Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
PARENTAL MONITORING/AWARENESS
NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL SURVEY OF YOUTH, 1997
Measure: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 Parental Monitoring—Youth Report Scale
Background
The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) Parental Monitoring—Youth Report scale was designed by Child Trends, Inc., to be a part of the NLSY97 Youth Questionnaire. The current document makes a differentiation between “monitoring” (i.e., active pursuit of child information) and “awareness” (i.e., what parents knows, devoid of details of how the information was obtained). As defined in this document, the items included within the NSLY97 Youth Questionnaire will be considered parental awareness. When the term “monitoring” is used in the following text, it reflects the name of the measure.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, is the primary sponsor of the NLSY97. Additional funding was received from the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to fund portions of the questionnaires.
Population Assessed
The NLSY97 baseline cohort has been weighted to be a nationally representative sample of youth between the ages of 12 and 16. However, only youth between the ages of 12 and 14 responded to the items in the Parental Monitoring—Youth Report scale. The sample was 51.2 percent male and 48.8 percent female. Blacks and Hispanics were oversampled for ethnic/racial variation, and many households had more than one youth respondent.
Periodicity
The NLSY97 data collection is ongoing and fielded annually. The Youth Questionnaire is the primary questionnaire of the study and is continually fielded. The survey was first administered in 1997. Thus far, five subsequent rounds of this ongoing survey have been administered on a yearly basis (i.e., 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002).
Subscales/Components
There are no subscales.
Procedures for Administration
The items within the Parental Monitoring—Youth Report scale are part of the self-administered portion of the Youth Questionnaire. This portion used an audio computer-assisted self-interview. The Youth Questionnaire takes approximately 1 hour to administer; however, the Parental Monitoring—Youth Report scale contains only four brief questions. Reporters were youth respondents between the ages of 12 and 14. The setting for this measure was one on one, and although not expressly stated, the estimated time needed to administer it is between 1 and 3 minutes.
Psychometrics/Data Quality
The responses to the four scale items were summed, with higher scores indicating greater youth- reported levels parental awareness.
The Parental Monitoring Scale was created for each of the four possible parental figures:
- Residential mother
- Residential father
- Non-residential biological mother
- Non-residential biological father
RELIABILITY
| Measure | Cronbach's Alpha |
|---|---|
| Youth Report of Residential Mother's Awareness | 0.71 |
| Youth Report of Residential Father's Awareness | 0.81 |
| Youth Report of Non-Residential Mother's Awareness | 0.85 |
| Youth Report of Non-Residential Father's Awareness | 0.85 |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 51), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
VALIDITY
The data were analyzed to measure predictive validity. The youth report Monitoring Scale scores were trichotomized, with the upper third represented “higher awareness” and the bottom third representing “lower awareness.” T-tests were performed to compare the mean scores of various family-process and adolescent-outcome variables across the higher and lower awareness groups. The mean scores on the Youth Report of the Parental Monitoring Scale are adjusted for the youth’s age and gender.
The tables below show the means, standard errors, and t-values.
1. Residential Mother
Residential mothers who were rated high on awareness by their youth were also more likely to be rated by their adolescent children as strict (vs. permissive).
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report of Residential Mother's Strictness (range: 0-1) | 0.53 (0.01) |
0.62 (0.01) |
4.67*** |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 52), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
Youth who had "high awareness" residential mothers reported greater parental limit-setting, although the mothers did not report a greater degree of limit setting.
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report of Parental Limit-Setting (range: 0-6) | 3.03 (0.05) |
3.66 (0.05) |
9.02*** |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 52), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent Report of Parental Limit-Setting (range: 0-6) | 4.34 (0.05) |
4.33 (0.05) |
-0.15*** |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 52), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
“High awareness” residential mothers had youth who reported fewer instances of substance use, delinquency, and behavior problems. These mothers also reported that their youth had fewer behavior problems.
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report of Substance Use (range: 0-3) | 1.03 (0.02) |
0.49 (0.03) |
-14.89*** |
| Youth Report of Delinquency (range: 0-10) | 1.76 (0.04) |
0.65 (0.04) |
-19.05*** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Girls (Youth report) (range 0-8) | 3.00 (0.06) |
1.48 (0.05) |
-18.70*** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Boys (Youth report) (range 0-8) | 2.65 (0.05) |
1.62 (0.06) |
-12.70*** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Girls (Parent report) (range 0-8) | 1.71 (0.08) |
0.97 (0.06) |
-7.51*** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Boys (Parent report) (range 0-8) | 2.23 (0.08) |
1.43 (0.08) |
-7.23*** |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 53), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
2. Residential Father
Residential fathers who were rated high on awareness by their youth were also more likely to be rated by their adolescent children as strict (vs. permissive).
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report on Residential Father's Strictness (range: 0-1) | 0.59 (0.01) |
0.65 (0.01) |
2.72** |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 54), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
Youth who had “high awareness” residential fathers reported greater parental limit-setting, although fathers did not report a greater degree of limit setting.
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report on Parental Limit Setting (range: 0-6) | 3.12 (0.06) |
3.65 (0.05) |
6.79** |
p-levels are ≤ 0.10=+, ≤0.05=*, ≤0.01=**, ≤0.001=***
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 54), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
Youth who reported fewer instances of substance use, deliquency, and behavior problems also reported having parents who were “here awareness.” Likewise, “higher awareness” residential fathers reported that their adolescent children had fewer behavior problems.
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report of Substance Use (range: 0-3) | 1.01 (0.03) |
0.48 (0.03) |
-13.74*** |
| Youth Report of Delinquency (range: 0-10) | 1.69 (0.05) |
0.61 (0.04) |
-16.98*** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Girls (Youth report) (range 0-8) | 2.76 (0.06) |
1.43 (0.06) |
-15.15*** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Boys (Youth report) (range 0-8) | 2.71 (0.06) |
1.58 (0.06) |
-13.04*** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Girls (Parent report) (range 0-8) | 1.51 (0.07) |
0.84 (0.07) |
-6.78*** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Boys (Parent report) (range 0-8) | 2.27 (0.09) |
1.36 (0.07) |
-7.77*** |
p-levels are ≤ 0.10=+, ≤0.05=*, ≤0.01=**, ≤0.001=***
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 54), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
3. Non-Residential Mother
The non-residential mother data followed the same trends for all the residential parent t-tests, although none of the tests were statistically significant.
4. Non-Residential Father
Non-residential fathers rated by their children as strict were also more likely to be rated as “higher awareness.” Youth of these fathers were less likely to use substances, be delinquent, and for girls, exhibit fewer behavior problems. “High awareness” non-residential fathers also reported fewer behavior problems from their daughters.
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report of Non Residential Father's Strictness (range: 0-1) | 0.36 (0.04) |
0.59 (0.03) |
4.76** |
p-levels are ≤ 0.10=+, ≤0.05=*, ≤0.01=**, ≤0.001=***
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 54), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
| Lower Awareness | Higher Awareness | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report of Substance Use (range: 0-3) | 0.99 (0.07) |
0.80 (0.07) |
-1.88+ |
| Youth Report of Delinquency (range: 0-10) | 1.58 (0.13) |
1.07 (0.12) |
-2.91** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Girls (Youth report) (range 0-8) | 2.43 (0.16) |
1.87 (0.16) |
-2.49* |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Boys (Youth report) (range 0-8) | 2.44 (0.17) |
1.99 (0.16) |
-1.92+ |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Girls (Parent report) (range 0-8) | 2.15 (0.20) |
1.38 (0.19) |
-2.78** |
| Behavioral and Emotional Problems for Boys (Parent report) (range 0-8) | 2.24 (0.28) |
1.91 (0.22) |
-0.93 |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 54), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
Other data suggesting validity include t-tests of youth reported parental awareness for two income groups, less than 50 percent of the poverty level and greater than 200 percent of the poverty level.
In all of the studied parental categories except for non-residential mothers, parents with incomes less than 50 percent below the poverty level were rated lower in awareness than those with incomes that were greater than 200 percent above the poverty level.
| <50% Poverty Level | >200% of Poverty Level | T-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report of Residential Mother's Awareness (range: 0-16) | 9.92 (0.11) |
10.78 (0.09) |
6.26*** |
| Youth Report of Residential Father's Awareness (range: 0-16) | 7.81 (0.19) |
8.65 (0.11) |
3.86*** |
| Youth Report of Non Residential Mother's Awareness (range: 0-16) | 6.87 (0.53) |
5.87 (0.84) |
-1.01 |
| Youth Report of Non Residential Father's Awareness (range: 0-16) | 3.42 (0.28) |
4.48 (0.38) |
2.25* |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 54), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
MISSING DATA
If a respondent answered fewer than three questions, then a score was not calculated for the scale, and thus coded as missing data.
| Measure | N | N missing | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Report of Residential Mother's Awareness | 5240 | 3 | 10.24 | 3.30 |
| Youth Report of Residential Father's Awareness | 3971 | 1 | 8.19 | 4.00 |
| Youth Report of Non-Residential Mother's Awareness | 267 | 1 | 6.83 | 4.59 |
| Youth Report of Non-Residential Father's Awareness | 727 | 4 | 3.95 | 4.00 |
Note. From NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures (p. 50), by Child Trends, Inc. and Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1999. Reprinted with permission.
Languages Available
The Youth Questionnaire can be administered in both English and Spanish.
Items Included
Items included from the NLSY97 round one Youth Questionnaire are as follows:
YSAQ-027 R03252.00
How much does he/she know about your close friends, that is, who they are?
YSAQ-028 R03253.00
How much does he/she know about your close friends’ parents, that is, who they are?
YSAQ-029 R03254.00
How much does he/she know about who you are with when you are not home?
YSAQ-031 R03256.00
How much does she know about who your teachers are and what you are doing in school?
Responses were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from “knows nothing” (0) to “knows everything” (4).
References and Source Documents
Child Trends, & Center for Human Resource Research- The Ohio State University. (1999). NLSY97 Codebook Supplement Main File Round 1. Appendix 9: Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hofferth, S., Davis-Kean, P., Davis J., & Finkelstein, J. (1997). Child Development Supplement to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics: 1997 User Guide. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu
Moore, W., Pedlow, S., Krishnamurty, P., & Wolter, K. (2000). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) Technical Sampling Report. Prepared for the Department of Labor by the Center for Human Resource Research The Ohio State University. Retrieved June 9, 2003, http://www.nlsinfo.org/ordering/display_db.php3 #NLSY97
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal Survey of Labor Statistics, & National Longitudinal Survey Program. (2002). A Guide to the Rounds 1–4 Data: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.bls.gov/nls/97guide/nls97usg.htm
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, & National Longitudinal Survey Program. (2002). NLS Handbook 2002 The National Longitudinal Surveys: The NLSY97 (chap. 2). Retrieved June 9, 2003, from http://www.bls.gov/nls/handbook/2002/nlshc2.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, & Program, N. L. S. (2003). NLSY97. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from http://www.bls.gov/nls/y97summary.htm
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center. (n.d.). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/psid/inventory_table_links/nat_long_surv_youth_1997.htm
http://www.bls.gov/nls/
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |