo: . m F. MD. into—2
32.3%:
004 mo. 3. 00. No: . n F. m0: .320
.hmm 5
OO.—. omr. ONFC Pr. otomfi. 000mm. EOOVNanow
OO._. $0.- to. TV. ooohN. 000mm. COEDODUM
3:33:00
00;. tear; tom—... NO. _250=2
5km
oo.r .oohN. ...mN. «mi S 00<
6mm 5
00. F o o 0 mm. 685-20%
00. _. 8:02:35
5.2.8 8.8... 283 8:82:58 «853.... .32 .... 8:833 3:38.30 gt... E... .82 5. 8c8....:..
3 3.52 2.8.“. .35.... .352 .320 £85....m .25-2 3 34 585-...»

 

gas-Bum 5.82.8 .3 83...; 38...... .5 9.22 835:.

h 39:.

66
at first birth, and family income. It also was found that
Caucasian mothers who displayed delinquent behaviors in
their teens appeared to have more conflict in their
marriages. Caucasian mothers who had higher scores on self-
esteem (1980) tended to report their marital relationship
more positively and the level of marital communication
tended to be higher. In addition, these mothers were less
likely to be engaged in marital discord. The marital
discord measure also was negatively related to the mothers'
AFQT scores and education levels. However, no significant
relationships were shown among these variables for African-
American mothers.

With respect to the number of children, African-
American mothers who were early childbearers tended to have
more children and less schooling. Marital discord also was
found to be positively related to the number of children.
However, none of the predictor variables were found to be

related to the number of children for Caucasian mothers.

Correlates of Maternal and Contextual Factors to the quality

of home environments

In this section, the relations between the maternal and
contextual factors described in the conceptual model and the
quality of the home environments mothers provide are

presented. Table 8 shows the zero—order correlations

67
Table 8

Zero-Order Correlations: The Relations between the
Predictor Variables and the Quality of the Home Environment

 

HOME Scores (1990)

 

Predictor Overall Sample African-American Caucasian
Variables (n = 566) (n = 341) (n = 225)

 

Maternal Characteristics

Intelligence .34*** .21*** .22***
Self-Esteem (1980) .21*** .23*** .29***
Age at First Birth .25*** .19*** .21***
Maternal Delinquency -.09* -.02 -.24***
Self-Esteem (1987) .l9*** .17** .26***
Education .12** .24*** .17**

Contextual Factors

Global Happiness .24*** .31*** .05
Marital Communication .16** .09 .18**
Marital Discord —.15** -.14 -.04
Family Income .38*** .34*** .30***
Number of Children -.11** -.14** -.04

 

* p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001

68
between the predictor variables and the quality of the home
environment in 1990 for the overall sample and the ethnic
subsamples.

Almost all of the maternal variables and many of the
contextual factors were found to be significantly related to
the HOME scores for the overall sample and ethnic
subsamples. Most of the correlations between the maternal
characteristics and the NLSY-HOME scores were in the
expected directions, and were small to moderate in
magnitude. Mothers in the overall sample who scored higher
on the intelligence test, had higher self-esteem at two
different points in time, delayed childbearing, and
completed more years of schooling provided higher quality
home environments for their children in 1990. Maternal
delinquency was negatively related to the quality of the
home environments provided by Caucasian mothers (r = .23),
but not by African-American mothers.

Significant correlations for the overall sample ranged
from .09 to .38. These significant correlations also were
found consistently for the Home scores in 1986 and 1988 (see
Appendix B). Therefore, the hypothesis that maternal
characteristics are related to the quality of the home
environment is supported by these correlational analyses.

For the contextual variables, across ethnic groups,
mothers who had higher family incomes provided more

supportive home environments. There was a significant

69
negative association between the number of children in the
household of African-American mothers and the quality of the
home environments they provided. In other words, the
greater the number of children, the less supportive the home
environment; however, the correlation was modest in
magnitude.

The level of global happiness in their marriage was
significantly related to the quality of the home
environments provided by African-American mothers, but the
correlation was not significant for Caucasian mothers. The
level of marital communication was related to the quality of
the home environments Caucasian mothers provided. Neither
group showed a significant relationship between the HOME

scores and marital discord.

Multiple Predictors of the Quality of Home Environment

Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine
the combined influence of maternal characteristics and
contextual factors on the quality of home environment. The
analysis was done to see the unique contribution of each
variable when other variables were statistically controlled.
The results are presented in Table 9. The unstandardized
regression coefficients also are presented in Table 13 (see
Appendix B).

For the African-American subsample, mothers who had

70
Table 9

Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors
of the Quality of the Home Environment (HOME 1990)

 

Overall Sample African—American Caucasian

 

Predictor (n = 566) (n = 341) (n = 225)
Variables ---------------------------------------
B B B
Intelligence .19*** .01 .09
Self-Esteem (1980) .09+ .12+ .11
Age at First Birth .13** .09 .10
Maternal Delinquency -.05 .04 -.17*
Self-Esteem (1987) .04 -.01 .11+
Education -.10* .05 -.02
Global Happiness .11* .18* .01
Marital Communication .03 -.07 .15+
Marital Discord -.00 -.01 .06
Family Income .26*** .30*** .19*
Number of Children -.06 -.10 .03
R-Square .24 .20 .21
F 11.87*** 5.40*** 4.08***

 

Note: Betas (B) presented are standardized betas.

All of the maternal characteristics and contextual factors
were entered simultaneously.

+ p <.10 * p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001

 

71
higher levels of self-esteem (1980), marital happiness, and
family income tended to provide more supportive home
environments. It is interesting to note that the earlier
measure of self-esteem was found to be a better predictor of
HOME scores rather than self-esteem measured in 1987 for the
African-American subsample. Twenty percent of the variance
was accounted for by these predictor variables.

For Caucasian families, absence of delinquent behaviors
in their teens and higher levels of self-esteem (1987),
marital communication, and family income made contributions
to predicting a more supportive home environment, and
together the variables accounted for 21% of the variance in
HOME scores. The F values for each of the models were
significant (p < .001).

For variables that were significant predictors of home
scores in at least one of the ethnic groups, the magnitude
of the unstandardized regression coefficients were compared
for the two ethnic groups to determine if the two
coefficients differed significantly from each other. The
effect of maternal delinquency on HOME scores was greater
for the Caucasian subsample than for the African-American
subsample (Z = 2.10, p < .05). On the other hand, the
effect of self-esteem (1987) was greater for the African-
American subsample than for the Caucasian subsample (Z = -
0.87, p < .05). The effect of the rest of the variables

(i.e. self-esteem (1980), global happiness, marital

72

communication, and family income) on HOME scores was not
significantly different for the two ethnic groups.

Additional analyses were performed to see the extent to
which the predictor variables were related to the 1986 and
1988 HOME scores. For the 1986 HOME, only maternal
characteristics measured at an earlier point in time were
entered for the analysis, because maternal variables (1987-
1990) and the contextual factors were measured later in
time. The results of the correlational analyses and
regressions are presented in Tables 14, 15, 16, and 17 (see

Appendix B)

Correlations between Maternal and Contextual Factors and the
Children's Outcomes

In this section, the associations between the predictor
variables and the children's outcomes for the overall
samples and the ethnic subsamples are discussed. The zero-
order correlations between each of the maternal and
contextual factors and children’s BPI and PIAT scores are
presented in Table 10.

Children whose mothers were more intelligent and more
educated had higher scores on the three measures assessing
cognitive competence for both ethnic groups. These high
achieving children also tended to have mothers who had
higher self-esteem at two different points in time, and who

experienced their first birth at a later age. The Maternal

_.8. V a... —O. V no. 8. V G. O—. V Q...

 

 

 

 

toad

°—.! 50.! c.V—.! .N—.! GOP.! cam—.I Och—K c—p. ccc@—. «VF. tN—. ccc¢—. c@—. 50. ccchw. _g_u.8m

8.5.32.5

«CNN.! tow—H! cchN.! CON.! 8.! tun—.I coca. «cam. «cc—m. cits. cacmN. «Gag. 0.8. uch. ...-N. 0>_H_r§

ch.I cum—..l ccaMN.! yacmN.! COF.! cccO—.! cuts. «cam. cats. 0.08. .chN. ccaa. acmN. CNF. aitfi. Ag—vs

.38.! «ah—H! ¢.cmN.! cccVN.! acQ—.l occ8.! cthN. «...?N. «tug. act”. ctcmN. «cog. «CNN. «.58. «its. Ag—vg

cM—.! cctmN.! ...VN.! 8.! ccch.! «cam—.I cog. «0:8. accmN. cc“. cccmN. «cc—m. CONN. cccR.! «ac—M. Ana—v95.—

cu.u__;o

8. 8. 8. NO. 8. 8. c.8.l occa.l «cum.l cum—.l ccaQ—.! «.8.! 8.! caflfi! coc0—.I *0 E

8.! aim—U! u.®—.! 8. OcN—. c8.l +N... coca. «:8. «m... ...—N. no.8. ...—F. coca. ...—CNN. ’59..— >:§m

2.85

8.! —O.! NO. 00.! 3. 8.! chN.! «8.! .cuVN.! ¢*—.! $7! t.®—.! tcVN.! ctNN.! ct.~.N.! _NH_..£

828.538

8.! no. .0. 5.! v0. 8. .9. 8. a9. 8. N... c0—.! 8. Z. L... .Brg

3 $0585..

7 8.! mo! .2! 3.! 3.! ho.! 00. 9. c:. 8. mo. 8. 8.! No. 8. .085

3c 8. No- 8- 8- 8- C..®No ..mpo ..v—- ...8- ...”F- ..NF- ...vmo ..mpo ..m—n COMug

”ma_.

CN—.! cc®—.! ccO—.l c*—.! accPN.! accQ—.! NO. cccfim. cch—. «.8. cchN. ...-ON. CWF. cccmm. «cOON. §walh_8

5:03:28

:8. mo. ..Z. .9. mo. .8. 3. 3.! 8.! .9! No. 3.! 00.! No. 5.! .9233.

5L5

8.! —0.! 8.! 8.! 8.! 3.! tcamN. tucON. «comm... cc®—. uuQ—. FN. .m—. dump. cc¢®—. Hm.._w HQ ”2
8a..

o—n' ..QF.‘ ..m—.' .fifi all ..w—u' ...owu' ..NN. ...mNo ...NN. ..FN. ...mF- ..‘QF. .8. ...FN- ...NIF- §HQNI*—$

8. cfl—.! uc——.l +O—. tNF.! 8.! «comm. chug. cuts. aqua. «tumm. v.3. cut—m. Occfim. tics. 8:00:_OHC_

.83 :38. 58".; 3.8"... can: .89.... swung :31: .885 as"... 28".: SSE. 38".: can: 88".: 8.8:;

:2... 82.82. 295m 83 50282 298 56 50:95 29.8 56 5028:. 295m 56 c8282 295m .8235

IN88 ISM": L¥< __m..0>O IMO—.8 IS“: .Z.< _ _m.~05 IND—.8 Ira": :k _ _m..05 Inga IC8_ Lw< _m..0>O I85 Ian: .C.< _ _m...m>O
45.52% 12.5... .nD 5.; 9.22.”. Brzgmm 9.8.... ......«2 ._.<.n.

 

 

 

 

2.5.0.5 535%

 

8.8.8 988:5 9: us 8.8:; .828... as. c828 23:28
e 59:

74
Delinquency Index did not appear to have a relationship with
the achievement level of the children, with one exception.
Children whose mothers displayed delinquent behavior in
their teens tended to have lower scores on the Reading
Recognition test.

High levels of marital communication also tended to
have a positive effect on the Reading Comprehension test
among Caucasians. In addition, children in both groups who
did well on every achievement measure were less likely to
have parents who frequently engaged in marital conflict.

Consistent with expectations, children with higher
scores on the achievement tests tended to come from homes
that were more financially secure and were more supportive,
as assessed by the HOME-SF. However, family income was
marginally related to Math and Reading Comprehension in the
Caucasian subsample. Number of children in both ethnic
households was negatively related to the three PIAT
subtests, with one exception. The Math test scores in
Caucasian subsample was not significantly related to the
number of children in households. Total Home Scores for
1986, 1988 and 1990 were modestly related to all three
subscales with correlations, ranging from .12 to .31.

With respect to behavioral problem measures, the
magnitude of the correlations with the predictor variables
tended to be smaller. The significant correlations between

BPI total and predictor variables ranged from .09 to .21.

75
Across ethnic groups children whose mothers had lower self-
esteem at two points in time tended to be perceived as
having more behavioral problems by their mothers. This also
was true for the antisocial subscale scores in the case of
African-American children, but not for the Caucasian
children. Caucasian mothers' delinquent behavior in their
teens affected their children’s behavioral adjustment
negatively.

The level of family income also was found to be related
to the BPI Total Problem scores and Antisocial subscale
scores for the African-American subsample. The years of
education attained by both ethnic subsamples was not
associated with the two behavioral problem measures.

None of the measures of marital relationship showed a
significant association with either of the Behavior Problem
Total scores for both ethnic groups. Global happiness in
the marriage was negatively related to the antisocial
subscale scores for the total sample.

The quality of home environment was found to be
negatively related to the behavioral adjustment of the
children. In other words, children who were perceived as
having many behavioral problems tended to come from less
supportive home environments. The quality of the home
environments measured in 1986 and 1988 also showed a similar
pattern of relationships with the BPI Total scores and

Antisocial subscale scores.

76

Multiple Predictors of the Children’s Outcomes

In this section, multiple regression analysis was
performed to investigate which of the maternal and
contextual variables are related to the children’s outcomes.
In this analysis, all of the independent variables (maternal
characteristics and contextual factors), including the
quality of the home environment were entered simultaneously.
Table 11 presents the results of the analyses for the
overall sample and the results of the separate analyses for
each ethnic group.

Results of the analysis showed that the total amount of
variance accounted for by the models ranged from 17 to 28%
for the three academic achievement tests. The F values were
highly significant (p < .001) for all of the outcome
measures except for the Math scores for the Caucasian
subsample (p < .01).

Maternal intelligence was found to be the only variable
,that was consistently related to all three measures of
cognitive competence for both groups. Mothers’ self-esteem
(1980), delinquency, and level of education were not related
to any of the children's achievement measures, when the
quality of the home environment was controlled. These
findings indicate that these three variables do not have a
direct effects on the children's achievement. Mothers’ age

at first birth failed to emerge as a predictor of any of the

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.88 8.x. : 8.8 . 9.x. +

Row é.— CB.” Cwoow 8.F .08.N ité.‘ CUOB.* UCCE.—.— Cite.” COC8.* CCOB.Q ICFN.N CtiF—om C..8.Q m

8. 8. 8. e. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8 8. 8.. 8. t. 8. 8. aim-m

8..- 8.- .8- :8- 8.- .8.- ..8. 8. :2. .2. .... :8. 8.. 8. - 8. 88:95:

58:6

8 8. 8 8. 8. 8. 8 - 8. ...8- .8. - +:. - :8. - 8. - +:. - .8. - 8 82.2

88:.

3. .3.- 8.- 8. +8.. 8.- 8 - 8. 8 8. - 8. 8. 8. - z. 8. 2.5

8388

8.- 8.- 3.- 8.- 8.- 3.- 8.- 8.- .8.- 8. - 8. - 3. - .8. - .8. - .8. - .878

838358

8 8. 8 8. 8. 8. 8 8. 8 8 3. 8 8. 8. 3. 5:8

88.93,.

:.- 8.- .8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8 - 8. - 3 - 8. - e. - 8. - 888

3 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8 8. 8 8. 8. 8. 8.893

:8:

8.- 8.- 8.- :.- .9.- .8- .8.- 8. 8.- 8 8. 8 8. - +8. 8. EOE-:8

5.83:8

+2 8. .8 3. 8. 3. 8. 8.- 8.- 8 - 8. 8 - 8. - 8. 8. .885.

5:8

8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8. .8; .8. 8. 8. 8. 8. - 8. 3. E: 88:

88:

8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8..- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. - 8. - 8. - 8. 8. - 888-28

a. 8.! 8.! ...FF. F0. 8. ch. ump. aciVN. CFN. .88. «8.8. «8. ctVN. COOS. 8.8—:0HC—

888 :88: A885 88.5 :88 8888 8.8.5 :88 A888 888 28-5 A888 88-5 :88 88.... 8.8.8.,

5.8 56:8: 298 58 58:8: 888 58 58:8: 288m 58 5:8: 888 8...... 58:8: 285 88.8.:
:88 SE: 29650 g 150:: 29.05 [8.5 5...: 2905 :88 ABC: 2290 18.5 #8:: 29.26

388:2: .EE .8 6.; 8.98 8.588 8.98 :5: :8
3888 852.28

S a...

8.85 95.2 .5 as 8 888.8: 8.8.9: 8.8888 28:3.

78
children’s achievement measures in Caucasian ethnic groups,
when other factors were controlled. However, contrary to
expectation, African-American mothers’ age at first birth
was found to be negatively related to the Reading
Comprehension measure. African-American children whose
mothers delayed childbearing achieved relatively lower
scores in Reading Comprehension. African-American mothers'
self-esteem (1987) also was found to affect their children’s
Math scores positively.

For the contextual factors, number of children in
African-American families was negatively related to the
children's Math and Reading Recognition scores; however,
they were only marginally related. For the Caucasian
subsample, number of children was found to be negatively
related to the two reading scores. Family income was not
related to the achievement of the children in both
ethnic groups. Among marital variables, marital discord was
the only variable that made a unique contribution to
predicting Math scores of children for both ethnic groups.
Children who experienced higher levels of marital discord
tended to show lower Math scores. As expected, the measure
of home environment was predictive of all the achievement
measures of the Caucasian children. However, for the
African-American subsample, it was marginally related to the
children’s Reading Recognition scores only.

In the case of behavioral outcome measures, the

79
percentage of variance explained by maternal and contextual
factors was not large, ranging from 7% to 13%. The later
measure of maternal self-esteem was negatively related to
the African-American children's Total Behavioral Problem
scores. The level of family income was found to be
significantly related to the two behavioral problem outcomes
of African-American children.

Meanwhile, for the Caucasian subsample, the level of
intelligence was marginally related to the Total Behavioral
Problem scores of these children; Caucasian children whose
mothers' levels of intelligence were higher were perceived
to have a higher Total Behavioral Problem scores by their
mothers. Maternal delinquency was positively related to the
Antisocial scores of these children. The measure of home
environment was negatively related to the two behavioral
scores for the Caucasian subsample, with higher HOME scores
related to fewer behavioral problems perceived by mothers.

As shown in Table 11, total amount of the variance in
the children's outcomes explained by predictor variables and
HOME scores ranged from 7% of the variance for the Total
Behavioral Problem scores (for overall sample and African-
Americans) to 28% of the variance for Reading Comprehension
(for the Caucasian sample). The F values for each model
were found to be statistically significant except for the
BPI Total measure for African-American subsample.

The analysis was done in the same way as previous

80
analysis of HOME scores. For variables that were
significant predictors of children’s outcomes in at least
one of the ethnic groups, the magnitude of the
unstandardized regression coefficients were compared for the
two ethnic groups to determine if the two coefficients
differed significantly from each other. The unstandardized
beta coefficients are presented in Table 18 (see Appendix
B).

For Math scores, the effect of marital discord was
greater for the Caucasian subsample than for the African-
American subsample (Z = - 0.22, p < .05). On the other
hand, the effect of number of children on Math scores was
greater for the African-American subsample than for the
Caucasian subsample (Z = - 0.32, p < .05). For the rest of
the variables that were significant in at least one of the
ethnic groups, such as intelligence, and self-esteem (1980),
the effect on Math was not significantly different for the
two groups.

For Reading Recognition, the effect of home environment
was greater for the Caucasian subsample than for the
African-American subsample (Z = 5.0, p < .000). However,
the effects of intelligence and number of children on
Reading Recognition scores for the two ethnic groups were
not significantly different from each other.

For Reading Comprehension, the effect of intelligence

(Z = - 0.67, p < .05), age at first birth (Z = - 0.06, p <

81

.05), and home environment (Z = 2.12, p < .05) was greater
for the Caucasian subsample than for the African-American
subsample. However, the effect of number of children on
Reading Comprehension scores for the two ethnic groups was
not significantly different from each other.

For the behavioral outcomes, the effect of intelligence
(Z = 12.8, p < .000) and home environment (Z = 2.27, p <
.05) on Total Behavioral Problem scores was greater for the
Caucasian subsample than for the African-American subsample,
while the effect of self-esteem (1987) (Z = 2.06, p < .05)
and family income (Z = — 0.32, p < .05) was greater for the
African-American subsample than for the Caucasian subsample.
In the case of Antisocial scores, for the variables that
were signiciant predictors in one of the ethnic groups,
their effects on Antisocial scores were not significantly

different from each other.

Home Environment and Maternal Intelligence as Predictors of
Children's Academic Achievement

The zero-order correlations between home environment
(1990) and three cognitive measures (Math, Reading
Recognition, and Reading Comprehension) for the entire
sample were .23, .29, and .30, respectively. Also, the
correlations between maternal intelligence and the cognitive
outcomes were .41, .40, and .40 (see Table 10).

In this analysis, the effect of maternal intelligence

was statistically controlled to determine whether the HOME

82
makes a unique contribution to predicting children’s
academic achievement. The two behavioral problem outcomes
were excluded from the analyses because they were not
strongly related to maternal intelligence (see Table 10).
Table 12 shows the results of several multiple regression
analyses.

In the first set of analyses, maternal intelligence was
entered first as a predictor of children’s achievement , and
the home environment measures at three different points in
time were all entered in the second step. The results of
the analyses showed that maternal intelligence by itself
accounted for a relatively large portion of the variance in
the children’s achievement (16-17% for the overall sample).
The F values for the models were all found to be highly
significant (p < .001).

In the second step of the analysis, the HOME was
entered into the models. When it was added, it enhanced the
prediction of children’s achievement, accounting for an
additional 3 to 6% of the variance, for the overall sample
and for both ethnic groups. As shown in Table 12, the
results indicated that children from more favorable home
environments achieved higher scores on all the cognitive
measures, with one exception; none of the HOME measures
(1986, 1988, & 1990) predicted Caucasian children’s Math
scores when maternal intelligence was controlled. Moreover,

it couldn’t be concluded that any of the HOME measures at

83

 

 

 

 

 

.8. x.... s. x... 8. x.. . v...
00%.? 009:? 0008.” 0m— .m 0002.0 0008.“ $8.N 008.‘ 000—.Q.C BIO 8% l
000“. F— 000 P”. P— 0008.8 0008.0 000B.mw 0008.8 0008.0 000$.WF 000 —°. F” l
8. 3. 8. 9. 9. 8. m... 9. 8. .m
.82.
.8. ..:. :3. +9. 8. .9. B. 8. 8. as...
.8:
8. 8. +9. 8. B. 8. 3. 8. .2. 95..
.8:
8. 8. 8. 8. .9. +9. 8. .9. .9. 25..
0008. 000m. 000?”. 0008. 0008. 0008. 008. 08. 0008. E
0008. F0 000”}; 0008.8 0002.8 0008.9 0008.8 000NF .8 0008.8 0009.3 &
x. 2. 9. z. 8.. 2. 8. 3. c. 1.
000a. 0008. 0009. 000.5. 0008. 0008. 000?”. 0005. 000 FV. E
.8"... can... .83. .83. can... .83. .8"... can... .89... 8.8:...
838.8 52.9... 0.95.0. 5.82.8 8:95 6.95 5.3.8 52.8: 295 .828...
8...: 2955 48:2 .296 8...: :805
6.8g 9.9m... SEES. 9.9m. .....i .2...

 

... . 33 8.8.2.5

 

E5. 6.56. .5 ... ......o....... 8 .88. _ .8... .835. 8..
.5535. 9...... B E .3 9: .238. 8.8.6... 22:2.

N. a»

84
three different points in time was the best predictor of the
children’s achievement. Rather, each HOME measure made a
unique contribution to predicting each achievement measure,
in combination or in isolation. The standardized beta for
maternal intelligence was considerably larger than the
standardized betas for each home environment score.
Together maternal Intelligence and the HOME accounted for
between 13 and 20% of the variance in children's
achievement. The F values at the very end of table informs
if the F for the change in R-square is significant or not.
They were highly significant for all of the achievement
measures; however, the F for the change in R-square for Math
scores among Caucasian subsample was only marginally

significant (p < .10).

Paths of Influence

As suggested in the conceptual model, this study
attempted to understand how characteristics of the mothers
affect the quality of the home environment directly and
indirectly by influencing the broader social context in
which the mother-child relationship is evolving.
Ultimately, the quality of the mothers’ caregiving practices
is likely to influence the developmental outcomes of
children. In this section, the extent to which the data are
consistent with the conceptual model is discussed. Based on

the theoretical model (Figure 1) and the results of observed

85
correlations among variables, two path models are presented
in Figures 2 & 3. For each model, path coefficients are
standardized betas except for the paths linking maternal
intelligence, age at first birth, maternal delinquency, and
self-esteem (1980) in Figure 2, and paths showing links
among maternal intelligence, self-esteem (1980), and
delinquency in Figure 3. For those coefficients, the zero-
order correlations are presented in brackets.

For both ethnic groups, maternal intelligence, number
of children in household, and home environment were
significant predictors of children's Reading Recognition
scores. The effects of maternal intelligence were largely
direct on child outcome for both groups. However, its
effect on outcome scores also was indirect, mediated through
other factors. For the African-American subsample, mothers
with higher AFQT scores tended to have higher income, and
they were more likely to provide cognitively stimulating and
emotionally supportive home environments for their children,
which in turn influenced children’s cognitive competence
positively. African-American mothers' age at first birth
and delinquency had also indirect effects on parenting, by
influencing the social contexts in which the mother-child
relationship exists (i.e., level of family income).

Maternal self-esteem (1980) influenced parenting behavior
directly in African-American families. Of the marital

variables, marital happiness had indirect effects on

86

..onmtotzoo some is: .dgsovbi «833330 38 :02EEVéSEv. .SNEEQES Stow
.ENSE 2: E hthoE 9%.: $2895.38 foe. EESSWE $20 .. 202

MOOVQ .13.. .~O.VQ ...... .mo.VQ ... .OMV Q+
Ems? Son n E20808 58
35.33%. .355“. - ..BEV SxSsE 55 .m 2.3m

 

   

  

 

 

 

OISEQ

 

res:

 

 

 

87

box. FSEES some 98¢. 33:935. 2339on has §.o.tmEV.§9$xv. kamfleflto: 2.8%
.335 2: E pmhfiofi 39: Santofimoo ion N§UREMB A30 .. 8oz

 

3er ...... .SVQ .. «ova .. 5? 9.
5&6)» Son u 820E000 5mm

m~§33h §~§o§b Sbmno: Sam .M 933%
S:

 

0.33 .-v

...wfi-

 

 

 

1L.

