Caring Adult - Subject Follow-up
This measure appears in the following time-points: Follow06, Follow12, Follow18, Follow24, Follow30, Follow36, Follow48, Follow60, Follow72, Follow84.
Click the icon to view the questions asked for this measure.
Related Construct
Description of Measure
The Contact with Caring Adults inventory was derived from several sources for this study (Nakkula, et al., 1990; Phillips and Springer, 1992; Institute of Behavioral Science, 1990). It assesses the type and range of supportive adults in the adolescent's life. This support is assessed across eight domains: adults you admire and want to be like, adults you could talk to if you needed information or advice about something, adults you could talk to about trouble at home, adults you would tell about an award or if you did something well, adults with whom you can talk about important decisions, adults you can depend on for help, adults you feel comfortable talking about problems with, and special adults who care about your feelings. This measure asks youth to identify the total number of adults who are supportive in each domain as well as to nominate the person that they are most likely to turn to within each domain. These endorsements are summarized across the eight different domains in three ways - the total domains with a person named, the diversity of the individuals named across the domains, and the depth of the pool of individuals named across the domains. The first of the dimensions calculated, Domains of Social Support, provides the number of different domains for which at least one caring adult is present. Diversity of Caring Adults, the second dimension of social support, identifies the unique individuals mentioned across all eight domains. Diversity of Caring Adults is further refined by also calculating the number of caring adults mentioned in the particular domain in which the youth identifies the highest number of caring adults (Maximum Diversity Within Domains). Finally, the Depth of Social Support assesses the number of caring adults who are mentioned in more than two domains, and further distinguishes between sources of support that are familial versus non-familial.
A one-factor confirmatory factor analysis model was fit to the eight items making up the calculation of the domains of social support score (with the items declared categorical). The values from this analysis at the baseline time-point are as follows: alpha: .78; NFI: .98; NNFI: .99; CFI: .99; RMSEA: .04. This scale was also found to have good internal consistency at the follow-up interviews (6 month alpha = .84; 12 month alpha = .87; 18 month alpha = .89; 24 month alpha = .90).
Several scores are available:
- Total number of adults mentioned [S#CADRNG]; sum of individuals across all domains
- Domains of social support [S#CADPRE]; count of # of domains with at least 1 person mentioned
- Domains of social support - family [S#CADFM]; count of # of domains with at least 1 family member mentioned
- Domains of social support - non family [S#CADNFM]; count of # of domains with at least 1 non-family member mentioned
- Domains of social support - either family or non family [S#CADETH]; count of domains that have either a family member or a non-family member based on the relationship code supplied. This value will often be the same as S#CADPRE
- Maximum diversity within domain [S#CADMDV]; count of the number of adults mentioned in the domain with the highest number of adults mentioned
- Diversity of social support [S#CADDIV]; number of unique adults mentioned based on the name of the adult
- Depth of social support [S#DEPSUP]; count of unique adults mentioned in 3 or more domains
- Diversity of non-family support [S#CADNFD]; count of the number of unique non-family members mentioned across all 8 domains
- Depth of social support - non family [S#DEPNFS]; number of non-family adults mentioned more than 2 times
Higher scores indicate a greater number of relationships with adults who spend time with the adolescent and provide support.
Data Issues
Some cases are missing data for this measure as a result of data cleaning changes done in order to correct an interviewer mistake. Cases with this issue are noted with a missing value code of -800.
References
- Nakkula, MJ et al. (1990). Teenage risk prevention questionnaire and interview: an integrative assessment of adolescent high-risk behavior. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology.
- Phillips J, and Springer, F. (1992). Extended National Youth Sports Program 1991-92 evaluation highlights, part two: Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI) and risk assessment study. Report prepared for the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Sacramento, CA: EMT Associates Research, 7(2), 156-176.
- Institute of Behavioral Science: Youth Interview Schedule: Denver Youth Study. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, 1990. (unpublished).