| 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.
My Exposure to Violence (Subject)
For Wave 1, a
subject self-report version of the Exposure to Violence measure was
used. For Wave 2, a much more detailed instrument than was used in
Wave 1 was developed to assess exposure to violence. It was called, My
Exposure to Violence (Subject), or ETVS. This detailed subject
self-report instrument was administered to Cohorts 9 to 15 and
obtained information regarding the subject's lifetime and past year
exposure to violent events. In addition, a short form of the subject
self-report instrument was used with subjects in Cohort 6. The subject
self-report instrument is complemented by the parent-report instrument
PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): MY
CHILD'S EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13619). |
