| Research Design: |
Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods
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.
Longitudinal Cohort Study
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.
Home and Life Interview
The Home and Life Interview was administered to the primary
caregivers (PC) of the subjects belonging to 6 of the 7 age cohorts (0
to 15) composing Wave 2. The semi-structured interview was conducted
at the respondent's home. The Home and Life Interview was a
restructured version of the Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment (HOME) inventory which was used to obtain data regarding
the developmental environment in which the Wave 1 subjects lived.
While the essence of the HOME inventory was preserved in the Home and
Life Interview, there were several important changes both in terms of
content and format.
The Home and Life Interview contained age-appropriate questions
designed to assess the developmental environment of the Wave 2
subjects belonging to Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15. These questions
were administered to the subject's primary caregiver (PC). While the
response format for the HOME interview offered respondents only two
answers, yes and no, for each question, response format for the Home
and Life Interview varied. Questions included yes or no, multiple
choice, and open ended response formats. These questions sought to
identify whether certain educational opportunities were available,
such as trips to museums, live performances, and access to a
library. Other questions were intended to determine the availability
of learning aids, such as toys, books, CDs, musical instruments,
games, and computers, to the subject at home. The Home and Life
Interview also sought to evaluate the presence or absence of a model
of positive social behavior for the subject. Questions directed toward
the PC were intended to probe the extent of the relationship between
the subject and the PC as well as the PC's overall involvement in the
subject's day-to-day life. Additionally, the PC was asked a number of
questions relating to his or her personal habits as well as the habits
and behaviors of other members of the household. The Home and Life
Interview also sought to determine the nature and extent of the
interaction between the subject and his or her father. If the father
was absent, questions were asked about the subject's relationship with
an alternate male father figure.
An important aspect of the version of the HOME inventory that was
employed in the Wave 1 interviews that differed from the revised Home
and Life Interview used in Wave 2 were the questions regarding the
physical environment encountered both inside the subject's house and
in the surrounding neighborhood. For example, data regarding the level
of noise encountered in the home, the amount of space within the
house, the condition of the houses and other buildings on the block,
and the volume of traffic on the streets were documented as part of
the Wave 1 HOME inventory. These questions were not included in the
Wave 2 Home and Life Interview. Instead, this information was recorded
in the data found in two of the Interviewer Impressions studies:
PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN):
INTERVIEWER IMPRESSIONS (PRIMARY CAREGIVER), WAVE 1, 1997-2000 (ICPSR
13631) and PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS
(PHDCN): INTERVIEWER IMPRESSIONS (SUBJECT), WAVE 1, 1997-2000 (ICPSR
13632). |
