Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 19, Supplement 1, pp 27–37 | Cite as

Attendance Patterns and Links to Non-Response on Child Report of Internalizing among Mexican-Americans Randomized to a Universal Preventive Intervention

  • Anne M. MauricioEmail author
  • Jenn-Yun Tein
  • Nancy A. Gonzales
  • Roger E. Millsap
  • Larry E. Dumka
Article

Abstract

We examined attendance trajectory profiles among 335 Mexican-American families participating in an 11-week universal intervention to explore if heterogeneity in attendance and thus dosage was associated with intervention response, defined as pre-to-2-year post (T2) reductions in child report of internalizing symptoms. We estimated trajectories accounting for the influence of baseline covariates, selected based on the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Latino family research, to understand covariate associations with trajectories. Results supported six attendance trajectory groups: non-attenders (NA), early dropouts-low internalizing (EDO-LI), early dropouts-high internalizing (EDO-HI), mid-program dropouts (MPDO), sustained attenders-low internalizing (SA-LI), and sustained attenders-high internalizing (SA-HI). All groups except EDO-HI showed significant pre-to-post change on child report of internalizing; however, trajectory groups reflecting more attendance did not have greater pre-to-post change. Nonetheless, child report of internalizing differentiated two subgroups of sustained attenders and two subgroups of early dropouts. These results suggest heterogeneity among families with similar patterns of attendance and highlight the importance of modeling this heterogeneity. Although life stress was a barrier to participation, there was minimal support for the HBM. Cultural influences, acculturation, and familism, played a more prominent role in distinguishing trajectories. As expected, the EDO-HI group was less acculturated than both sustained attender groups and reported weaker familism values than the SA-HI group. However, unexpectedly, the SA-LI group had lower familism than the EDO-LI group. The results suggest that the influence of culture on participation is nuanced and may depend on child symptomatology.

Keywords

Universal intervention Mexican-American Attendance patterns Internalizing Non-response 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health grant MH064707.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Development and evaluation of the Bridges to High School program (Bridges), including the data collected and used in this study, were supported by the National Institute of Mental Health grant MH64707.

Conflict of Interest

Drs. Gonzales and Dumka are the developers of the Bridges program; Dr. Mauricio was involved in implementation of the Bridges program during its efficacy trial; Drs. Tein and Millsap were involved in the evaluation of the efficacy of the Bridges program. The authors declare that they have no other conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All study procedures and measures were reviewed and approved by the Arizona State University Institutional Review Board. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study and assent was obtained from minors included in the study.

Supplementary material

11121_2016_632_MOESM1_ESM.doc (209 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 209 kb)

References

  1. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Child behavior checklist/4-18. Burlington: University of Vermont.Google Scholar
  2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2012). Using Mplus TECH11 and TECH14 to test the number of latent classes.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, C. N., Arnold, D. H., & Meagher, S. (2011). Enrollment and attendance in a parent training prevention program for conduct problems. Prevention Science, 12(2), 126–138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpentier, F. R. D., Mauricio, A. M., Gonzales, N. A., Millsap, R. E., Meza, C. M., Dumka, L. E., German, M., & Genalo, M. T. (2007). Engaging Mexican origin families in a school-based preventive intervention. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 28, 521–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Patterns of retention in a preventive intervention with ethnic minority families. Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 171–193.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 61–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dumka, L. E., Prost, J., & Barrera, M., Jr. (2002). The parental relationship and adolescent conduct problems in Mexican American and European American families. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 1, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzales, N., Dumka, L., Mauricio, A., & German, M. (2007). Building bridges: Strategies to promote academic and psychological resilience for adolescents of Mexican origin. In J. E. Lansford, K. Deater-Deckard, & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Immigrant families in contemporary society (pp. 268–286). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gonzales, N. A., Dumka, L. E., Millsap, R. E., Gottschall, A., McClain, D. B., Wong, J. J., German, G., Mauricio, A. M., Wheeler, L., Carpentier, F. D., & Kim, S. Y. (2012). Randomized trial of a broad preventive intervention for Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80, 1–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonzales, N. A., Wong, J. J., Toomey, R. B., Millsap, R., Dumka, L. E., & Mauricio, A. M. (2014). School engagement mediates long term prevention effects for Mexican American adolescents. Prevention Science, 15, 929–939.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Henry, D. B., Leventhal, A., Schoeny, M., Lutovsky, K., & Quintana, E. (2002). Predictors of participation in a family-focused preventive intervention for substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(4S), S55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, N. E., & Torres, K. (2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of aspirations and achievement among Latino students and engagement between their families and schools. Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education & Behavior, 11, 1–47.Google Scholar
  17. Kazdin, A. E., & Mazurick, J. L. (1994). Dropping out of child psychotherapy: Distinguishing early and late dropouts over the course of treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 1069.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kazdin, A. E., Holland, L., Crowley, M., & Breton, S. (1997). Barriers to treatment participation scale: Evaluation and validation in the context of child outpatient treatment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 1051–1062.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Knight, G. P., Gonzales, N. A., Saenz, D. S., Bonds, D. D., Germán, M., Deardorff, J., Roosa, M. W., & Updegraff, K. A. (2010). The Mexican American cultural values scale for adolescents and adults. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 444–481.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Smith, P., & Bellamy, N. (2002). Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention interventions. Prevention Science, 3(3), 241–246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKay, M. M., & Bannon, W. M., Jr. (2004). Engaging families in child mental health services. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13(4), 905–921.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McKay, M. M., Hibbert, R., Hoagwood, K., Rodriguez, J., Murray, L., Legerski, J., & Fernandez, D. (2004). Integrating evidence-based engagement interventions into “real world” child mental health settings. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4(2), 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merikangas, K. R., He, J. P., Burstein, M., Swanson, S. A., Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., & Swendsen, J. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in US adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 980–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muthén, B. O. (2002). Beyond SEM: General latent variable modeling. Behaviormetrika, 29(1; ISSU 51), 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muthén, B. (2004). Latent variable analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345–368). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2013). Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: CA: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
  28. NRC/IOM. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Perrino, T., Coatsworth, J. D., Briones, E., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2001). Initial engagement in parent-centered preventive interventions: A family systems perspective. Journal of Primary Prevention, 22, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet: Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States 2006. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication. http://pewhispanic.org/files/other/middecade/Table 3.pdf
  31. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Baydar, N. (2004). Halting the development of conduct problems in head start children: The effects of parent training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(2), 279–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Reyno, S. M., & McGrath, P. J. (2006). Predictors of parent training efficacy for child externalizing behavior problems—a meta‐analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 99–111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education & Behavior, 15(2), 175–183.Google Scholar
  35. Schaeffer, C. M., Petras, H., Ialongo, N., Masyn, K. E., Hubbard, S., Poduska, J., & Kellam, S. (2006). A comparison of girls’ and boys’ aggressive-disruptive behavior trajectories across elementary school: prediction to young adult antisocial outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Small, S. A., & Kerns, D. (1993). Unwanted sexual activity among peers during early and middle adolescence: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 941–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (1995). Parent motivation to enroll in parenting skills programs: A model of family context and health belief predictors. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 294–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szapocznik, J., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1999). An ecodevelopmental framework for organizing the influences on drug abuse: A developmental model of risk and protection. In M.D. Glantz, & C.R. Hartel (Eds.), Drug abuse: Origins & interventions (pp. 331-366). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Dropout rates in the United States: 1998. (NCES 2000–022). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  41. Wang, P. S., Simon, G., & Kessler, R. C. (2003). The economic burden of depression and the cost‐effectiveness of treatment. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12(1), 22–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne M. Mauricio
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jenn-Yun Tein
    • 1
  • Nancy A. Gonzales
    • 1
  • Roger E. Millsap
    • 1
  • Larry E. Dumka
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Program for Prevention ResearchArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family DynamicsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations