4.5 Article

Typologies of substance use and illegal behaviors: A comparison of emerging adults with histories of foster care and the general population

期刊

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES REVIEW
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 753-761

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.01.021

关键词

Latent class analysis; Foster care; Emerging adult; Substance use; Illegal behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used latent class analysis (LCA) to explore whether patterns of substance use and illegal behaviors among emerging adults, 18 to 28 years old, differ depending on whether they have a prior history in foster care. The study sample, consisting of 316 respondents who had previously been in foster care and 14,301 respondents without a foster care history, was drawn from the third wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. A multiple-group LCA compared former foster youth to their peers in the general population. The following four classes were identified: illegal behaviors, substance use, illegal behaviors with problematic substance use and normative behaviors. Most of the differences between the groups were not statistically significant. However, within the illegal behavior class former foster youth were less likely to have bought, sold, or held stolen goods; injured someone in a fight so that she or he needed medical attention; to have sold drugs; and to have been drunk at school or work. Additionally, in the illegal behaviors with problematic substance use class emerging adults in the general population were more likely to have used cocaine. Within the normative behaviors class, former foster youth were more likely to be current smokers, and to have injured someone in a fight so that he or she required medical attention. Within the substance use class, emerging adults from the general population were more likely to have taken place in a fight where one group fought another. Additional statistically significant, but very small differences were also identified. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据