01:..me

 

 

 

 

88
children's Reading Recognition by influencing the quality of
the home environment.

For the Caucasian subsample, besides its direct effect
on child’s PIAT score, maternal intelligence was related to
their level of family income, and the effects of this factor
on children's outcomes were mediated through the home
environment. Maternal intelligence also predicted marital
variables (i.e., global happiness and marital discord). For
the Caucasian subsample, maternal delinquency influenced
parenting behavior directly and it also influenced parenting
indirectly, by influencing the level of income. Maternal
self-esteem (1980) influenced the level of marital

communication, which in turn influenced the parenting.

Summary of Results

In this section, the results of the present study are
summarized according to the research hypotheses and research

questions presented in Chapter III.

fiypothesis 1: Mothers with higher levels of intelligence
will provide better quality home environments than mothers
with lower levels of intelligence.

Hypothesis 2: Mothers with higher levels of self-esteem will
provide better quality home environments than mothers with
lower levels of self-esteem.

Hypothesis 3: Mothers who delayed child bearing are likely
to provide better uality home environments than mothers who
started child bearing earlier.

flypothesis : Mothers with higher levels of education are
likely to provide better quality home environments than
mothers with lower levels of education.

89

In the bivariate analyses, for the entire sample and
each ethnic group, mothers who had higher levels of
intelligence, self—esteem, and education and mothers who
delayed their childbearing were more likely to provide
better quality home environments than their counterparts
(see Table 8).

Of all the maternal characteristics, self-esteem
measured at an earlier period (1980) emerged as a unique
predictor of HOME scores of African-American mothers. Level
of maternal self-esteem (1987) was significantly related to
the HOME scores of the Caucasian mothers, but not the
African-American mothers. The presence of maternal
delinquency was negatively related to the quality of home
environments mothers provide. Maternal intelligence, age at
first birth, and levels of education completed by mothers
were found to be related to the HOME scores for the entire
group, but failed to emerge as a unique predictor for both

ethnic groups (see Table 9).

Hypothesis 5: Mothers with higher quality marital
relationships will provide a better quality home environment
than mothers with lower quality marital relationships.

The results of the bivariate analyses provided some
support for this hypothesis. For the entire sample, mothers
who experienced higher levels of global happiness and

marital communication, and lower levels of marital discord

90
in their marriages tended to provide more supportive home
environments. For African-American mothers, the level of
global happiness in their marriage was significantly related
to the quality of the home environment. In contrast, the
level of marital communication was positively related to
home environment scores in the Caucasian subsample (see
Table 8).

For African-American mothers, higher levels of global
happiness in their marriage made a unique contribution to
predicting a better quality home environment in the
regression analyses. On the other hand, the level of
marital communication was marginally related to the HOME
scores of Caucasian families in the regression analyses (see

Table 9).

Hypothesis 6: Mothers with higher levels of income will
provide better quality home environments than mothers with
lower level of income.

Hypothesis 7: Mothers who have smaller numbers of children
will provide better quality home environments than mothers
who have more children.

Zero-order correlation for the overall sample and both
ethnic groups showed that mothers who had higher levels of
family income and fewer children tended to provide more
supportive home environments, with one exception. Number of
children was not related to the HOME scores for the
Caucasian subsample. Regression analyses showed that only

level of family income was a significant predictor of home

91
environment for both ethnic groups when other factors were

controlled (see Table 9).

Hypothesis 8: Mothers with higher levels of intelligence are
likely to have children who perform at higher levels on
measures of cognitive competence when the quality of the
home environment is controlled.

The data supported this hypothesis. Maternal
intelligence was significantly related to the children's
academic achievement for the entire sample and both ethnic
subsamples when the quality of home environment was

controlled (see Table 11).

Hypothesis 9: Mothers with higher levels of intelligence are
likely to have children who show fewer behavioral problems
when the quality of the home environment is controlled.
Mother’s intelligence was found to be unrelated to the
behavioral problem scores of children, with one exception,
when the quality of the home environment was controlled (see
Table 11). Surprisingly, Caucasian mothers with higher
levels of intelligence tended to have children who were
perceived of having higher scores on Total Behavioral

Problem measure when other factors were controlled (see

Table 11).

Hypothesis 10: Mothers with higher levels of self-esteem are
likely to have children who perform at higher levels on
cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

92

Limited support was found for this hypothesis.
Mothers’ self-esteem (1987) was only related to the Math
scores for the African-American subsample when the quality
of the home environment was controlled (see Table 11).
However, for the African-American subsample, self-esteem
(1980) was a significant predictor of the quality of the
home environment when other factors were controlled. For
the Caucasian subsample, self-esteem (1987) was a
significant predictor of the quality of home environment
when other factors were controlled (see Table 9). These
results indicate that the effect of maternal self-esteem on
children’s achievement may be largely indirect, via the home

environment.

Hypothesis 11: Mothers with higher levels of self—esteem are
likely to have children who show fewer behavioral problems
when the quality of the home environment is controlled.
African-American mothers’ self-esteem (1987) was
negatively related to Total Behavioral Problem scores, but
Caucasian mothers’ both measures of self-esteem were not
related to any of the behavioral problem measures of their
children, when the quality of the home environment was
controlled (see Table 11). As pointed out above, the effect

of maternal self-esteem is found to be both direct and

indirect via the home environment.

93
Hypothesis 12: Mothers who delayed childbearing are likely
to have children who perform at higher levels on measures of
cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

Hypothesis 1 : Mothers who delayed childbearing are likely
to have children who show fewer behavioral problems when the

quality of the home environment is controlled.

These hypotheses were generally not supported by the
data. When other factors were controlled, mothers’ age at
first birth was not related to the children’s cognitive and
behavioral outcomes, with the exception of reading
comprehension for the entire sample and African-American
subsample; children whose mothers delayed their childbearing
tended to score higher on the Reading Comprehension test for
the entire sample. However, in the case of African-American
mothers, mothers who delayed childbearing were likely to
have children who perform at higher levels on Reading
Comprehension test (see Table 11). Age at first birth was
related to several of the other predictor variables used in
the analysis, and this may explain why it did not have an
effect on the outcome of interest when these other factors

were controlled.

Hypothesis ; : Mothers with higher levels of education are
likely to have children who perform at higher levels on
cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

The data did not support this hypothesis. Maternal

education was found to be unrelated to the children's

94
cognitive outcomes for overall sample and both ethnic groups
when other factors were controlled (see Table 11).
According to the zero-order correlation, maternal education
was significantly related to all three cognitive measures
for the entire group and both ethnic groups, ranging from
.12 to .29. The bivariate relation between maternal
education and children’s achievement may be due to the fact

that both variables are related to maternal intelligence.

H othesis 15: Mothers with higher levels of education are
likely to have children who show fewer behavioral problems
when the quality of the home environment is controlled.

This hypothesis was not supported by the data.
Maternal education was found to be unrelated to the
behavioral outcomes for the entire group and both ethnic

groups (see Table 11).

Hypothesis 1 : Mothers with supportive marital relationships
are likely to have children who perform at higher levels on
cognitive measures when the quality of home environment is
controlled.

Hypothesis 1 : Mothers with supportive marital relationships
are likely to have children who show fewer behavioral
problems when the quality of home environment is controlled.

Global happiness in their marriage and level of marital
communication were found to be related to none of the

cognitive outcomes, when the quality of the home environment

was controlled. The level of marital discord was

95
negatively related to African-American and Caucasian
children’s Math scores and overall sample’s Math and Reading
Comprehension scores (see Table 11).

When the quality of the home environment was
controlled, the marital variables were not related to the
behavioral outcomes, with one exception. Global happineSs
in the marriage was found to be negatively related to the
Antisocial scale scores for the overall sample. The effect
of marital quality on the children’s behavioral adjustment

may be largely indirect.

Hypothesis 18: Mothers with higher levels of income are
likely to have children who perform at higher levels on
cognitive competence when the quality of the home
environment is controlled.

H othesis 19: Mothers with higher levels of income are
likely to have children who show fewer behavioral problems
when the quality of the home environment is controlled.

The level of family income was consistently related to
the behavioral outcomes of African-American children, when
the quality of the home environment was controlled. For the
Caucasian subsample, none of the outcome scores was related
to the level of income (see Table 11). Given that family
income was a significant predictor of HOME scores for both
African-American and Caucasian subsample, its effect on the

children’s outcomes may be largely indirect, via the home

environment.

Hypothesis 20: Mothers who have fewer children in the family

96
are likely to have children who perform at higher levels on
cognitive measure when the quality of the home environment
is controlled.
Hypothesis 21: Mothers who have fewer children in the family
are likely to have children who show fewer behavioral
problems when the quality of the home environment is
controlled.

The number of children in the household was negatively
related to the African-American children’s Math and Reading
Recognition scores, when the quality of the home environment
was controlled. For the Caucasian subsample, it was also
negatively related to the two reading measures (see Table
11); children from larger families tended to score lower on
the Reading Recognition and Reading Comprehension test.

No support was found for the hypothesis regarding
behavioral outcomes in the overall sample and both ethnic
groups. The number of children in the household typically

did not have an effect on behavioral outcomes when other

factors were controlled.

Hypothesis 22: The quality of the home environment is
related to the children’s academic achievement when maternal
intelligence is controlled.

This hypothesis was somewhat supported by the data.
The results of the analyses suggested that both maternal
intelligence and home environment were significantly related
to the Caucasian children’s academic achievement (see Table

11). For the African-American subsample, home environment

was positively related to the Reading Recognition measure.

97

Research Question 1: Does the mothers’ previous delinquency
predict the quality of the home environment mothers provide
for their children?

Correlations showed that maternal delinquency was
related to the HOME scores of Caucasian mothers. When other
factors were controlled, maternal delinquency was a
significant predictor of the quality of the home environment

among Caucasians (see Table 9).

Research Question : Is there a direct or indirect
relationship between maternal delinquency and children’s
level of cognitive and behavioral outcomes?

For African-American families, maternal delinquency was
not related to any of the cognitive and behavioral measures.
Given that maternal delinquency was not significantly
related to the HOME scores among African-Americans, neither
direct nor indirect effects appeared to exist.

For Caucasian families, maternal delinquency was found
to be positively related to the Antisocial scores, when the
quality of the home environment was controlled. Moreover,
maternal delinquency was related to the quality of the home
environment, when other factors were controlled. This
implies that maternal delinquency also has an indirect

effect on children's Antisocial behaviors.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter begins with a summary of the major
findings pertaining to the research objectives posed in
Chapter I. The extent to which the data are consistent with
the conceptual model guiding this research is also discussed
as the findings are reviewed. Discussion of the limitations
of the present study, the implications of the findings, and

suggestions for future research are then presented.

1. Factors related to the home environment

Objective 1

To examine which maternal characteristics predict the
quality of the home environment mothers provide.

Objective 2

To examine which contextual factors predict the quality of
the home environment mothers provide.

Objective 3

To determine if the same factors predict the quality of home
environment provided by African-American and Caucasian
mothers.

The first three objectives of the present study were to
identify factors that may influence the quality of care
adolescent mothers provide for their children. As shown in
the conceptual model, maternal characteristics, such as
self-esteem and intelligence, and contextual factors, such

98

99

umsmmmamfl Ewe: 3339339 .~ 333%

 

zmammiqmm
was/BEE K

ZOERGDQW m0 Am>mq

—
83755 N a h< gammy—@836 jam—HE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ego Ema ENE
é é mo mmmzbz S. mo...
mBzOOHDO EOE HAGUE >0Mm<DOzHfl
Bio All: Bzom .8 EB e sz.
omg omg Klll
ammzofifimm Emmemmfimm
A, > x? is; $2322
moZmoHdmszH
izmflg
exam-away N a H4. ECU %
Agnaauv n EH. H.
BEE-0% A4213;
_

 

 

100
as number of children and level of family income, were
expected to influence the quality of the home environment
the mothers provided. As expected, the results of the study
showed that no single variable determined the outcome,
rather maternal characteristics and contextual factors in
which the mother and child relationship is embedded were all
related to the quality of care children received. Findings
from this study were consistent with Belsky's (1984) view
that parenting is multiply determined.

For the entire sample, maternal intelligence, self-
esteem (1980), mothers’ age at first birth, level of
education, global happiness in their marriage, and family
income were found to be significantly related to the quality
of the home environment mothers provide for their children.
Twenty to twenty-four percent of variance in HOME scores was
explained by predictor variables for the overall sample and
two ethnic groups.

For variables that were significant predictors of home
scores in at least one of the ethnic groups, the magnitude
of the unstandardized regression coefficients were compared
for the two ethnic groups to determine if the two
coefficients differed significantly from each other. There
were two findings where the Z scores were significant:
first, the effect of maternal delinquency on HOME scores was
greater for the Caucasian subsample than for the African-

American subsample. Second, the effect of self-esteem

101
(1987) was greater for the African-American subsample than
for the Caucasian subsample. Therefore, not all of the
factors examined in this study were equally important for
both groups. These findings are consistent with the results
of a study by Luster and Dubow (1990).

Contrary to expectation, maternal intelligence was not
found to be related to the quality of the home environment
when other factors were controlled for both ethnic
subsamples. This finding is consonant with the results
reported by Luster and Dubow (1990). They did not find a
relation between maternal intelligence and HOME scores for
African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic teenage mothers.

The zero-order correlations in Table 8 showed that
intelligence was positively correlated with HOME scores (r
=.22). However, when maternal intelligence was entered in
the regression equation, it failed to emerge as a unique
predictor. Given that intelligence was significantly
correlated with other predictor variables, the effect of
intelligence on the quality of home environment appeared to
be mediated by other variables (i.e., self-esteem [1987],
family income).

Another possible explanation can be offered for the
failure to find a relationship between maternal intelligence
and HOME scores. Since the NLSY mothers in this study are
not fully representative of the entire population, there may

be a restricted range on both maternal intelligence and HOME

102
scores. This restricted range could attenuate the relation
between the two variables. Other studies with samples not
restricted to teen mothers have reported a significant
relation between these two variables (e.g., Baharudin,
1992).

It is also important to note that because the
abbreviated version of the HOME Inventory was used in this
study instead of the original version, the relations between
the predictor variables and the quality of the home
environment provided by the mothers may have been

underestimated.

2. The relation between characteristics of mothers in 1979-
1980 and the context in which parent-child transactions

occurs in 1990

Objective 4
To determine if maternal characteristics in 1979-1980 are
related to the context in which parenting occurs in 1990.

As shown in the conceptual model, characteristics of
the mothers assessed in 1979-1980 were expected to predict
the context in which parenting occurred in 1990. To some
extent, the data were consistent with this expectation. For
the Caucasian subsample, maternal intelligence influenced
their global happiness in marriage, marital discord, and

level of family income. Deviating from the expected

direction, maternal intelligence was found to be negatively

103
related to global happiness; mothers with higher AFQT scores
tended to experience lower levels of global happiness.
Maternal delinquency also was found to influence level of
marital discord and family income; mothers who displayed
antisocial behaviors in their teens tended to raise their
children at higher levels of marital discord and lower
levels of family income. The level of marital communication
was influenced by maternal self-esteem measured at an
earlier point in time. Number of children in household was
not found to be predicted by any maternal characteristics.

For the African-American subsample, both maternal
intelligence and mothers' age at first birth influenced
level of family income. Mothers' age at first birth was
also negatively related to number of children in the
household. Mothers who delayed childbearing somewhat tended
to raise their children in smaller families and had higher
levels of family income than their counterparts. The
presence of maternal delinquency also predicted the level of
family income.

In summary, characteristics of the mother assessed at
earlier points in time helped us to better understand the
context in which parenting occurs ten years later. This
finding is in line with Furstenberg et al.'s (1987) view
that the life circumstances of teen parents have
implications for the family environment in which children

are raised, and eventually the well-being of their children.

104
3. Factors related to individual differences in children’s

outcomes

Objective 5

To determine if a variety of maternal characteristics and
contextual factors are related to the children’s outcomes,
when the quality of the home environment is statistically
controlled.

Objective 6

To determine if the same factors predict the children's
outcomes of two ethnic groups.

With respect to the children’s achievement, the
children of Caucasian mothers were shown to have higher
scores on all three achievement measures. Considering the
context in which the African-American children are reared,
this is not a surprising finding. As seen from Tables 2 and
3, African-American children in this study sample
experienced more disadvantaged circumstances than Caucasian
children. African-American mothers scored significantly
lower on the AFQT, were younger when the first child was
born, and received lower scores on the home environment
measure. African-American children also more often
witnessed marital discord between their parents in two-
parent families. In addition, they more often came from a
home that was not financially secure and where the
father/mother’s partner was absent. Thus, to understand
parenting appropriately, consideration of the broader
ecology of the family may be useful rather than focusing on

limited aspects of the family environment (Luster & Okagaki,

1993).

105

Concerning the factors related to individual
differences in children's outcomes, the conceptual model
suggested that maternal characteristics and contextual
factors including home environment were expected to predict
the children’s outcomes. To some extent the data were
consistent with this expectation. The percentage of
variance explained by maternal and contextual factors
together was from .17 to .28 for the cognitive outcome
measures and .07 to .13 for the behavioral outcome measures.

The data from this study showed that maternal
intelligence was the only variable that was consistently
related to all three cognitive outcomes for both groups.
Unexpectedly, mothers' age at first birth tended to have a
negative effect on the Reading Comprehension scores of
African-American children. For the most part, maternal
self-esteem, delinquency and level of education were not
related to the achievement scores of children. The one
exception involves Math scores in the African-American
subsample. African-American mothers who had higher levels
of self-esteem (1987) had children with relatively high Math
scores.

Marital discord was found to affect the children’s Math
scores negatively in both ethnic groups. The number of
children in the household was found to be related to the two
reading measures for the Caucasian children, and the Math

and the Reading Recognition for the African-American

106
children. The measure of home environment was predictive of
all the achievement measures of the Caucasian children. It
was only marginally related to African-American children’s
Reading Recognition scores.

For the behavioral outcome measures, maternal
intelligence was found to be predictive of the Behavior
Problem Total scores for the Caucasian subsample only.
African-American children whose mothers had higher self-
esteem (1987) were perceived as having lower scores on the
Total Behavioral Problem scores by mothers. Maternal
delinquency was found to influence Caucasian children’s
Antisocial scores; Caucasian mothers who displayed
antisocial behaviors in their teens tended to report more
antisocial behaviors of their children. The level of family
income was negatively related to the African-American
children’s two behavioral outcomes, while the quality of
home environment was negatively related to the Caucasian
children's behavioral outcomes.

The variables in the conceptual model accounted for
little of the variance in behavioral problems (7 to 13%) in
comparison to cognitive outcomes. Behavioral problems may
be better explained by the relationship history the child
has had with the mother and other significant adults in his
or her life. Behavioral problems may also be influenced by
peers and other extrafamilial factors (e.g., television

content). In addition, genetic differences among children,

107
in conjunction with how caregivers respond to those
differences (i.e., goodness of fit between the
characteristics of caregiver and child), are likely to
contribute to individual differences in behavioral
adjustment. A model designed to explain individual
differences in behavioral problems would need to be more

inclusive than the model developed for this study.

4. The relation between home environment and children's

outcomes

Objective 7

To determine if the quality of the home environment is
predictive of children's academic achievement when maternal
intelligence is statistically controlled.

Another objective of the present study was to determine
if the quality of the home environment was predictive of
children’s outcomes when maternal intelligence was
controlled. As shown in the conceptual model, children who
did well on the achievement measures and were perceived as
having lower behavioral problems by mothers were expected to
have mothers who provided more supportive home environments.
To some extent the data supported this expectation. The
data from this study suggested that home environment was
related to all cognitive and behaivoral outcome scores for
the Caucasian subsample. Caucasian children who did well on

all the achievement measures and were perceived as having

lower beahvioral problems by mothers had mothers who

108
provided more supportive home environments. However, for
the African-American subsample, Reading Recognition scores
only was found to be related to the HOME measure.

As indicated by Bradley et a1. (1988) earlier, these
coefficient scores were lower than those assessed between
the Infant HOME or the Early Childhood HOME and children's
academic achievement scores. As children get older, the
effects of home environment on the children's cognitive
outcomes seem to be attenuated. This is consistent with the
findings from adoption studies. Adopted siblings tend to be
more alike in early childhood than in adolescence.

The discussion of this study is not intended to suggest
that all adolescent mothers are less facilitating of
appropriate development or otherwise less competent than
older mothers. There is sufficient research clearly
documenting a range of parenting skills among adolescent
mothers (King & Fullard, 1982, Luster & Rhoades, 1989).

To summarize, the life course of the child was strongly
linked to the life course of the mother. Children who were
doing well on the three achievement tests tended to have
mothers who had limited further childbearing and had higher
levels of income. In addition, factors influencing the
quality of home environment and contributing to individual
differences in children’s outcomes may vary depending upon

the age of the children and other factors such as ethnicity.

109
Implications

One of the implications is derived from the linkage
between the life course of the mother and the life course of
the child. strikingly, little coordination has occurred
between those who study child development and those who
study adult development. Human development scholars should
be knowledgeable about research in each other’s area and try
to integrate research from each area to increase their
understanding of human development across the life span.

The present study suggests that in order to understand
teenage mothers and their children there is a need to
develop complex, multivariate models that take into account
both maternal characteristics and contextual factors as well
as the interactive effects existing between them. Such
considerations are necessary so that efforts at changing
parenting behavior and enhancing child functioning can be
maximally effective.

The proposed model of adolescent parenting can serve as
a guide for basic research. An appreciation of the various
levels of analysis included in this conceptual framework and
attempts toward determining some testable hypotheses may
facilitate the conceptual clarity which is a prerequisite
for grounded theory. Further, increased knowledge and
understanding about these relationships may have
significance at a practical level for public decision making

about teenage mothers, and therefore it can be placed in

110
appropriate context. Those concerned with the design,
implementation, and further evaluation of intervention and
primary prevention programs may find this information
particularly useful in guiding decision making for resource
allocation.

Based on the findings of the present study and other
literature, there must be increased emphasis on the
provision of comprehensive services to pregnant and
parenting adolescents. Programs aimed at enhancing the
parenting competence of teenage mothers and the development
of their children at the same time are more likely to be
effective (Luster & Mittelstaedt, 1993). This is necessary
because mothers' competence and children’s appropriate
development are intertwined.

A review of intervention programs for teenage mothers
by Clewell et al. (1989) shows that there are several
promising programs underway that provide services for both
adolescent mothers and their children. Child-focused
interventions strive to prevent the intergenerational
transmission of poverty. Center-based care offers
substitute experiences for the child in terms of enriched
environments, enhanced nutrition, and quality caregiver
interactions. These centers seek to use various strategies
for mother’s effective interaction skills, child
development, and sensitive child-rearing practices. The

data of the present study support this view that programs to

111
enhance parenting skills to provide supportive care for the
child might be beneficial for teenage mothers and
subsequently their children.

Programs also aimed at the mother attempt to alter
maternal internal resources for coping (e.g. self-esteem),
and encourage the mother to move toward self-sufficiency.
As seen in the results, level of family income seems to be
such an important factor as to who’s providing quality care
and who’s not. Therefore, it is important for the
adolescent to finish high school and perhaps continue her
education in order to acquire a higher paying job.

The results of this study also suggest that children
born to adolescent mothers were more likely to perform
poorly in achievement tests if there are large number of
children in the household. Therefore, another goal of
intervention programs should be to help the adolescent
mother in limiting further unintended childbearing. In
summary, the findings of this study suggest that to be
successful programs, they should be ecologically oriented,
focusing on the mothers, their children, and the larger
context in which these families are functioning.

One question that was considered in reviewing the
findings was: Do these findings have implications for
program and practice in Korea? This is a difficult question
to answer because of the dearth of information about teenage

parenthood in Korea. There is virtually no published work

112
on teenage parenthood in Korea. Conversations with adoption
workers in Korea indicate that teen mothers are concealed
within the family system. Teenage parents do not seek
assistance outside their families because they believe that
teenage pregnancy brings disgrace to their families.
Problems associated with early parenthood are well hidden in
Korea. Given the lack of information about teenage
parenthood in Korea, a logical step would be to try to
replicate these findings with a Korean sample. However,
given the way that families in Korea deal with early
childbearing, it is doubtful that this research could be

conducted at this time.

Limitations

Although the NLSY data set affords an excellent
opportunity for researchers to examine a broad range of
factors related to home environment and the developmental
outcomes of children, there are several other variables that
would have been useful to include in this study. Among the
characteristics of the young mothers, measures of mother’s
psychological well-being other than self-esteem (e.g.,
depression level, and ego-resiliency) were not available in
the data set. Likewise, there were no measures of
childrearing beliefs or attitudes available in the data set.

Separate analyses were done for two ethnic subsamples

(African-Americans vs. Caucasians) to investigate whether

113
the same set of predictors was significantly related to the
quality of the home environment and child outcomes within
each ethnic subsample. The analyses that examined the
effects of marital quality on HOME environment and child
outcomes are based on a small number of cases in the
African-American subsample. Therefore, it is important to
note that these analyses are exploratory and descriptive
rather than testing specific hypotheses.

Observed correlations among the predictor variables
ranged from .00 to .59 (less than 8% of the correlations
were above .30), suggesting that there was no serious
multicollinearity problem. However, as indicated in Chapter
III, since almost all of the predictor variables (except for
marital variables) were correlated, it may be difficult to
isolate the specific effect of each of the predictor
variables in the multiple regression analysis.

Despite the fact that no multicollinearity problem was
anticipated, entering two self-esteem scores from two
different times simultaneously was a concern, since self-
esteem(1980) and self-esteem (1987) had a correlation of
.43. Therefore another regression analysis was performed by
excluding the earlier measure of self-esteem from the
predictor variables. Nonetheless, entering the later
measure of self-esteem only in the equation did not
significantly change the results. Thus, a decision was made

to keep both measures of self-esteem in the analyses.

114
Suggestions for Future Research

Social scientists continue to devote their attention to
investigating factors that influence childrearing practices
and their effects on children’s development, particularly
cognitive development. Information on the social-emotional
adjustment of children born to teenage mothers is limited,
compared to the data on academic achievement. Only a few
studies that examined the relation between the life course
of mothers and their children’s social adjustment were
located (e.g., Dubow & Luster, 1990). It seems clear that
more research is needed to fully understand how
characteristics of mothers and contexts combine to influence
the children’s social-emotional outcomes.

Future studies also may investigate the effects of
other contextual factors such as level of social support
that the teenage mother receives, presence of grandparents
or other adults in the household, and quality of the
neighborhood on parenting. Other family members, such as
aunts and siblings, may also have a great influence on the
child in some ethnic groups.

Finally, in the present study, the important notion
that different children may evoke different environmental
inputs from their parents and other adults are missing.
From the finding of this study while there is strong
evidence that maternal and contextual factors are critical

in the development of children, it must also be taken into

115
account that some children may initiate problem behaviors
which lead to negative parental socialization practices and
negative family environments. Future research may also
examine how child characteristics (i.e., age and sex of
child, physical attractiveness, temperament, health status)
are related to HOME scores and the developmental outcome

measures .

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
HOME(Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment)
PIAT(Peabody Individual Achievement Test)
BPI(Behavior Problem Index)

116

Measures of Home Environment

The number of the home environment items correspond to
the number of the items in the original measures, as
presented in the 1984 HOME manual. Items marked with an
asterisk (*) were items that were not included on the
original versions of the HOME but were added to the HOME-SF
for the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The
subscales from which the items were taken are also included.

HOME Inventory: Short Form (Elementary School)

Emotional and Verbal Responsivity
5. Parent encourages child to contribute to the
conversation during visit.
7. Parent responds to child’s questions during interview.
9. Parent’s voice conveys positive feelings about child.

Encouragement of Maturity
11. Family requires child to carry out certain self-care
routines, e.g., makes bed, cleans room, cleans up
after spills, bathes self.
12. Family requires child to keep living and play area
reasonably clean and straight.
15. Parent introduces interviewer to child.

Emotional Climate

19. Mother reports no more than one instance of physical
punishment occurred during past week ("past month" in
the original version of the HOME).

20. Child can express negative feelings toward parent
without harsh reprisals.

23. Parent talks to child during visit (beyond correction
and introduction).

Growth Fostering Materials and Experiences
27. Child has free access to musical instrument (piano,
drum, ukulele, or guitar, etc.).
28. Child has free access to at least ten appropriate
books.
29. Parent buys and reads a newspaper daily.

Provision for Active Stimulation

35. Family encourages child to develop and sustain
hobbies.

37. Family provides lessons or organizational membership
to support child’s talents (especially Y membership,
gymnastic lessons, art center, etc.).

40. Family member has taken child, or arranged for child
to go to a scientific, historical or art museum within

117
the past year.

Family Participation in Developmentally Stimulating
Experiences

42. Family visits or receives visits from relatives or
friends at least once every other week.

44. Family member has taken child, or arranged for child
to attend some type of live musical or theater
performance.

46. Parents discuss television programs with child.

Paternal Involvement
48. Father (or father substitute) regularly engages in
outdoor recreation with child.
49. Child sees and spends some time with father or father
figure, 4 days a week.
50. Child eats at least one meal per day, on most days,
with mother and father (or mother and father figures).

Aspects of the Physical Environment

53. The interior of the apartment is not dark or
perceptually monotonous.

55. All visible rooms of the house are reasonably clean.
(In the original HOME, the item is: All visible rooms
in the house are reasonably clean and minimally
cluttered. This items was divided into two items for
the HOME-SF.)

58. Building has no potentially dangerous structural or
health defects (e.g., plaster coming down from
ceiling, stairways with boards missing, rodents, etc.)

* About how often do you read stories to your child?
(This item and the next item were developed by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development for inclusion in the HOME-SF).
* About how often does your child read for enjoyment?
* All visible rooms in the house are minimally cluttered
(see item 55).

 

DECK 07

SECTION 4: BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS INDEX

FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE 4 YEARS AND OLDER

For who is at least 4 years old or older.
CHILD'S NAME

 

 

INSTRUCTIONS TO MOTHER/GUARDIAN:

(If your child has not yet had his/her 6th birthday, then you are finished
with this booklet.)

These statements are about behavior problems many children have.
As you read each sentence, decide which phrase best describes your child's
behavior over the last three months then circle the number that goes with the

answer you choose.

If any question is not clear, please circle the question number and ask the
interviewer about it when you have finished the booklet.

 

 

l. He/She has sudden changes in mood or feeling.

(CIRCLE one)
Often trueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...1 .72/
Sometimes true................... 2

not true.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 3

 

2. He/She feels or complains that no one loves him/her.

(CIRCLE one)
Often trUEOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.0... 1 73/
sometimes trueOOOOOIOIIOOOOOOOOOO 2

Not crueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......... 3

 

Please turn to next page

118

DECK 07

119

3. He/She is rather high strung, tense and nervous.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often true.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 1 74/
some: imes t rue. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 2

Not trUeOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO...... 3

 

4. He/She cheats or tells lies.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often trueooooooooooooooooooooooo l 75/
SOMBCimeS trueooooooooooooooooooo 2

Not trueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...... 3

 

5. He/She is too fearful or anxious.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often trUEOCOOOOOOC......O....... l 76/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not true.........OOOOOOOOOQOOOOO. 3

 

6. He/She argues too much.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often true....................... I 77/
sometimes true................... 2

Not true.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3

 

7. He/She has difficulty concentrating, cannot pay attention for long.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often trueOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOO l 78/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not true.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 3

Please turn to next page

DECK 08
120

27. He/She is disobedient at school.
(CIRCLE one)
Often true........oo.......o.....l 31/

sometimes trueOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO 2
not trueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... 3

Never Attended SChOOl-OOOOOOOOOOCO 4

 

28. He/She has trouble getting along with teachers.
(CIRCLE one)
Often true.........OCOOOOCOCCOCO. 1 32/
sometimes true. . O O O O O C C C O O O O . O O O C 2
Not trueCOOOCOCOCOOCOOO......C... 3

Never Attended School............ 4

 

29. He/she feels others are out to get him/her.
(CIRCLE ONE)
Often crue.................C.....l 33’
Sometimes true................... 2

NO: trueOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOO 3

 

30. He/she hangs around with kids who get into trouble.
(CIRCLE one)
Often true.........OOOOOOOOOOOOCOl 34/
Sometimes true................... 2

not trueOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.00...O. 3

 

31. He/she is secretive, keeps things to himself/herself.
(CIRCLE out)
Often crue...’...............O...1 35/
sometimes true................... 2

Not true.......COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3

 

32. He/she worries too much.
(CIRCLE ONE)
Often true-......O.........O..... 1 36’

Sometimes true................... 2

NO: trueOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOIOOOO 3

Please turn to next page

121

8. He/She is easily confused, seems to be in a fog.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often true.........OOOOOOOOIOOOOO1
Sometimes true................... 2

Not true.....IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3

BEGIN DECK O8

12/

 

9. He/She bullies or is cruel or mean to others.

. (CIRCLE ONE)
Often true-o 000000 00.00.00.000... I
sometimes true. 00 00 00 00 00 .0 00 O. 00 2

not true.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3

13/

 

10. He/She is disobedient at home.

(CIRCLE one)
Often true.........OOOOOOOOCCCOOC 1
Sometimes true................... 2

not trueOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... 3

14/

 

ll. He/She does not seem to feel sorry after he/she misbehaves.

(CIRCLE 0N8)
Often true.......OOOOOOCOOCCOOOCOl
Sometimes true................... 2

Not true.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC. 3

15/

 

12. He/She has trouble getting along with other children.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often true...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I
sometimes trUEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 2

Not trueOOCOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... 3

16/

 

Please turn to next page

DECK 08

122
13. He/She is impulsive, or acts without thinking.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often trueOOOOOOO... ...... 0...... 1 17/
sometimes true. 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O 2

Not trueOOOOOOOOOOCOO0.0.0.000... 3

 

14. He/She feels worthless or inferior.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often trueoooo.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOl 18/
sometimes trueOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00.000 2

Not true......................... 3

 

15. He/She is not liked by other children.

(CIRCLE one)
Often trueOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1 19/
sometimes trueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 2

Not trueOOOOIOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... 3

 

16. He/She has a lot of difficulty getting his/her mind off certain thoughts
(has obsessions).
(CIRCLE ONE)
Often trueOOOOO......OOOOOCOCOOCOl . 20/
sometimes true...’............... 2

Not trueOOOOOOOOOOOO.......OOOOOO 3

 

l7. He/She is restless or overly active, cannot sit still.

(CIRCLE one)
Often trueOOOOO......O...........l 21’
Sometimes true................... 2

Not [rueOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... 3

Please turn to next page

DECK 08

123
18. He/She is stubborn, sullen, or irritable.
(CIRCLE one)
Often trueOOOOOCOOOOOOO00.0.00...1 22/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not trueOOOOOOOOOOOO...00.0.00... 3

 

19. He/She has a very strong temper and loses it easily.

(CIRCLE one)
Often trueOOOOOOOOOOO............1 23’
Sometimes true................... 2

Not true.......OCOCOOOOOOOOOO.... 3

 

20. He/She is unhappy, sad, or depressed.

(CIRCLE one)
Often true.......OOOOOOOOOCOOCOOOl 24/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not trueOOOOOOOIOOOOO00.0.0000... 3

 

21. He/She is withdrawn, does not get involved with others.

(CIRCLE one)
Often trueOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... 1 ' 25/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not true.......IOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO 3

 

22. He/She breaks things on purpose or deliberately destroys his/her own or
another's things.

(CIRCLE one)
Often trueooooo00.000000000000000 l ' 26/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not trUEOIOOOOOOOO.........OOOOOO 3

Please turn to next page

DECK 08

124
23. He/She clings to adults.

(CIRCLE one)
Often trueIOOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOOOO1 27/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not trueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... 3

 

24. He/She cries too much.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often true....................... 1 28/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not true......................... 3

 

25. He/She demands a lot of attention.

(CIRCLE ONE)
Often trueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......1 29/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not true.........OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO 3

 

26. He/She is too dependent on others.

(CIRCLE out)
Often trueOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.00...1 30/
Sometimes true................... 2

Not trueOOQOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... 3

Please turn to next page

\

...-...... .....- ...

.. M30
SECTIONB: PIATWTES'T

AGES: SYEARSANDOIDER

 

STEPONE: GMQHIDFACESHEEI‘GTEMM. Isaum'szmmsms.
OR OLDER?
YES ............................... 1 49-50/

no...(sxxp 'ID sermon 10, cs-ss)... 0
[STEP ‘1“): IF NEEDED, READ 'I'O MGR/WARDEN.)
This section measures (CHILD) 's mathenaticnl skills. ‘Ihe
questionsbeginataverybasicskill levelandgotoavety

high skill level. No one is expected to answer all the
questions.

[STEP THREE: IF NEEDED. SEE Q XQ.]

STEP MIR: PRACTICE EXERCISES .

 

A. GMQHIDFACESHEETHTEMS). ISGHIDINIS'I‘GRADEOR
HIGHER?
YES.....(SIC[P'IOC)..... 1 51-52/
no ....... (GOTOB) ...... o

B. PRACTICEEDCERCISESFORCHIIDRDINOTYETINISTGRADE.

(1) 'IURN '10 "INI‘ROEIJCTION '10 THE MWCS SUBTESI‘"
(IN PIAT VOIIJME I). READ:
Let's start with sane math pmblens. First, we'll do
sane just for practice to show you what they are like.

(2) FOW'I‘EDCTINEASELPDRPRACTICEDERCISESA-E'IHEN
G'O'IUSTEPFIVE.

C. NOPRCI'ICEFORGHHRENINISI‘GRADEORIHGER.
READ:
We are going to start with sane mathematics problems.
Saneof the firstoneswouldbetooeasyforyai, so
let's start with this one.

 

STEP FIVE: (DOE CHILD'S GRADE. 'IURN 'IU APPHDPRIATE EASEL PAGE AND

W.

IGNUERGARI'ENOR LESS....(Co'IoQ.1, cs-sz)......... oo
lS'I‘GRADE...............(GO'IOQ.15, cs-sz)......... o1
2NDGRADE ............... (00100.25, cs-sz)......... 02
3RDGRADE... ........ ....(GO'IOQ.30, cs-sz)......... 03 53-54/
4THGRADE ............... (00109.35, cs-sz)..........o4
S'IHGRADE ..... . ...... ...(oo'IDQ.4o, <3-52)......... 05
61HGRADE...............(oo'IDQ.45,' cs-sz)......... 06
memos ............... (GO'IOQ.50, C's-52).. ....... 07
em GRADE. ...... ......(SKIP'IDQ.54, cs-53)........ oa
memos .............. (snpmosa, cs-53) ........ 09
leI'HGRADE ............. (SlCIP'IUQ.60, cs—sa) ..... 10
11TH GRADE ........ .....(SKIP'IOQ.62, <25-53)........ 11
lZ'IHGRADE ............. (SKIP'IOQ.64, cs-sa) ....... . 12

 

'-126

 

BASAL-SOFSCDRRECT
CEIIIME-SOFSWRDNG

IFS'IERTMQ. 18%,!!!»
BAG'IUNECTGRADELEVEL

 

 

 

 

'K' 1. (4) (_ )55-56} 1 2 57-58/ 27 .(3) ( )47-48/ 1 i 2 49-50/

2. (2) ( )59-60/ 1 2 61-62/ 23. (1) ( )51-52/ 1 2 53-54/

3. (3) ( )63-64/ 1 2 65-66/ 29. (3) ( )55-56/ 1 2 57-58/

BEGIN DECK 31
4. (1) ( )11—12/ 1 2 13-14/ 3rd 30. (2) ( )59—6o/ 1 2 61-62/
5. (4) ( )15-16/ 1 2 17—16/ 31. (2) ( )63-64/ 1 2 65-66/
, BEGIN DECK 33

6. (3) ( )19-2o/ 1 2 21—22/ 32. (4) ( )11-12/ 1 2 13—14/

7. (3) ( )23-24/ 1 2 25-26/ 33. (4) ( )15-16/ 1 2 17-18/

a. (1) ( )27-28/ 1 2 29-30/ 34. (2) ( )19-2o/ 1 2 21-22/

9. (4) ( )31-32/ 1 2 33-34/ 4th 35. (3) ( )23-24/ 1 2 25-26/

10. (4) ( )35-36/ 1 2 37-36/ 36. (1) ( )27-23/ 1 2 29-3o/

11. (1) ( )39-40/ 1 2 41—42/ 37. (2) ( )31-32/ 1 2 33-34/

12. (3) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45-46/ 38. (3) ( )35-36/ 1 2 37-3s/

13. (4) ( )47-43/ 1 2 49-50/ 39. (1) ( )39-40/ 1 2 41—42/

14. (2) ( )51—52/ 1 2 53-54/ 5th,40. (3) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45-46/

1st 15 (4) ( )55—56/ 1 2 57-5a/ 4i. (4) ( )47-48/ 1 2 49-5o/

16. (3) ( )59-6o/ 1 2 61-62/ 42. (4) ( )51—52/ 1 2 53-54/

17. (1) ( )63-64/ 1 2 65-66/ 43. (1) ( )55-56/ 1 2 57-58/

BEGIN DECK 32

18. (3) ( )11-12/ 1 2 13-14/ 44. (3) ( )59-60/ 1 2 61-62/

19. (2) ( )15-16/ 1 2 17-18/ 6th 45. (4) ( )63-64/ 1 2 65—66/ .
BEGIN DECK 34

20. (3) ( )19-2o/ 1 2 21—22/ 46. (2) ( )11—12/ 1 2 13-14/

21. (2) ( )23-24/ 1 2 25-26/ 47. (1) ( )15-16/ 1 2 17-18/

22. (1) ( )27-23/ 1 2 29-30/ 43. (1) ( )19-20/ 1 2 21-22/

23. (2) ( )31—32/ 1 2 33-34/ 49. (3) ( )23-24/ 1 2 25—26/

24. (2) ( )35-36/ 1 2 37-38/ 7th 50. (3) ( )27-28/ 1 2 29-3Q/

2nd 25. (1) ( )39-40/ 1 2 41-42/ 51. (2) ( )31—32/ 1 2 33-34/

26. (4) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45-46/ 52. (4) ( )35-36/ 1 2 37-38/

INTERVIEWER: IF YOU CDDED 5

UNTILGHIDANSWEl-BCDRREXJILY
****’IHENTE‘STEOH¢ARD****
IFQHLDCAN'TGEI‘SNAW

CDRRECT,VDRKBAQ(, I'TEMBY

 

 

 

IN A “mm, SKIP'R) 85.

 

 

 

BASAL=50F5CDRRECT
CEIIINGBSOFSWKJNG

 

 

REXDRD

(CODEONE)
GRADEANSWERREKJNSE CDRRECTWMG

 

53. (4) ( )39-4Q/ 1 2 41-42/ 69. (1) ( )47-48/ 1 2 49-50/
8th 54. (4) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45-46/ 70. (1) ( )51-52/ 1 2 53-54/
55. (2) ( )47—48/ 1 2 49-5o/ 71. (2) ( )55-56/ 1 2 57-58/
56. (3) ( )51-52/ 1 2 53-54/ 72. (1) ( )59-6o/ 1 2 61-62/
57. (1) ( )55-56/ 1 2 57-58/ 73. (1) ( )63-64/ 1 2 65-66/n
BEGIN DECK 36
9th 58. (2) ( )59-6o/ 1 2 61-62/ 74. (3) ( )11-12/ 1 2 13-14/
59. (2) ( )63-64/ 1 2 65-66/ 75. (3) ( )15-16/ 1 2 17-18/
BEGIN DECK 35
10th 60. (1) ( )11-12/ 1 2 13-14/ 76. (4) ( )19—29/ 1 2 21—22/
61. (3) ( )15-16/ 1 2 17-18/ 77. (3) ( )23-24/ 1 2 25-26/
11th 62. (1) ( )19-28/ 1 2 21-22/ 78. (2) ( )27—28/ 1 2 29—3q/
63. (4) ( )23-24/ 1 2 25-26/ 79. (3) ( )31-32/ 1 2 33-34/
12th 64. (3) ( )27-28/ 1 2 29-30/ 80. (4) ( )35-36/ 1 2 37-38/
65. (2) ( )31-32/ 1 2 33-34/ 81. (2) ( )39-49/ 1 2 41-42/
66. (2) ( )35-36/ 1 2 37-38/ 82. (1) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45—46/
67. (4) ( )39-40/ 1 2 41-42/ 83. (2) ( )47-48/ 1 2 49-5q/
68. (4) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45-46/ 84. (2) ( )51-52/ 1 2 53-54/
85. m: A. DIDyaJGErABASAL? ARE'I‘HEREfmw) IFCHIID
ODNSECUTIVE CORRECT RESPONSES.NT'EHE BEGINNING? REACHES
ITEM #1
YES ................................. 1 WITHOUT 55-56/
NO...(GO BACK.ANDIGET THE EASAL).... o (GETTING
5ws
8mmmmmmmmnmmmmmmm amm
CONSECUTIVE RESPONSES Ingggangr? ITEM #1
IS BASAL!
YES ................................. 1
NO...(GO BACKANDGEI’THECEIIING)” 0 57-58/

127

DECIG 34-36

 

 

IFS'MDBQ. ISWKJNG, WPM'IU
NEXTGQADEIEVELUNTILOHIDANSWHB

CDRRECTUY.
“Hum TEST mun»

IFQIIIDCAN'TGETSDIAWCDRRKZ’T,
mm, I'TEMBYI'TEM'IOGETBASAL.

 

 

REGDRD

(CDDEQIE)
ANSWER RESPCIISE WT WRING

 

 

 

 

 

128 DECKS 36-37
86. mm: OOMHJIESOORE:

 

 

 

A. REOORD FINAL BASAL. 1 1 1 59-60/
B. ENTER CEILING Ql (LAST TTEM WRONG). | | | 61—62/
C. ENTER 'IUI'AL # 0F ERRORS BETWEEN BASAL AND CEILING. 1 1 1 63-64/
D. SUBTRAGT 'C' FROM '8'. | |__| = SOORE 65-66/
W: BEGIN DECK 37

87. WASANYONE ELSE PRESENT, mmmeING'mEADmIISTRATIONOE'mIs.

SECTION? '
YES. . ..' ...... (ANSWER A) ................ 1 11-12/
NO .......... (GO'IOQ.88).... ........... o
W
SEEMED TO NONE SEE‘MED To

a A. M PRES . W W W .DIEEEIE.
MOTHER | | 13-14/ 1 2 3 15-16/
FATHER | | 17-18/ 1 2 3 19-20/
OIHER Am 1 | | 21—22/ 1 2 3 23-24/
CHILIREN | | | 25-26/ 1 2 3 27-28/

 

88. (DOB CHILD'S EMMY LEVEL [IJRING SEXZTION.

LLJw (tired) .............. . ............. 1
Medium ................... . ........... .. 2 29-30/
High ................................. .. 3

 

89. VESTHIS SM'ICNTERIINNTEDPRMJREIX?

YEOOOOOOOODOO(BKA)....0.00COOOOOOOOO 1 31-32/
m....(GO'IOSECTION9,CS-55). ....... . o

A. REASON FOR PRD‘IA'IURE TERMINATION OF THIS SECTION.
(OODE ALLIIIAT APPLY.)

pARENT/GUARDIAN TEIMINATED/RETUSED. . . . . 01 33-34/
CHIIDWJIDNOI‘RESPONDW...” ....... 02 35-36/
MAJOR DEERRUPTION CAUSED TERMINATION” 03 37-38/
GIILDOOULDNOTUNDEISTANDTASK........ 04 39-40/
GLILD HAD LANGUAGE momma...” ...... .. 05 41-42/
CHILD'S MONALCDNDTI'ION............06 43-44/
CHILD'S PHYSICAL OONDTTION ............. 07 45-46/

OTHER (SPECIFY)

 

08 47-48/

 

m3?
mm 9: PIAT READIm

AGES: PPVTAGESYEARSANDOIDER

 

W
STEPONE: GMQHIDFACESHEET (I'TEM4). ISGIIID'SMAGESYIGOR
OLDER?
YE....O.......OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO0.0 1 49-50/

m...(SKIP 'IO SECTICN 10, CS-63).. 0

[STEP 'Im: IF NEEDED, READ 'IO mI‘HER/GJARDIAN.)

'Ihis section measures (CHILD) 's ability to recognize letters
andwords. 'Ihequestimsbeginatabasiclevelardproceedto

ahigherlevel ofskill. Nooneisexpectedtoanswerallthe
questias.

[S'TEP'IHREE: IFNEEDEDSEEQXQ.]

STEP TOUR: PRACTICE EXERCISES.

 

A. QIECKGIIIDFACESHEETHTEMS). ISCHILDINISTGRAEOR

HIGHER?
YES .......... (SKIP To C) ....... 1 51-52/
NO .......... ..(GO'IOB)...........O

B. WACTICEFORQIIIDQENWTYETDIISTGRADE.

(1) 'IURN 'IO "INTRODICTION 'ID READING RECOGNITION SUBTEST"
(IN PIAT VOUME I). READ:

NavIamgoingtogiveyaisaneproblansinreading.
First, let's look at sane more practice am to show
you what these are like. ('IURN '10 EXERCISE A.)

(2) FOLLOW TEXT IN EASEL FOR PRACTICE EXERCISES (A-E) .
THEN GO '10 STEP FIVE.

C. mPRACI'ICE FORGiIImENIN ISTGRADEORHIGHER.
'IURN 'ID "MON '10 READING WON W"
(PIAT VOLUME 1) READ:

Navwearegoing to dosanereading. Again, let's skip
oversateoftheveryeasyonesandstarthere. GO'IO'
SI'EPFIVE.

STEP FIVE: 'IURN BACK TO Q.860, CS-54. RECDRD SCDRE IN mX A BEIW.

SKIP'IOSI‘ARTIME Qt (SEE m)! A), mmAPPRDPRIATE EASEL
PAGEANDPRDCEED.

 

 

(STARTING Q# m SECTION 8, CS-54, Q.8GD.)

 

 

 

> 53-54/

 

129 Box A

130
DECKS 37-39

 

 

BASALIBSOFSCDRRECT
CEILIMBBSOFSWRONG

IF STARTING Q. 13 WRONG, JUMP BACK
5 UNTIL.CHILD.ANSWERS CDRRECTUY.
Mum TEST mun
IECIIIIDCAN'TGEISINARomeCI,
WORK BACK, ITEM BY TTEM‘TO GET'BASAL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:mmmmmmmm.
BESURE'IOCDDEEVERXAIBWER.

 

'1! ! fliiLEE‘ll'fl'

 

 

 

SEEELQEELLL___ SEIELQEELLL____
PLATE/ITEM CIRCLE PLATE/ITEM CIRCLE
# # ANSWER (DRRECT WmNG # # ANSWER CURREC'T WEDNG

1 1. (1) 1 2 55-56/ 23. (wagon) 1 43-44/

2 2 . (2) 1 2 57-58/ 24 . (fishing) 1 45-46/

3 3. (1) 1 2 59-60/ 25. (brook) 1 47-43/

4 4. (4) 1 2 ‘61-62/ 26. (gloves) 1 49-SQ/

5 5. (3) 1 2 63-64/ 27. (smile) 1 51-52/

6 6. (2) 1 2 65-66/ 28. (colt) 1 53-54/

BEBIN DECK 38
7 7. (1) 1 2 11-12/ 29. (round) 1 SS-SQ/
PLATE _

8 8. (2) 1 2 13-14/ 17-> 30. (blaze) 1 57-52/

9 9. (4) 1 2 15-16/ 31. (feather) 1 59-6Q/

10 10. (B b) 1 2 17-18/ 32. (flour) 1 2 61-62/

11 11. (A.a) 1 2 19-20/ 33. (igloo) 1 2 63-64/

12 12. (0) 1 2 21-22/ 34. (liquid) 1 2 65-66/

RESIN m 39

13 13. (S) 1 2 23-24/ 35. (purse) 1 2 11-12/

14 14. (N) 1 2 25-25/ 36. (dangerous) 1 2 13-14/
PLATE

15-> 15. (c) 1 2 27-28/ 37. (lodge) 1 2 15-15/

16. (i) 1 2 29-30/ 33. (stylish) 1 2 17-12/

17. (d) 1 2 31-32/ 39. (accident) 1 2 19-2Q/

18. (no 1 2 33-34/ 40. (ruin) 1 2 21-22/
PLATE

16-> 19. (run) 1 2 35-36/ 41. (exercise) 1 2 23-24/

20. (play) 1 2 37-38/ 42. (pigeon) 1 2 25-26/

21. (jump) 1 2 39-40/ 43. (moisture) 1 2 27-2&/

22. (kitten) 1 2 41—42/ 44. (artificial) 1 2 29-3Q/

INTERVIEWER: IFYOUCDDED§INAWWRD§B, SKIP'IOQ.85.

 

 

BASAL=50F5CDRRECT
CEILIM;=5.0F5WR)NG

 

 

DITERVIEWER:

QQDE_QBEu11___

munIyITEM CIRCLE

 

) ) ANSWER CORRECT WRONG

r
45. (anchor) 1 2 31-32/

PLATE

LB—-> 46. (elegant) 1 2 33-34/
47. (gaudy) 1 2 35-36/
48. (treacherous) 1 2 37-38/
49. (yacht) 1 2 39-4Q/
50. (guerilla) 1 2 41-42/
51. (boisterous) 1 2 43-44/
52. (isthmus) 1 2 45-45/
53. (anticipation) 1 2 47-48/
54. (vertebrates) 1 2 49-5Q/
55. (contenplate) 1 2 51-52/
56- (heroine) 1 2 53-54/
57. (unparalleled) 1 2 ss—sq/
58. (inaccessible) 1 2 57-58/
59. (colleague) 1 2 59-60/
60. (medieval) 1 2 61-62/
61. (pinnacle) 1 2 63-64/

PLATE

19--> 62. (picturesque) 1 2 65-66/
63. (adjacent) 1 2 67-68/
64. (navigable) 1 2 69-70/

LHIEEZIEEEB=

131

DECIG 39-40

 

 

IFSWQ. ISWKIG,JUMPBACK
SUNTILGIILDANSWMW.
*****’I}E‘1TESTFWRD*****
IFCHILDGW'TGETSINAWCDRREXZT,
VDRKBAC’K, ITEMBYITEM'IUGETBASAL.

 

 

mmmm. 0002mm.

, .

FIAEEVITEM CIRCLE

 

' f ANSWER GDRREC’T m
EEGTN DECK 4O
65. (dimirutive) 1 2 11-12/
66. (ensign) 1 2 13-14/
57. (dilapidated) 1 2 ls-lq/
68. (bureaucrat) 1 2 17-12/
69. (adulation) 1 2 19-20/
70. (exorbitantly) 1 2 21-22/
71. (epoch) 1 2 23—24/
72. (aesthetic) 1 2 25-26/
73. (deluge) 1 2 27-22/
74. (didactic) 1 2 29-3Q/
75. (titular) 1 2 31-32/
76. (credulity) 1 2 33—34/
77. (judiciable) 1 2 35-3Q/
PLATE
20-> 7a. (nihilism) 1 2 37-38/
79. (pharyngeal) 1 2 39-4Q/
so. (pterodactyl) 1 2 41—42/
81. (macrocosm) 1 2 43-4i/
32. (chimerical) 1 2 45-46/
83. (disaccharide) 1 2 47-48/
34. (apophthegm) 1 2 49-50/

II‘YOUCDDEDEIINAWWIDI‘G, SKIP'IOQ.85.

 

 

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35. mm: A DIDYCUGETAEASAL? AREmEREEIyEw)
CONSECUTIVE CORRECT RESPONSES AG'TNE BEGINNING?
YES 00000 0 00000 0.00.0000.00.000.00.000...1
No ..... (GO BACK AND GET'THE EASAI) ...... o
EbmmmmmmmAmmmmmmm
CDNSEQIHVEREBMJSESW
YES OOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO. ......... 0.1
No ..... (GO BACK AND‘GET'DHE CEILING).... o
86. WAS THIS SECTION TERMINATED PREMATURELY?
YES ............. (ASK A)...... .......... .. 1
NO ...... (GO ‘10 SECTION 10, CS-63).. ...... o
A. REASON TOR.PRENREURE TERMINATION CE'INGS SECTION.
(CODE AIL.TEAT'APPLY.)
PARENT/GUARDINN'TERMINATEDVREFUSED ..... . 01
cru1L>WOULD NOT:RESPOND................. 02
MAJOR.INTERRUPTION CAUSED'TERMINATICN... 03
CHILD COULD NOT UNDERSTAND‘TASK ..... .... 04
CHILD HAD LANGUAGE PROBLEM ..... . ..... ... 05
CHILD'S EMOTIONAI.CONDTTTON.. ........ ... 06
CHILD"S PNYSICAL.CONDTTION... .......... . 07
OTHER (SPECIFY)
03
37. INTERyIEWER: COMPUTE SCORE:
A. ENTER TINAL.EA3AL. |___L___|
B. ENTER HIGHEST’CEILING Q) |___J |
(LAST ITEM:WRONG).
c. 'ENTER'ROEAL t 0F ERRORS BETWEEN
EASAL.AND CEILING. - | | |
D. SUETRACT 'C' FROM '8'. = SCORE
E. IS CHILD'S SCORE IN BOX '0' 15 CR HIGHER?
YES ....... (GO TO>STEP SIX) ............ 1

NC ...... (SKIP TO 9.37, (IS-62) ......... o

DECLG 40-41

 

 

IF CHILD
REACHES
T194! 1

5OF5

I'I'Eflil
ISBASAL!

 

 

51-52/

53-54/

55-56/

57-58/
59-60/
61-62/
63-64/
ss-ea/
67-68/
69-70/

71-72/

BEBINMICK‘H

11-12/

13-14/

15—15/

17-13/

19-20/

DEXZK 41
133

WEN

 

[STEP SIX: IF NEEDED, READ 'IO whim/GUARDIAN.)
This section measures (CHILD) 's ability to understand what (he/she)
reads. The questions begin at a very basic skill level and go to a
very high skill level. No one is expected to answer all the questiom.

(STEP SEVEN: IF NEEDED, SEE Q X 0.]

STEP EIGHT: PRACTICE EXERCISES.

A. CHECKGIILDFACESHEETHTEMM. ISGIILDINISTGRADECRHIM

GRADE?
YES. . . (SKIP '10 C) ..... 1 21—22/
NO. . . . (GO '10 B) ....... o

B. WACTICEFORGIILWENWTYETDIISTGRADE.

(1) 'IURN T0 "DIIROUJCTION 'IU READING W104 SUHTES'T"
(IN PIAT VOLUME II) AND READ:

NowIwant to find outhowwell youmwderstandand
remenber what you read. Let us practice again a little so
you will know what I want you to do. (GO TO PRACTICE A.)

(2) FOL-[m TEXT IN EASEL FUR PRACTICE EXERCISES.

C. mPRACTICEFORGIIURENINISTG-RADEORHIQ‘IER. 'IURN'IU
"INTROIIJCTIW'IU'IHEREADDIG (IMPREHENSION SUBTEST," INPIAT VOLIJIE
IIANDREAD:

NCwIwanttofirdouthowwell youcanunderstandand
remenber what you read. But, first, let me explain what
you are to do. I am going to show you a page. It will
have only a sentence printed on it. Read this sentence
silently (PAUSE) to yourself (PAUSE) just once. When you
have finished, look up at me. Then I will show you the
next page which will have four pictures on it. You are
to (show me/point to/tell me the number of) the picture
that best describes what you have read. Be sure to
remember what you have read, once, and then look up
at me.

STEP NINE: RECDRD SCORE FROM Q.87D, (TS-58 IN HDX B BELCM. SKIP '10 STARTING
Q” (SEE mX BBEIW), 'IURN'IUAPPRDPRIATE EASEL PAGEAND
PROCEED IF RAW SCDRE = 15 OR HIGHER.

 

(STARTING Qfl FRO“! Pflflf A, CS-58, Q.87D.)

-—----->

 

 

 

23-24/

 

EDX B

 

 

134 BEETS 41-44

 

 

BASALBSOFEQRRECT

IFSTARTINGQ.ISW,JU‘IPBACK
CEILDB-BSOFSWRDNG

5 UNTIL.CHILD)ANSWERS CORRECTEY.
"Hm TEST IORWARDvmu
IF CHILD CAN'T'GET 5 IN A.RDW CORRECT,
WORK BACK, TTEM BY ITENIT01GET BASAL.

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVIEWER: BE SURE TO CDDE EVERY ANSWER.

 

 

 

 

 

IIATE RECORD QDDE ONE!.° PIATE IERITE) EEEELSEEL44-_"
5 ANSWER.RESPONSE CORRECT WRONG 4 ANSWER RESPONSE CORRECT WRONG
19. (3) ( )25-26/ 1 2 27-28/ 42. (3) ( )59-6Q/'1 61—62/
20. (1) ( )29-30/ 1 2 31-32/ 43. (1) ( )63-64/ 1 65-66/
21. (2) ( )33-34/ 1 2 35—36/ 44. (4) ( )67-68/ 1 69-7Q/
BEGIN DECK 43
22. (3) ( )37-33/ 1 2 39-40/ 45. (2) ( )11-12/ 1 13-14/
23. (2) ( )41-42/ 1 2 43-44/ 46. (3) ( )15-16/ 1 17-12/
24. (3) ( )45—46/ 1 2 47-48/ 47. (1) ( )19-2Q/ 1 21-22/
25. (l) ( )49-50/ 1 2 51-52/ 48. (1) ( )23-24/ 1 25-26/
26. (1) ( )53-54/ 1 2 55—56/ 49. (2) ( )27-22/ 1 29-3Q/
27. (2) ( )57-58/ 1 2 59-60/ 50. (3) ( )31—32/ 1 33-34/
28. (3) ( )61—62/ 1 2 63-64/ 51. (2) ( )35-36/ 1 37-32/
29. (2) ( )65-66/ 1 2 67-68/ 52. (4) ( )39-49/ 1 41-42/
BEGIN DECK 42
3o. (1) ( )11-12/ 1 2 13-14/ 53. (3) ( )43-44/ 1 45-46/
31. (3) ( )15-16/ 1 2 l7-18/ 54. (4) ( )47-48/ 1 49—5Q/
32. (4) ( )19-20/ 1 2 21-22/ 55. (2) ( )51-52/ 1 53-54/
33. (2) ( )23-24/ 1 2 25-26/ 56. (4) ( )55-56/ 1 57-58/
34. (4) ( )27-28/ 1 2 29-30/ 57. (2) ( )59-60/ 1 61-62/
35. (3) ( )31—32/ 1 2 33-34/ 58. (4) ( )63-64/ 1 65-66/
BEGIN DECK 44

36. (4) ( )35—36/ 1 2 37-38/ 59. (3) ( )11-12/ 1 13-14/
37. (l) ( )39-40/ 1 2 41-42/ 60. (2) ( )15-16/ 1 17-18/
33. (2) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45-46/ 61. (3) ( )19-20/ 1 21-22/
39. (3) ( )47-43/ 1 2 49-50/ 62. (2) ( )23-24/ 1 25-26/
40. (1) ( )51-52/ 1 2 53-54/ 63. (4) ( )27-23/ 1 29-30/
41. (3) ( )55-56/ 1 2 57-58/ 64. (3) ( )31-32/ 1 33-34/
"INTERVIWER: IF YOU CODED 5 .TN A W WW}, (7) 'm Q 85.

135

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECKS 44-45
0 o o W
PLATE RECORD PLATE RECORD
# ANSWER RESPONSE CORRECT WRONG : ANSWER RESPONSE CORRECT ‘WRONG
65. (4) ( )35—36/ 1 2 37-38/ 75. (1) ( )19-2Q/ 1 2 21-22/
66. (1) ( )39-40/ 1 2 41—42/ 76. (2) ( )23-24/ 1 2 25-26/
67. (2) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45—46/ 77. (3) ( )27-28/ 1 2 29-3Q/
68. (l) ( )47-48/ 1 2 49-50/ 78. (4) ( )31-32/ 1 2 33-34/
69. (4) ( )51—52/ 1 2 53-54/ 79. (2) ( )35-36/ 1 2 37-36/
70. (2) ( )55-56/ 1 2 57-58/ 80. (3) ( )39-4Q/ 1 2 41—42/
71. (1) ( )59-60/ 1 2 61—62/ 81. (3) ( )43-44/ 1 2 45-46/
72. (l) ( )63-64/ 1 2 65-66/ 82. (1) ( )47-48/ 1 2 49-SQ/
BEGIN DECK 45
73. (4) ( )11-12/ 1 2 13-14/ 83. (2) ( )51-52/ 1 2 53-54/a
74. (4) ( )15-16/ 1 2 17-13/ 84. (1) ( )55-56/ 1 2 57-56/
m: IEYOUCODEDs INAmwwmm, GOTOQ.95.
INTZEELEWER: A. DID You GET A BASAL? ARE THERE £125 (5)
CONSECUTIVE ggggflgr RESPONSES AT’THE BEGINNING?
YES ........................ ......... 1 59-6Q/
NO...(GO BACK AND GET'THE BASAL).... o
B. DID YOU GET A CEILING? ARE THE LAST £125 (5)
RESPONSES IHQQBBEQI?
YES ................................. 1 61-62/
NO..(GO BACK AND‘GET'DHE CEILING)... O
INIERyIEWER: COMPUTE SCORE:
A. RECORD FINAL BASALA | | | 63-64/
B. ENTER HIGHEST CEILING 0: (LAST ITEM WRONG). | | | 65-66/
c. ENTER 'IUI‘AL # OF ERRORS BEIWEEN BASAL AND CEILING. | | | 67-68/
D. SUBTACT 'C' FROM '8': a SCORE

 

 

 

 

69-70/

136
W:

87.WASANYONEEI.SEPRESENI‘, NMMEIJRING'IHEADHNIS'I‘RA'I'IWOF

THIS SECTION?

BEEINDECK46

 

 

 

YES .......... (ANSWER A) .................. 1 11-12/
m 0 0000000 O (m 'm 0088) 0000000 O 000000 O 0 O 0
W
SEEMED TO NONE SEEMED TO
A. W. W W W M
MOTHER | | 13-14/ 1 2 3 15-16/
FATHER | | 17-13/ 1 2 3 19-20/
OTHER ADJLIIS | | | 21-22/ 1 2 3 23-24/
CflIHREN | | | 25-26/ 1 2 3 27-28/
a as. CODE CHILD'S ENERGY LEVEL DURING SECTION.
1m (ti-M) O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1
mm oooooo o oooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o 2 29-30/
High ooooooooooooo c o o O o ................... o o 3
89. WAS THIS SECTION 'I'ER‘IINATED PRIMATURELY?
m00000000000000(mA)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 31-32/
m0000000(m To 5mm 10’ $-63)OOOOOOOOC o
A. REASON FOR PREMATURE TERMINATION 0F 'IHIS SECTION.
(CODE ALL. THAT APPLY.)
PARENT/GUARDIAN ESTIMATED/REFUSED ........ 01 33-3 4 /
Gum MD MP mm. 0 O O O O O ....... O O O O O 02 35-36/
MAIOR INTERRUPITCN CAUSED TERMINATION. . . .. 03 37—33/
CHILD COULD NOT UNDERSTAND TASK ...... 04 39—40/
CHILD HAD LANGUAGE PROBLEM ..... . ......... . 05 41—42/
CHILD'S EmITONAL CONDTTTON. . . ..... . ...... 06 43-44/
CHILD'S PHYSICAL CONDITTON.. ............ .. 07 45-46/
OIHER (SPECIFY) ’
08 47-48/

 

APPENDIX B
(Tables)

137
Table 13

Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors
of the Quality of the Home Environment (HOME 1990)

 

Overall Sample African-American Caucasian
Predictor (n = 566) (n = 341) (n = 225)
Variables ---------------------------------------

 

Intelligence .14 .01 .06
Self-Esteem (1980) 3.37 4.59 3.70
Age at First Birth 14.02 9.80 10.24
Maternal Delinquency -3.67 3.62 -10.06
Self—Esteem (1987) 1.36 -.54 3.45
Education -8.07 3.88 -1.59
Global Happiness 40.56 75.61 3.81
Marital 5.99 -17.79 27.21
Communication
Marital Discord -.16 -1.42 3.80
Family Income .00 .00 .00
Number of Children -8.43 -12.40 4.36
R-Square .24 .20 .21

F 11.87*** 5.40*** 4.08***

 

138

Table 14
Zero-Order Correlations: The Relations between the
Predictor Variables and the Quality of the Home
Environment(1986)

 

HOME Scores (1986)

 

 

Predictor Overall Sample African-American Caucasian
Variables (n = 566) (n = 341) (n = 225)
Intelligence .40*** .25*** .36***
Self-Esteem (1980) .20*** .22*** .26***
Age at First Birth .24*** .15** .24***
Maternal -.01 .05 -.13*
Delinquency

 

* p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001

Table 15
Zero-Order Correlations: The Relations between the
Predictor Variables and the Quality of the Home
Environment(1988)

 

HOME Scores (1988)

 

 

Predictor Overall Sample African-American Caucasian
Variables (n = 566) (n = 341) (n = 225)
Intelligence .37*** .23*** .28***
Self-Esteem (1980) .22*** .23*** .31***
Age at First Birth .20*** .13** .16*
Maternal -.03 -.00 -.13*
Delinquency

Self-Esteem (1987) .24*** .21** .32***

 

* p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001

139

Table 16
Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors
of the Quality of the Home Environment (HOME 1986)

 

Overall Sample African-American Caucasian

 

 

Predictor (n = 566) (n = 341) (n = 225)
Variables -----------------------------------------
B B B

Intelligence .34*** .17** .29***
Self-Esteem (1980) .08+ .14* .11
Age at First Birth .13** .10+ .11
Maternal .00 .05 _ -.10
Delinquency

R-square .18 .09 .17

F 26.46*** 7.16 9.66***
Note tas (B) presented are standardized betas.

 

: Be
+ p <.10 * p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001

140

Table 17
Multiple Regression Analyses: Predictors
of the Quality of the Home Environment (HOME 1988)

 

Overall Sample African-American Caucasian

 

 

Predictor (n = 566) (n = 341) (n = 225)
Variables -----------------------------------------
B B B
Intelligence .29*** .14* .16*
Self-Esteem (1980) .07 .11+ .14+
Age at First Birth .09* .08 .04
Maternal
Delinquency -.03 .00 -.08
Self-Esteem (1987) .10+ .09 .19*
R-Square .16 .09 .16
F l8.50*** 5.41*** 7.18***
Note tas (B) presented are standardized betas.

 

: Be
+ p <.10 * p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001

 

Ill

 

8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 5.- 8 8. 5 8 5. 8 8. 8.7 5. 58:25:

88:5

8. 8. 8. 5. 8. 8. 8.8- 8.7 8.7 8.8- 8.7 8.7 8.- 8.7 9.7 539.2

958.

8. 8.- 8.- 8 8.- 8.- 8- 8. 8 8- 8. 8 8.- 8. 8. 3.5”.

2855

9.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8; 8... 8.- e: 8.- 8- 8.- 8.7 8.- 8:8:

8:33.58

8: 8.8 :2 8: 8; o: 82 8. 8. 8 82 8 8. 8.. 8. 8:5.

88.5

9.8 8.8- :8- 88- 8.8- 8.8- 8 a: .8.- 8- 8.8. 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.8- .805

M. 8. t. 8. s. 8.- 9. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. E. 8. 8. 8:88
1

:8:

8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 3..- 8.- 8 8.- 2 8. 8 8.- 5. 8. SEE-:8

32:8

8. 8.- 8. 8. 8.. 8. 8. e- 8.- 8r 8 8.- 8.- 8. 8. .858:

5.8

8.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- 8 8. 8 8. 8. 8. 9.- 8. 5.. 558.2

58:

8.- 8.- .8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 5.- 8.- 8. 8.- EOE-:8

8. 8.- 8.- 5. 8. 5. 8. 5. 8. 8. 8. 8. 5. 8. 8. 88:58.

:88": 28“.: :83: A888: :88: :83: :88»: $85 885 :83: A585 38.5 A888: :88: A885 8.8.5,

53 3:8: 29$
.88 3:2 28.55

5.» 3:8: 298
.88 13:2 2390

58 3:8: 293
.83 13:: :296

58 3:2: 298
.83 13:2 .953

85 85:2: 298 85.88
.83 18:: :35

 

4595:;

 

.25.. Km

 

5.8% @299.

 

BEE 9.9m.

 

1“

:51 2E

 

a :38 88.8625:

‘

 

8.85 988. .5 A: .5 83288 85:3 85858 22:3

9 a...

lull

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achenbach, TM., and Edelbrock, C. (1981). Behavioral
problems and competencies reported by parents of normal
and disturbed children aged four through sixteen.

Monograph of Society for Research in Child Development.

g§(Serial no. 188,1), 1-78.

Baker, P. C., and Mott, F. L. (1989). NLSY child handbook
1989: A guide and resource for the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1986 child data. Columbus,
OH: Center for Human Resources Research, The Ohio State
University.

Baharudin, Rozumah (1992). Predictors of maternal behavior
and their effects on the achievement of children: Data
from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.
Doctoral dissertation in Family and Child Ecology in
College of Human Ecology, Michigan State University.

Baldwin, W., and Cain, V. (1980). The children of teenage
parents. Family Planning Perspectives. 12(1), 34-43.

Barocas, R., Seifer, R., and Sameroff, A. (1985). Defining
environmental risk: Multiple dimensions of
psychological vulnerability. American Journal of

Community Psychology, l3, 433-447.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process
model. Child Develo ment, 55, 83—96.

Bigner, J. J. (1989). Parent-child relations: an

introduction to parenting. New York, NY: Macmillan
Publishing Company.

Bradley, R. H., and Caldwell, B. M. (1984). 174 children: A
study of the relationship between home environment
during the first five years. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.),

Home Environment and Early Cognitive Development;
Longitudinal Research. New York: Academic Press.

Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Barnard, K.
E., Gray, C., Hammond, M. A., Mitchell, 3., Siegel, L.,
Ramey, C. T., Gottfried, A. W., and Johnson, D. L.
(1989). Home environment and cognitive development in
the first 3 years of life: A collaborative study

142

143

involving six sites and three ethnic groups in North
America. Developmental Psychology, 2;, 217-235.

Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Hamrick, H.
M., and Harris, P. (1988). Home observation for
measurement of the environment: Development of a home
inventory for use with families having children 6 to 10
years old. Contem orar Educational Ps cholo , lg, 58-
71.

Caldwell, B. M., and Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home Observation
for measurement of the environment. Little Rock, AR:
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Center for Child
Development and Education.

Clewell, B. C., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Benasich, A. A. (1989).
Evaluating child-related outcomes in teenage parenting

programs. Family Relations, 88, 201-209.

Coll, Cynthia T. Garcia, Hoffman, J., and Ch, William
(1987). The social ecology and early parenting of

Caucasian adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58,
955-963.

Davis, K., and Grossbard, A. S. (1980). Study of how
mother's age and circumstances affect children,
progress report to NICHD, March.

Dubow, E., and Luster, T. (1990). Adjustment of children
born to teenage mothers: The contribution of risk and

protective factors. Journal of Marriage and the
Famil , 52, 393-404.

Dunn, L., and Markwardt, F. (1970). Peabody Individual
Achievement Tests. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.

Emery, R. E., and Tuer, M. (1993). Parenting and the marital
relationship. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.),

Parenting:An Ecological Perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Furstenberg, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Morgan, S. (1987).

Adolescent mothers in later life. Cambridge University
Press.

Hannan, K., and Luster, T. (1991). Influences of parent,
child, and contextual factors on the quality of the

home environment. lnfant Mental Health Jounnal, Vol.12,
No.1, Spring.

Hunter, J. E., and Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Undimensional

144

measurement, secondary order factor analysis, and

causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol.4, 267-320.

Kellam, S. G., Ensminger, M. E., and Turner, R. J. (1977).
Family structure and the mental health of children.
Archives of General Ps chiatr , 83, 1012 -1019

Longstreth, L., Davis, 3., Carter, L., Flint, D., Owen, J.,
Richert, M., and Taylor, E. (1981). Separation of home
intellectual environment and maternal IQ as
determinants of child IQ. Developmental Psychology,
iz(5), 532-541.

Luster, T., and Dubow, E. (1990). Predictors of the quality
of the home environment that adolescent mothers provide
for their school-aged children. J na 0 on

Adolescent, l2(5), 475-494.

Luster, T., and Dubow, E. (1992). Home environment and
maternal intelligence as predictors of verbal
intelligence: A comparison of preschool and school-aged

children. Merrill—Palmer Quarterly, ;§(2), 151—175.

Luster, T., and Mittelstaedt, M. (1993). Adolescent mothers.
In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An
Ecological Perspective. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Luster, T., and Okagaki, L. (1993). Multiple influences on
parenting: Ecological and Life-course perspectives. In
T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An
Ecological Perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Luster, T., Rhoades, K. (1989). The relation between child-
rearing beliefs and the home environment in a sample of
adolescent mothers. Family Relations, 18, 317-322.

Luster, T., Rhoades, K., and Haas, B. (1989). The relation
between parental values and parenting behavior: A test

of the Kohn hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, hl, 139-147.

Macfarlane, J. W., Allen, L., and Honzik, M. P.(1954). A
developmental study of the behavioral problems of
children between twenty-one months and fourteen years.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Martin, S. L., and Burchinal, M. R. (1992). Young women’s
antisocial behavior and the later emotional and
behavioral health of their children. American Journal

145
of Public Health, 52(7), 1007-1010.

Menaghan, E. G., and Parcel, T. L. (1991). Determining
children’s home environments: The impact of maternal
characteristics and current occupational and family

conditions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,
417-431.

Peterson, J., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption,
parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in

children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 295-
307.

Ricks, M. (1985). The social transmission of parental
behavior: Attachment across generations. In Bretherton,
I., and Waters, E. (Eds.), Growing points of attachment
theory and research. Monograph of Society for Research
in Child Development, 55, 211-227.

Roosa, Mark W., H. Fitzgerald, and N. A. Carlson (1982).
.Teenage Parenting and child development: A literature

review. Infant Mental Health Journal, 5, 4-18.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Scarr, S. (1985). Constructing Psychology: Making facts and

fables for our times. Ametican Psychologist, gn(5),
499-512.

Sigman, M., Neumann, C., Carter, E., Cattle, D. J., D’Souza,
S., and Bwido, N. (1988). Home interactions and the
development of Embu toddlers in Kenya.. Child
Development, 52, 1251-1261.

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., and Melby, J.
N. (1990). Husbands and wife differences in
determinants of parenting: A social learning and
exchange model of parental behavior. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 52, 375-392.

Small, S. (1988). Parental self-esteem and its relationship
to childrearing practices, parent-adolescent
interaction, and adolescent behavior. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 55, 63-72.

U. S. Department of Defense (1982). Profile of American
Youth:1980 Nationwide administtation of the Armed
Services Vocational Aptitnde Battery. Washington, D.C.:

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower,
Reserve Affairs, and Logistics).

146

Vondra, J., and Belsky, J. (1993). Developmental Origins of
Parenting: Personality and relationship factors. In T.
Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An Ecological
Perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Wolf, R. (1966). The measurement of environment. In A.

Anastasi(Ed.), Testing problems in perspective.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Yeates, K., McPhee, D., Campbell, F., and Ramey, C. (1983).
Maternal IQ and home environment as determinants of
early childhood intellectual competence: A

developmental analysis. Developmental Psychology,
l5(5), 731-739.

"111111 1171 "1112111111 '1'“