Social–ecological predictors of externalizing behavior trajectories in at-risk youth

Abstract

Extant research consistently links youth externalizing problems and later maladaptive outcomes, and these behaviors are particularly detrimental given their relative stability across development. Although an array of risk and protective factors for externalizing problems have been identified, few studies have examined factors reflecting the multiple social-ecological levels that influence child development and used them to predict longitudinal trajectories of externalizing problems. The current study examined externalizing behavior trajectories in a sample of 1,094 at-risk youth (539 boys, 555 girls) from the Longitudinal Studies in Child Abuse and Neglect multisite longitudinal study of child maltreatment. Normed Child Behavior Checklist externalizing scores were used to estimate group trajectories via growth-based trajectory modeling at ages 10, 12, 14, and 16 using the SAS PROC TRAJ procedure. Model fit was assessed using the Bayes information criterion and the Akaike information criterion statistics. Analyses revealed optimal fit for five distinct behavioral trajectories: low stable, mid-increasing, mid-decreasing, medium high, and high stable. Multinomial logistic regressions revealed that a combination of risk and protective factors at individual, family, school, and neighborhood levels contribute to distinct trajectories of externalizing problems over time. Predictors of low and decreasing trajectories can inform interventions aimed at addressing externalizing problems among high-risk adolescents.

Understanding trajectories of externalizing problems: Stability and emergence of risk factors from infancy to middle adolescence

“…Shared family adversities (e.g., family relationship and health stressors) may have contributed to emerging comorbid conditions in both classes. Other variables that were not assessed in this study, such as peer relationships (Figge et al, 2018) and academic functioning, may also partly explain why externalizing behavior remits for the HCL class and emerges later in the AO class.…”

“…Apart from the recent findings of Figge et al (2018), research suggests that children who follow the CL and AO trajectories typically have somewhat similar patterns of childhood risks. Their marked variability in externalizing outcomes has thus led Barker, Oliver, and Maughan (2010) to speculate that these two groups may differ in risk exposure as they approach adolescence.…”

“…Early risk exposure seems to characterize all externalizing trajectory patterns. Children following the HS trajectory are denoted by individual risks (e.g., undercontrolled temperament and hyperactivity; Figge, Martinez-Torteya, & Weeks, 2018;Odgers et al, 2008), family risks (e.g., maternal mental health problems; Barker & Maughan, 2009;Kjeldsen, Janson, Stoolmiller, Torgersen, & Mathiesen, 2014), and contextual risks (e.g., socioeconomic background, poor family economy, and single parenthood; Fergusson, Horwood, & Nagin, 2000;Roisman et al, 2010).…”

“…The few studies that have compared differences in risk factors for the HS and CL trajectories have also indicated higher levels for the HS group (Barker & Maughan, 2009;Kjeldsen et al, 2014). Finally, no comprehensive longitudinal studies have focused specifically on early risk factors that are related to developmental differentiation between the AO and CL groups except for a recent study that compared "mid-increasing" and "mid-decreasing" externalizing groups between age 10 and 16 years, which can be interpreted as AO and CL classes (Figge et al, 2018). Figge et al found that these classes could be differentiated by gender, father involvement, and deviant peers.…”

The Effects of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Gender on Developmental Trajectories of Internalizing and Externalizing Outcomes

“…Several studies have employed group-based trajectory approaches to identify distinct latent trajectories of internalizing and externalizing outcomes through development. Although age ranges vary, studies typically identify five externalizing trajectories, each with a large proportion of the sample displaying a low level of externalizing behavior, and a stable moderate or medium group, a decreasing group, an increasing group, and a stable high group (Fanti & Henrich, 2010; Figge et al, 2018; Haltigan et al, 2011; Nivard et al, 2017). Five similarly shaped trajectories have been found in studies on internalizing symptoms (Nivard et al, 2017), although a study of internalizing behavior from ages 2 to 12 identified three stable trajectories (low, moderate, and high; Fanti & Henrich, 2010).…”