DOI: 10.3886/icpsr13611
title: Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Child Behavior Checklist, Wave 2, 1997-2000
title: Archival Version

description: The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One of the measures that composed the Longitudinal Cohort Study was the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The CBCL protocol, administered to parents or primary caregivers, was first developed by Thomas M. Achenbach and has been one of the most widely-used standardized measures in child psychology for evaluating maladaptive behavioral and emotional problems in preschool subjects aged 2 to 3 or in subjects between the ages of 4 and 18. One version of the CBCL was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohort 0, while another version was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3-15 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study. Both versions assessed internalizing (i.e., anxious, depressive, and overcontrolled) and externalizing (i.e., aggressive, hyperactive, noncompliant, and undercontrolled) behaviors. Several subareas were measured including social withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety and depression, destructive behavior, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, aggressive behavior, and delinquent behaviors. The Wave 2 versions of the instrument contained a subset of questions asked in the Wave 1 versions. Each of the questions asked in Wave 2 was also asked in Wave 1.
description: <strong>Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods</strong> The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. It was designed to advance the understanding of the developmental pathways of both positive and negative human social behaviors. In particular, the project examined the causes and pathways of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, substance abuse, and violence. At the same time, the project provided a detailed look at the environments in which these social behaviors took place by collecting substantial amounts of data about urban Chicago, including its people, institutions, and resources. <strong>Longitudinal Cohort Study</strong> One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. The age cohorts include birth (0), 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. <strong>Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)</strong> The data in this collection are from Wave 2 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study, administered between 1997 and 2000. The data files contain information from the Child Behavior Checklist protocol. The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) was administered to parents or primary caregivers. One version of the CBCL was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohort 0, while another version was administered to primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 3-15 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study. Both versions assessed internalizing (i.e., anxious, depressive, and overcontrolled) and externalizing (i.e., aggressive, hyperactive, noncompliant, and undercontrolled) behaviors. Several subareas were measured including social withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety and depression, destructive behavior, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, aggressive behavior, and delinquent behaviors. The Wave 2 versions of the instrument contained a subset of questions asked in the Wave 1 versions. Each of the questions asked in Wave 2 was also asked in Wave 1.
description: <strong>Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods</strong> The city of Chicago was selected as the research site for the PHDCN because of its extensive racial, ethnic, and social-class diversity. The project collapsed 847 census tracts in the city of Chicago into 343 neighborhood clusters (NCs) based upon seven groupings of racial/ethnic composition and three levels of socioeconomic status. The NCs were designed to be ecologically meaningful. They were composed of geographically contiguous census tracts, and geographic boundaries, and knowledge of Chicago's neighborhoods were considered in the definition of the NCs. Each NC was comprised of approximately 8,000 people. <strong>Longitudinal Cohort Study</strong> For the Longitudinal Cohort Study, a stratified probability sample of 80 neighborhoods was selected. The 80 NCs were sampled from the 21 strata (seven racial/ethnic groups by three socioeconomic levels) with the goal of representing the 21 cells as equally as possible to eliminate the confounding between racial/ethnic mix and socioeconomic status. Once the 80 NCs were chosen, then block groups were selected at random within each of the sample neighborhoods. A complete listing of dwelling units was collected for all sampled block groups. Pregnant women, children, and young adults in seven age cohorts (birth, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) were identified through in-person screening of approximately 40,000 dwelling units within the 80 NCs. The screening response rate was 80 percent. Children within six months of the birthday that qualified them for the sample were selected for inclusion in the Longitudinal Cohort Study. A total of 8,347 participants were identified through the screening. Of the eligible study participants, 6,228 were interviewed in the Wave 1 data collection and 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection. Data collection for Wave 2 began in 1997 and ended in 2000. It included a letter sent to study participants notifying them that they would be contacted to schedule an interview. This letter explained the study, reimbursements, and offered a monthly drawing prize of $1,000 for those participants who kept their first scheduled appointment. A toll free number was also included in the letter, so participants could call and schedule their own interviews or ask questions. For all cohorts except 0 and 18, primary caregivers as well as the child were interviewed. The primary caregiver was the person found to spend the most time taking care of the child. Separate research assistants administered the primary caregiver interviews and the child interviews. The primary method of data collection was face-to-face interviewing, although participants who refused to complete the personal interview were administered a phone interview. An abbreviated telephone interview was conducted for the primary caregivers in Cohorts 0-15 and Cohort 18 study participants in Wave 2 who lived outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants were able to travel for interviews. A total of 221 telephone interviews were conducted during Wave 2, representing 3.55 percent of the sample. Proxy interviews were conducted with study participants who were emancipated minors (under 18 but married or living independently). The study participants answered questions from the primary caregiver's interview on the primary caregiver's behalf. In Wave 2, four primary caregivers and two study participants were interviewed in jail. Study participants in foster care could not be interviewed. The Department of Children and Family Services did not allow interviews of the foster parent or the child. Permission was granted for a brief period in Wave 1, therefore there are some children in the sample who could not be followed up in Waves 2 and 3. Some children were not in foster care in Wave 1 but were placed in foster care by Wave 2 or 3. They were also not followed up. Lastly, some participants were interviewed in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, as they were in foster care during Wave 2. Some participants in Wave 1 spoke a language other than English, Spanish, or Polish. In Wave 2, an abbreviated version of the primary caregiver's protocol was administered, and the research assistant arranged for someone in the household to translate on the spot. In Wave 2, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish, and a subset of the primary caregiver's interview was translated into Polish. Depending on the age and wave of data collection, participants were paid between $5 and $20 per interview. Other incentives, such as free passes to museums, the aquarium, and monthly drawing prizes, were also included. Interview protocols included a wide range of questions. For example, some questions assessed impulse control and sensation-seeking traits, cognitive and language development, leisure activities, delinquency and substance abuse, friends' activities, and self-perception, attitudes, and values. Caregivers were also interviewed about family structure, parent characteristics, parent-child relationships, parent discipline styles, family mental health, and family history of criminal behavior and drug use. <strong>Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)</strong> Completed between 1997 and 2000, the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) was administered to the primary caregiver (defined as the person(s) found to spend the most time taking care of the subject) of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 of the PHDCN Longitudinal Cohort Study. The PHDCN CBCL was administered in two versions--a preschool version geared toward subjects in Cohort 0, which contained approximately 35 questionnaire items, and a slightly longer version (approximately 69 questionnaire items) for subjects in Cohorts 3-15. The questionnaire items were presented in alphabetical order to reduce any respondent bias that might have occurred as a result of the respondent's preconceived notion regarding the presence or absence of a particular disorder. Respondents were asked to rate a list of items that applied to his or her child's behavior, occurring within the past six months, on a three-point Likert-type response scale: 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, and 2 = very true. Questionnaire items included such items as "can't sit still or restless," "cries a lot," "gets in many fights," and "worries." The Cohort 0 version of the CBCL was comprised of six narrow-band subscales and two broad-band scales (listed in the variable description section). The CBCL for Cohorts 3-15 contained eight narrow-band subscales, two broad-band scales, and a total problems scale. The scales were not mutually exclusive (i.e., one questionnaire item may contribute to more than one scale).
description: In addition to the variables containing the responses to the CBCL, there are also several scale variables that help identify various syndromes. For the Cohort 0 instrument, six narrow-band (or syndrome) subscales were identified: Social Withdrawal, Depressed, Sleep Problems, Somatic Problems, Aggressive, and Destructive. The combined Social Withdrawal and Depressed scales comprise the Internalizing broad-band scale for this age group, while the Aggressive and Destructive scales comprised the Externalizing broad-band scale. Eight narrow-band subscales were generated for Cohorts 3-15: Social Withdrawal, Anxious/ Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Attention Problems, Delinquent Behavior, Thought Problems, and Aggressive Behavior. The Internalizing behavior scale for this age group was derived from the subscales assessing Social Withdrawal, Somatic Complaints, and Anxious/ Depressed behaviors, and the Externalizing behavior scale was derived from the Delinquent and Aggressive subscales. There is also a Total Problems scale variable that was generated from all summed questionnaire items, which measure overall behavioral and emotional functioning.
description: none
description: Response Rates: The overall response rate for Wave 2 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study was 85.94 percent or 5,338 participants. The response rates for subjects by cohort were: 0 percent for Cohort 0 87.5 percent for Cohort 3 88.0 percent for Cohort 6 85.6 percent for Cohort 9 86.2 percent for Cohort 12 82.7 percent for Cohort 15 80.2 percent for Cohort 18 The response rates for primary caregivers by cohort were: 83.3 percent for Cohort 0 88.3 percent for Cohort 3 88.3 percent for Cohort 6 86.6 percent for Cohort 9 87.2 percent for Cohort 12 85.9 percent for Cohort 15 0 percent for Cohort 18
description: Presence of Common Scales: Scale variables for the preschool version of the CBCL include: Social Withdrawal, Depressed, Sleep Problems, Somatic Problems, Aggressive, Destructive, Internalizing, and Externalizing. Scale variables for the CBCL for ages 4-18 include: Social Withdrawal, Anxious/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Problems, Attention Problems, Delinquent Behavior, Thought Problems, Aggressive Behavior, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problems.
description: Stratified probability sample.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Cohort 0 DS2: Cohort 3 DS3: Cohort 6 DS4: Cohort 9 DS5: Cohort 12 DS6: Cohort 15
description: Children, adolescents, young adults, and their primary caregivers, living in the city of Chicago in 1994.
description: face-to-face interview; telephone interview(1) The Murray Research Center performed the initial data and documentation processing for this collection. (2) At present, only a restricted version of the data is available (see "Restrictions"). A downloadable public-use version of the data is slated to be available in the near future.