A Mix Methods Comparison of Objective and Subjective Assessments of Neighborhood Characteristics in Latinx Neighborhoods

• In Event: Objective and Subjective Approaches to Examining Neighborhood Environments for Youth Development

Abstract

Neighborhoods are a salient context of the adolescent developmental ecology. Extant neighborhood effects research relies on a variety of approaches to assessing neighborhood environmental features that matter for adolescent development, with little attention to similarities and differences across approaches. Some researchers indicate objective approaches are preferred because they are not biased by participants’ perceptions (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000); culturally-informed developmental theory emphasizes phenomenological approaches are preferred to account for youths’ meaning making processes (Spencer, 2007). Because prior work highlight a variety of approaches to examining neighborhoods, it is important to gain a better understanding of their shared and unique aspects.

Research comparing objective and subjective assessments of neighborhoods may be particularly important in minoritized spaces, like predominantly Latinx neighborhoods, because research may have relied on neighborhood constructs and measures that did not account for social and historical circumstances of Latinx families and youth (Spencer, 2007). Thus the aim of this research was to compare and contrast assessments of Latinx neighborhood features as observed by (1) researchers’ objective systematic social observations and (2) U.S. Mexican adolescents’ subjective narratives.

METHOD: Data for this convergent mixed methods study come from three sources: 28 interviews with 14 Mexican-origin adolescents (Mean age = 15.43 (SD = 1.22); 64.3% female) living in Latino neighborhoods; 301 neighborhood photos taken by adolescents and coded by researchers for neighborhood environmental features, including physical disorder, physical decay, street safety, and sociocultural symbols (Table 1); and 96 narratives wherein adolescents described what they saw in their photos.

Quantitative Data: We used systematic social observations (Odgers et al., 2012) to rate neighborhood environmental features in adolescents’ photos. Interrater reliabilities were excellent: .80-.93 (Hallgren, 2012).

Qualitative Data: We developed corroboration and expansion codebooks (Table 1). The corroboration codebook facilitated comparisons between researchers’ photo observations and adolescents’ photo narratives relative to the coded neighborhood environmental features. The expansion codebook relied upon a combination of inductive and deductive approaches to identify additional themes in adolescents’ photo narratives.

RESULTS: Researchers observed varying degrees of each neighborhood environmental feature across adolescents’ photos (not shown). Adolescents sometimes (50%) mentioned these same features in their photo narratives. Adolescents also expanded beyond these features with additional themes (See Expansion Themes in Table 1). Table 2 quantifies the degree of overlap in researchers’ and adolescents’ assessments of neighborhood features, indicating a high agreement about the presence of the neighborhood environmental features, but low agreement about the absence of neighborhood environmental features. Adolescents most commonly expanded upon researchers’ coded neighborhood features by layering on positive and negative feelings (valence) to pictures containing sociocultural symbols or physical disorder.

DISCUSSION: Findings underscore the importance using mixed methods to address the shared and unique aspects of researchers’ objectivity and adolescents’ subjectivity. Additionally, findings bring attention to strengths and challenges of concentrated Latinx neighborhoods that Mexican-origin adolescents consider important and researchers should deem important as well.

Authors

• Michelle Christine Pasco, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
  Presenting Author

• Rebecca M. B. White, Arizona State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Will Taylor, Arizona State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Chang (Jenny) Zhao, Arizona State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Claudia A. Vega, Arizona State University
  Non-Presenting Author