Cumulative risk and early cognitive development: A comparison of statistical risk models.

Abstract

Although it is generally accepted that social risk factors predict delays in early cognitive and language development, there is less agreement about how to represent such associations statistically. Using data collected prospectively on 87 African American children during their first 4 years, this study examined 3 analytic methods for describing a child's level of social risk: (a) individual risk variables, (b) factor scores derived from those risk variables, and (c) a risk index computed by tallying the number of risk conditions present. Comparisons indicated that the individual-risk-variables approach provides better overall prediction of developmental outcomes at a particular age but is less useful in predicting developmental patterns. The risk-factor approach provides good prediction of developmental trajectories when sample sizes are moderate to large. Finally, the risk-index approach is useful for relating social risk to developmental patterns when a large number of risk variables are assessed with a small sample or when other constructs are of primary interest.

Cumulative Social Risk, Parenting, and Infant Development in Rural Low-Income Communities

“…Each risk factor represents whether the family met some risk criterion on a risk variable, but these risk variables are almost always related in an approximately linear, not stepwise, manner with outcomes of interest such as parenting or child outcomes. For example, outcomes tend to be poorer when mothers have less than a high school education, but the number of years of maternal education is a stronger predictor of parenting and child outcomes than the categorized indictor of high school graduation (Burchinal et al, 2000). In addition, the risk index computed as the sum of risk factors can have only a relatively few possible values (i.e., the maximum is one more than the number of risk factors examined), whereas the mean of the risk variables can assume many more values.…”

“…Although counting number of risk factors was more typical, the use of risk composites based on continuous risk variables is becoming more common because it retains more information in the individual risk factors and, thereby, increases power for detecting the interactions necessary to identify protective factors (Burchinal et al, 2000;Deater-Deckard et al, 1998). A factor analysis indicated that a single factor accounted for 38% of the variance in the 7 risk variables and that each risk variable at least partially loaded on the first factor (.24 < loading < .80).…”

“…The model recognizes that distal indices of risk such as poverty, single parenthood, large households, low parental education, unemployment, and stress (such as negative life events) tend to cluster in the same individuals (Masten, Coatsworth, Neemann, Gest, Tellegen, & Garmezy, 1995) and are difficult theoretically and empirically to examine individually (Burchinal, Roberts, Hooper, & Zeisel, 2000). Many investigators have counted risk factors as their measure of cumulative risk, but several have suggested that the mean of the risk variables provides greater power and uses all of the information in each risk variable instead of using only whether the family was above or below a specified cut-point (Burchinal et al, 2000;Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998). Use of the mean of risk variables is not as common as use of the count of risk factors; therefore, the first purpose of this study is to compare the magnitude of association between an infant outcome and hypothesized mediators and cumulative risk indices computed as the sum of risk factors and the mean of risk variables.…”

“…Studies using the cumulative risk models focus on risk indices to describe the extent of exposure to multiple risk factors and the identification of factors that seem to protect children from the negative impact of exposure to social risk. The model recognizes that distal indices of risk such as poverty, single parenthood, large households, low parental education, unemployment, and stress (such as negative life events) tend to cluster in the same individuals (Masten, Coatsworth, Neemann, Gest, Tellegen, & Garmezy, 1995) and are difficult theoretically and empirically to examine individually (Burchinal, Roberts, Hooper, & Zeisel, 2000). Many investigators have counted risk factors as their measure of cumulative risk, but several have suggested that the mean of the risk variables provides greater power and uses all of the information in each risk variable instead of using only whether the family was above or below a specified cut-point (Burchinal et al, 2000;Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998).…”

Emotion: The self-regulatory sense

“…365 It is now well documented that environmental factors such as maltreatment, family adversity, marital conflict, maternal depression, and even financial distress are been linked with cognitive deficits and socio-emotional behavioral problems in children. [366][367][368][369][370][371][372][373][374][375][376][377][378][379] The mechanism of such biological embedding has been called "time dependent sensitization," 380 "neural sensitization," 381 "sensory hyper-arousal," 382 "central sensitization," 383 "central nervous system sensitization," 384 and "sensitivity to context," 385 but by any name, they reflect the self-regulatory feedback dynamics-and epigenetic and immune manifestations-of the emotional sense.…”