Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Panel
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic Area
Search Tips
Register for SRCD21
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Introduction: Economic challenges in young families are often associated with physical, social, and emotional difficulties, and research has shown the number of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) to be higher in low-income families (Mersky & Janczewski, 2018). Although ACEs are known to be associated with negative life outcomes (Chang et al., 2019), few studies have been conducted to understand the development and prevention of ACEs in early childhood. The purpose of the current study is to understand the pathways that mediate the association between economic hardship and child outcomes in a sample of maltreated young children, and in particular, the mechanisms through which ACEs are associated with child outcomes (see Figure 1).
Methods: The present longitudinal study uses data from The National Survey on Child and Adolescent Well-being II, a study of children and families under investigation with the child welfare system (Dowd et al., 2014). The present study included 1363 children ages two to 18 months at wave one (709 male; 654 female). Three manifest constructs were used in the model: economic hardship was measured by family poverty level, economic pressure was measured by caregiver perception about ability to make ends meet, and depression was measured by a sum score of seven items from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (see Stambaugh et al., 2013 for a full list of measures). Latent variables were created for six constructs in the model. Caregiver/partner conflict was comprised of five items from the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) and caregiver harsh parenting was comprised of five items from the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC). Five ACEs were conceptualized based on ten questions from the CTS2 and the CTSPC. Cognitive skills were measured using the Battelle Developmental Inventory. The internalizing and externalizing subscales of the Child Behavior Checklist were used to measure problem behaviors. Lastly, prosocial skills were measured by the Social Skills Rating System. Latent scales and constructs had acceptable factor loadings and reliabilities.
Results: Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) was used to analyze the structural equation model. The model fit the data well: χ2(1266) = 2227.820, p = .0000, CFI = .940, TLI = .937, RMSEA = .033, SRMR = .084. Significant paths were found between many of the hypothesized constructs (see Table 1): economic hardship to economic pressure, caregiver emotional distress to caregiver/partner conflict, caregiver/partner conflict to caregiver harsh parenting, caregiver harsh parenting to ACEs, and ACEs to child cognitive skills. The pathway from ACEs to child internalizing/externalizing behaviors was significant for female children only.
Conclusions: In this sample of young children in the welfare system, significant associations were found between family stress processes and child outcomes. These results for at-risk families are overall consistent with the FSM in that mediational processes over time predicted negative child outcomes. In particular, this study provides insight into the occurrence of ACEs through familial stress processes. Future research should focus on explicating the effects of ACEs in early childhood, and additionally, on moderating pathways that could increase resilience in at risk children.