To examine the effect of multiple family risk factors, a Family
Adversity Index (FAI) 33 was used.
The items from the Family
Adversity Index (FAI) were also controlled for in our analyses.
Table 2.4 Distribution of the number of adversity factors * in the Family
Adversity Index in the Sample Population
Higher family
adversity index scores were associated with higher prevalence of poor child health and health behaviours, with two exceptions.
The findings showed that, in general, the higher the family
adversity index score, the higher the prevalence of poor child health and health behaviours.
The 7 dichotomous scores on the indexes of child abuse and household dysfunction were summed to produce an overall
adversity index, with scores ranging from 0 (best) to 7 (worse).
Subsequently,
the adversity index score was entered as a categorical predictor.
This adversity index was based on the methods used in the ACE Study.1
Similar to the ACE Study analyses, for each outcome variable, a binary logistic regression was applied to test the relationship of
the adversity index score (0, 1, 2, 3, or ≥ 4) to the outcome, after entering the control variables (child's sex, child's race / ethnicity, caregiver's marital status, and family income).
Not exact matches
Socioeconomic
adversity during childhood increases the likelihood of both depression and higher body mass
index (BMI) in early adolescence, which can worsen and lead to illness for young adults, according to a new report in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
RESULTS: Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that long - term success (at least 5 % weight reduction by the 1 - year follow - up) versus failure (dropping out or less weight reduction) was significantly predicted by the set of psychosocial variables (family
adversity, maternal depression, and attachment insecurity) when we controlled for familial obesity, preintervention overweight, age, and gender of the
index child and parental educational level.
3: Dismissingness and security would be correlated with background variables
indexing early
adversity.
Differential effect of environmental
adversity by gender: Rutter's
index of
adversity in a sample of boys and girls with and without ADHD
OBJECTIVE: To test the a priori hypothesis that this genetic variant predicts early - onset antisocial behavior in a high - risk sample and further examine the effects of birth weight, an environmentally influenced
index of prenatal
adversity previously linked to childhood disruptive behaviors and genotype x birth weight interaction.
An
index of family
adversity was constructed using eight different indicators of health risk from maternal, family and area characteristics including poverty and maternal depression.
It explains how individual measures were combined to give an
index of overall parenting skills and examines whether, and how, parenting varies according to the level of family
adversity.
To explore the second research question, an
index of family
adversity combined eight different indicators of health risk including low income and maternal depression, using an approach that was similar to a US study (Larson et al. 2008).
3 PARENTING MEASURES 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Key findings 3.3 Description of parenting measures 3.3.1 Connection 3.3.2 Negativity 3.3.3 Control 3.4 Associations between parenting measures 3.5 Associations between different dimensions of parenting and family
adversity 3.6
Index of parenting skill 3.7 Associations between index of parenting skill and family adve
Index of parenting skill 3.7 Associations between
index of parenting skill and family adve
index of parenting skill and family
adversity
The study then investigates associations between an
index of family
adversity and health.
Therefore it is not suprising that the three groups or bands of the parenting skill
index were also strongly patterned according to family
adversity (see Figure 3 - B).
Environmental factors were
indexed by self - reports, the prevalence of
adversity was low, and continuous variables were used to capture dosage (Österman et al., 1998).