Intergenerational effects of the Fast Track intervention on the home environment: A randomized control trial

William Andrew Rothenberg, Jennifer E Lansford, Jennifer W Godwin, Kenneth A Dodge, William E Copeland, Candice L Odgers, Robert J McMahon, Natalie Goulter, Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, William Andrew Rothenberg, Jennifer E Lansford, Jennifer W Godwin, Kenneth A Dodge, William E Copeland, Candice L Odgers, Robert J McMahon, Natalie Goulter, Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group

Abstract

Background: Maladaptive family environments harm child development and are passed across generations. Childhood interventions may break this intergenerational cycle by improving the family environments children form as adults. The present study investigates this hypothesis by examining follow-up data collected 18 years after the end of the childhood Fast Track intervention designed to prevent externalizing problems.

Methods: We examined whether Fast Track assignment from grades 1 to 10 prevented the emergence of maladaptive family environments at age 34. A total of 400 (n = 206 in intervention condition, n = 194 controls) Fast Track participants who were parents at age 34 were surveyed about 11 aspects of their current family environment. The hypotheses and analytic plan were preregistered at https://osf.io/dz9t5 and the Fast Track trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01653535).

Results: Multiple group linear regression models revealed that mothers who participated in the Fast Track intervention as children had lower depression symptoms, alcohol problems, drug problems, corporal punishment use, and food insecurity compared to control group mothers. All effects were modest in magnitude. However, for these same mothers, the Fast Track intervention had no effect on cannabis problems, experiences of romantic partner violence, or maternal use of physical aggression or warmth with their children. Additionally, mothers in the Fast Track intervention group reported higher levels of family chaos than those in the control group, but this effect may be a byproduct of the higher number of children per household in the intervention group. No intervention effects were found for fathers who participated in the Fast Track intervention as children.

Conclusions: Childhood assignment to Fast Track has some beneficial effects for girls, but not boys, on the family environments these individuals formed as adults 18 years later.

Keywords: Prevention; externalizing; family environment; intergenerational; intervention.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.

© 2022 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

References

    1. Adamson SJ, & Sellman JD (2003). A prototype screening instrument for cannabis use disorder: The Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test (CUDIT) in an alcohol-dependent clinical sample. Drug and Alcohol Review, 22, 309–315.
    1. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, & Ranieri WF (1996). Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories–IA and –II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 588–597.
    1. Blumberg SJ, Bialostosky K, Hamilton WL, & Briefel RR (1999). The effectiveness of a short form of the Household Food Security Scale. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1,231–1,234.
    1. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2020). The Fast Track program for children at risk: Preventing antisocial behavior. New York: Guilford Press.
    1. Dodge KA, Bierman KL, Coie JD, Greenberg MT, Lochman JE, McMahon RJ, & Pinderhughes EE (2015). Impact of early intervention on psychopathology, crime, and well-being at age 25. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 59–70.
    1. Hill KG, Bailey JA, Steeger CM, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Kosterman R, … Abbott RD (2020). Outcomes of childhood preventive intervention across 2 generations: A nonrandomized controlled trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 174, 764–771.
    1. Kerr DCR, & Capaldi DM (2019). Intergenerational transmission of parenting. In Bornstein MH (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Being and becoming a parent (Vol. 3, 3rd edn, pp. 443–481). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
    1. Lansford JE, Sharma C, Malone PS, Woodlief D, Dodge KA, Oburu P, … Di Giunta L (2014). Corporal punishment, maternal warmth, and child adjustment: A longitudinal study in eight countries. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 43(4), 670–685. 10.1080/15374416.2014.893518
    1. Lakens D, Scheel AM, & Isager PM (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 259–269.
    1. Matheny AP, Wachs TD, Ludwig JL, & Phillips K (1995). Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric characteristics of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 429–444.
    1. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th edn). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
    1. Patterson GR (1982). Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
    1. Riggs NR, Chou C-P,, & Pentz MA (2009). Protecting against intergenerational problem behavior: Mediational effects of prevented marijuana use on second-generation parent–child relationships and child impulsivity. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 100, 153–160.
    1. Rohner RP (2005). Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ): Test manual. In Rohner RP & Khaleque A (Eds.), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th edn, pp. 43–106). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
    1. Rothenberg WA (2019). A review of intergenerational continuity in parenting: Identifying developmental pathways and moderating factors. Marriage & Family Review, 55(8), 701–736. 10.1080/01494929.2019.1589618
    1. Rothenberg WA, Hussong AM, & Chassin L (2016). Intergenerational continuity in high-conflict family environments. Development and Psychopathology, 28, 293–308.
    1. Rothenberg WA, Solis JM, Hussong AM, & Chassin L (2017). Profiling families in conflict: Multigenerational continuity in conflict predicts deleterious adolescent and adult outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(5), 616–628.
    1. Rothenberg WA, Hussong AM, & Chassin L (2018). Intergenerational continuity in high conflict family environments: Investigating a mediating depressive pathway. Developmental Psychology, 54, 385–396.
    1. Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Uribe Tirado ML, Yotanyamaneewong S, Peña Alampay L, Al-Hassan SM, Bacchini D, Chang L, Deater-Deckard K, Di Giunta L, Dodge KA, Gurdal S, Liu Q, Long Q, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Tapanya S, Steinberg L, & Bornstein MH (2022). The intergenerational transmission of maladaptive parenting and its impact on child mental health: Examining cross-cultural mediating pathways and moderating protective factors. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. Advanced online publication. 10.1007/s10578-021-01311-6
    1. Skinner HA (1982). The drug abuse screening test. Addictive Behaviors, 7, 363–371.
    1. Straus M (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.
    1. Tanner-Smith EE, Durlak JA, & Marx RA (2018). Empirically based mean effect size distributions for universal prevention programs targeting school-aged youth: A review of meta-analyses. Prevention Science, 19, 1091–1101.
    1. World Health Organization (Ed.). (2001). AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for use in primary care (2nd edn). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir