| Literature DB >> 23347822 |
Ronald B Cox1, Martha Zapata Roblyer, Michael J Merten, Karina M Shreffler, Kami L Schwerdtfeger.
Abstract
The literature has been mixed regarding how parent-child relationships are affected by the acculturation process and how this process relates to alcohol use among Latino youth. The mixed results may be due to, at least, two factors: First, staggered migration in which one or both parents arrive to the new country and then send for the children may lead to faster acculturation in parents than in children for some families. Second, acculturation may have different effects depending on which aspects of alcohol use are being examined. This study addresses the first factor by testing for a curvilinear trend in the acculturation-alcohol use relationship and the second by modeling past year alcohol use as a zero inflated negative binomial distribution. Additionally, this study examined the unique and mediation effects of parent-child acculturation discrepancies (gap), mother involvement in children's schooling, father involvement in children's schooling, and effective parenting on youth alcohol use during the last 12 months, measured as the probability of using and the extent of use. Direct paths from parent-child acculturation discrepancy to alcohol use, and mediated paths through mother involvement, father involvement, and effective parenting were also tested. Only father involvement fully mediated the path from parent-child acculturation discrepancies to the probability of alcohol use. None of the variables examined mediated the path from parent-child acculturation discrepancies to the extent of alcohol use. Effective parenting was unrelated to acculturation discrepancies; however, it maintained a significant direct effect on the probability of youth alcohol use and the extent of use after controlling for mother and father involvement. Implications for prevention strategies are discussed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23347822 PMCID: PMC3565902 DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-8-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy ISSN: 1747-597X
Confirmatory factor analysis factor loadings
| | ||
| | | |
| Make sure homework done | 0.71 | 29.61 |
| Praise for study and grades | 0.71 | 29.70 |
| Aware of attendance | 0.64 | 24.01 |
| Discuss report card | 0.80 | 41.91 |
| Attend conferences | 0.55 | 17.66 |
| | | |
| Make sure homework done | 0.82 | 50.38 |
| Praise for study and grades | 0.78 | 42.76 |
| Aware of attendance | 0.78 | 41.49 |
| Discuss report card | 0.84 | 54.44 |
| Attend conferences | 0.58 | 20.49 |
| | | |
| Aware of what is important to child | 0.68 | 24.57 |
| Know child’s whereabouts | 0.64 | 22.06 |
| Arguments often end in fights | −0.39 | −10.20 |
| Child feels important | 0.65 | 22.29 |
| Warn about drugs and alcohol | 0.66 | 23.38 |
Figure 1Direct effect of Acculturation Gap on Past 12 month Alcohol Use Controlling for Gender. (*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001, n.s. = not significant). OR = Odds Ratio, and IRR = Incidence Rate Ratio. Significance tests use the Wald test, which is the ratio of the estimated regression coefficient, divided by its standard error, evaluated with a t or Z test [76].
Figure 2Effect of Acculturation Gap on Past 12 month Alcohol Use via Effective Parenting, Mother Involvement and Father Involvement(*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001, = not significant).ß = Standardized Regression Coefficient, OR = Odds Ratio, and IRR = Incidence Rate Ratio. Correlation coefficients for the mediators (not shown in the model) are: Mother Involvement with Father Involvement (r =.62, p<.001); Effective Parenting with Father Involvement (r =.47, p<.001); Effective Parenting with Mother Involvement (r =.72, p<.001). Significance tests use the Wald test, which is the ratio of the estimated regression coefficient, divided by its standard error, evaluated with a t or Z test [76].
Coefficients, test statistics, degrees of freedom and confidence intervals for path models within the structural equation model
| | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | | | Lower | Upper | OR | | | Lower | Upper | |
| Quadratic acculturation gap | 1.01 | 0.66 | 627 | 0.98 | 1.05 | 0.998 | −0.05 | 625 | 0.93 | 1.07 |
| Linear acculturation gap | 1.15 | 3.39 | 627 | 1.06 | 1.25 | 1.10 | 1.93 | 625 | 1.00 | 1.22 |
| Gender | 1.14 | 0.74 | 627 | 0.80 | 1.64 | | | | | |
| Effective parenting | | | | | | 0.36 | −3.12 | 625 | 0.19 | 0.68 |
| Mother involvement | | | | | | 0.99 | −0.02 | 625 | 0.41 | 2.42 |
| Father involvement | | | | | | 0.50 | −3.33 | 625 | 0.33 | 0.75 |
| IRR | | | | | IRR | | | | | |
| Quadratic acculturation gap | 1.02 | 2.71 | 627 | 1.003 | 1.02 | 1.02 | 2.93 | 625 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
| Linear acculturation gap | 1.02 | 0.43 | 627 | 0.94 | 1.10 | 1.04 | 1.08 | 625 | 0.97 | 1.12 |
| Gender | 1.07 | 0.74 | 627 | 0.90 | 1.27 | | | | | |
| Effective parenting | | | | | | 0.70 | −3.35 | 625 | 0.57 | 0.86 |
| Mother involvement | | | | | | 0.98 | 0.12 | 625 | 0.71 | 1.36 |
| Father involvement | | | | | | 0.85 | 1.93 | 625 | 0.73 | 1.00 |
| | | | | | β | | | | | |
| Quadratic acculturation gap | | | | | | −0.04 | −0.55 | 628 | −0.18 | 0.10 |
| Linear acculturation gap | | | | | | 0.04 | 0.65 | 628 | −0.08 | 0.15 |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Quadratic acculturation gap | | | | | | −0.04 | −1.09 | 628 | −0.12 | 0.04 |
| Linear acculturation gap | | | | | | −0.12 | −2.97 | 628 | −0.20 | −0.04 |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Quadratic acculturation gap | | | | | | −0.10 | −1.83 | 628 | −0.20 | 0.01 |
| Linear acculturation gap | −0.25 | −7.96 | 628 | −0.32 | −0.19 | |||||
Note. OR = Odds Ratio, IRR = Incidence Rate Ratio, CI = Confidence Interval. *We use the Wald test, which is the ratio of the estimated regression coefficient, divided by its standard error, evaluated with a t or Z test [76]. Reported degrees of correspond to the Wald test and not to the chi-square test of fit for the structural equation model.
Figure 3Curvilinear Effect of Acculturation Gap on the Extent of Alcohol Use.