Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 321–330 | Cite as

Reducing Risk Behavior with Family-Centered Prevention During the Young Adult Years

  • Elizabeth StormshakEmail author
  • Allison Caruthers
  • Krista Chronister
  • David DeGarmo
  • Jenna Stapleton
  • Corrina Falkenstein
  • Elisa DeVargas
  • Whitney Nash
Article

Abstract

Family-centered prevention is effective at reducing risk behavior throughout the life span and promoting healthy development. Despite research that suggests parents continue to play a significant role in the lives of their children during emerging adulthood, very few studies have examined effective family-centered strategies for preventing risk behavior in young adults. Typical prevention efforts for this age group have focused on college students and substance use prevention, with no integration of families or systems of support that may sustain the effects of the intervention. In this study, we evaluated a version of the Family Check-Up (FCU) that was adapted for young adults and their families, the Young Adult Family Check-Up (YA-FCU). Families were randomly assigned to receive the FCU or school as usual during the middle school years. Ten years later, they were offered the YA-FCU, which was adapted for families of emerging adult children. Intent-to-treat and complier average causal effect analyses were used to examine change in young adult risk behavior approximately 1 year after receiving the YA-FCU. Analyses indicated that random assignment alone or simple engagement was not associated with reductions in young adult risk behavior. However, dose-response analyses indicated that the more hours that youth and families were engaged in the YA-FCU, the greater the reductions in young adult risk behavior relative to those who did not engage or engaged very little in the intervention, resulting in a medium effect size of the YA-FCU on risk behavior.

Keywords

Family intervention Risk behavior Emerging adulthood Development Prevention 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by NIDA and NICHD (grants DA 018374 and HD 075150 to the first author).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

There authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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 subjects, and procedures were approved by the University of Oregon IRB.

References

  1. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2003). Manual for the ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.Google Scholar
  2. Agliata, A. K., & Renk, K. (2008). College students’ adjustment: The role of parent–college student expectation discrepancies and communication reciprocity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 967.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9200-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 3–19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/11381-000.Google Scholar
  5. Baydar, N., Reid, M. J., & Webster-Stratton, C. (2003). The role of mental health factors and program engagement in the effectiveness of a preventive parenting program for Head Start mothers. Child Development, 74, 1433–1453.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Chen, Y. F., Kogan, S. M., & Smith, K. (2012). The Adults in the Making program: Long-term protective stabilizing effects on alcohol use and substance use problems for rural African American emerging adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80, 17–28.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, H. C., Wang, W., Kellam, S. G., Muthén, B. O., Petras, H., Toyinbo, P., et al. (2008). Methods for testing theory and evaluating impact in randomized field trials: Intent-to-treat analyses for integrating the perspectives of person, place, and time. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, S74–S104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101–111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L. A., Elliott, J. C., Bolles, J. R., & Carey, M. P. (2009). Computer-delivered interventions to reduce college student drinking: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 104, 1807–1819.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02691.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L. A., Elliott, J. C., Garey, L., & Carey, M. P. (2012). Face-to-face versus computer-delivered alcohol interventions for college drinkers: A meta-analytic review, 1998 to 2010. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 690–703.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caruthers, A. S., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2014). Preventing high-risk sexual behavior in early adulthood with family interventions in adolescence: Outcomes and developmental processes. Prevention Science, 15, 59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0383-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2015). Behavioral health trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. HHS Publication No. SMA 15-4927, NSDUH Series H-50. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/.
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Ten leading causes of death and injury. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html. Accessed 6/29/17.
  14. Child and Family Center. (2001). CFC Youth Questionnaire. Unpublished instrument, Child and Family Center, 6217 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, L., Murphy, S., & Bierman, K. (2004). A conceptual framework for adaptive preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 5, 185–196.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000037641.26017.00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conners, N. A., Grant, A., Crone, C. C., & Whiteside-Mansell, L. (2006). Substance abuse treatment for mothers: Treatment outcomes and the impact of length of stay. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 31, 447–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dishion, T. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2007). Intervening in children’s lives: An ecological, family-centered approach to mental health care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Assoc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dumville, J. C., Hahn, S., Miles, J. N. V., & Torgerson, D. J. (2006). The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: A review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 27, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2005.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ernst, M., Pine, D. S., & Hardin, M. (2006). Triadic model of the neurobiology of motivated behavior in adolescence. Psychological Medicine, 36, 299–312.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291705005891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferrer-Wreder, L., Cadely, H. S.-E., Domitrovich, C. E., Small, M. L., Caldwell, L. L., & Cleveland, M. J. (2010). Is more better? Outcome and dose of a universal drug prevention effectiveness trial. Journal of Primary Prevention, 31, 349–363.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-010-0226-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hernán, M. A., & Hernández-Diaz, S. (2012). Beyond the intention-to-treat in compariative effectiveness research. Clinical Trials, 9, 48–55.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774511420743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jo, B. (2002). Estimation of intervention effects with noncompliance: Alternative model specifications. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 385–409.  https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986027004385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jo, B., & Muthén, B. (2001). Modeling of intervention effects with noncompliance: A latent variable approach for randomized trials. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 57–87). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Miech, R. A. (2016). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2015: Volume 2, College students and adults ages 19–55. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  26. Kang, M., Ragan, B. G., & Park, J.-H. (2008). Issues in outcomes research: An overview of randomization techniques for clinical trials. Journal of Athletic Training, 43, 215–221.  https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kerr, D. C., Bae, H., Phibbs, S., & Kern, A. C. (2017). Changes in undergraduates’ marijuana, heavy alcohol, and cigarette use following legalization of recreational marijuana use in Oregon. Addiction. Advance online.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13906.
  28. Levitt, M. J., Silver, M. E., & Santos, J. D. (2007). Adolescents in transition to adulthood: Parental support, relationship satisfaction, and post-transition adjustment. Journal of Adult Development, 14, 53–63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-007-9032-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Little, R. J., & Yau, L. H. Y. (1998). Statistical techniques for analyzing data from prevention trials: Treatment of no-shows using Rubin’s Causal Model. Psychological Methods, 3, 147–159.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lochman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C., Powell, N., Roth, D. L., & Windle, M. (2006). Masked intervention effects: Analytic methods for addressing low dosage of intervention. New Directions for Evaluation, 2006, 19–32.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S., Yabiku, S. T., Nieri, T. A., & Coleman, E. (2011). When to intervene: Elementary school, middle school or both? Effects of Keepin’ It REAL on substance use trajectories of Mexican heritage youth. Prevention Science, 12, 48–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0189-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Ary, D. V., & Li, F. (1998). The stability and validity of early adolescents’ reports of parenting practices constructs. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 600–619.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.12.4.600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  34. Patrick, M. E., Terry-McElrath, Y. M., Miech, R. A., Schulenberg, J. E., O'Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2017). Age-specific prevalence of binge and high-intensity drinking among US young adults: Changes from 2005 to 2015. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Advance online.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13413.
  35. Pew Research Center. (2016). For first time in modern era, living with parents edges out other living arrangements for 18- to 34-year-olds. Available at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/. 2016/05/24/. Accessed 6/29/17.
  36. Reise, S. P., & Waller, N. G. (2003). How many IRT parameters does it take to model psychopathology items? Psychological Methods, 8, 164–184.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Samson, J. E., & Tanner-Smith, E. E. (2015). Single-session alcohol interventions for heavy drinking college students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76, 530–543.  https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stone, A. L., Becker, L. G., Huber, A. M., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). Review of risk and protective factors of substance use and problem use in emerging adulthood. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 747–775.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stormshak, E. A., Connell, A., & Dishion, T. J. (2009). An adaptive approach to family-centered intervention in schools: Linking intervention engagement to academic outcomes in middle and high school. Prevention Science, 10, 221–235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0131-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stormshak, E. A., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2010). Implementing interventions with families in schools to increase youth school engagement: The Family Check-Up model. School Mental Health, 2, 82–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-009-9025-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stormshak, E. A., Connell, A. M., Véronneau, M.-H., Myers, M. W., Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., & Caruthers, A. S. (2011). An ecological approach to promoting early adolescent mental health and social adaptation: Family-centered intervention in public middle schools. Child Development, 82, 209–225.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01551.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stormshak, E. A., DeGarmo, D. D., Chronister, K. M., & Caruthers, A. (2018). The impact of family-centered prevention on self-regulation and subsequent long-term risk in emerging adults. Prevention Science, 19, 549–558.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0852-7.
  43. Turrisi, R., Jaccard, J., Taki, R., Dunnam, H., & Grimes, J. (2001). Examination of the short-term efficacy of a parent intervention to reduce college student drinking tendencies. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 366.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.15.4.366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Ryzin, M. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). Engaging parents in the Family Check-Up in middle school: Longitudinal effects on family conflict and problem behavior through the transition to high school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 627–633.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.10.255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walls, T. A., Fairlie, A. M., & Wood, M. D. (2009). Parents do matter: A longitudinal two-part mixed model of early college alcohol participation and intensity. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 908–918.  https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2009.70.908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weiss, D. J., & Yoes, M. E. (1991). Item response theory. In R. K. Hambleton & J. N. Zaal (Eds.), Advances in educational and psychological testing: Theory and applications (pp. 69–95). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. West, S. G., & Sagarin, B. J. (2000). Participant selection and loss in randomized experiments. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Research design (pp. 117–154). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Wintre, M. G., & Yaffe, M. (2000). First-year students’ adjustment to university life as a function of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 9–37.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400151002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wood, M. D., Fairlie, A. M., Fernandez, A. C., Borsari, B., Capone, C., Laforge, R., & Carmona-Barros, R. (2010). Brief motivational and parent interventions for college students: A randomized factorial study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 349–361.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Prevention Science InstituteUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations