Docstoc

PRESENTATION TO STAKEHOLDERS Jo Kleeb - PowerPoint

Document Sample
PRESENTATION TO STAKEHOLDERS Jo Kleeb - PowerPoint Powered By Docstoc
					Youth Connectedness
Project: A selection of
results from year 1 data
J. Kleeb, J. Pryor, C. Crespo, & P. Jose
jo.kleeb@vuw.ac.nz




           6th Australia & New Zealand Health Conference
                                     24th September 2007
            Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families
AREAS COVERED

 Overview

 Higher order patterns

 Bullying

 Technology

 Family
                OVERVIEW
We obtained self report surveys from:

    2,173 young people
    1,889 parents
       57 school principals

We sought to over-represent Maori youth - we did by
approx. 10% (= 30% of our sample of young people
overall).

We achieved good representation across school decile,
gender, and age.

We need to geo-code participant addresses before we
report definitively on urban/rural representation.
           HIGHER ORDER PATTERNS
 Connectedness Domain

  Family


              .31***

  School
             .23***                  Wellbeing     R2 = .39



  Peers       .24***
                            All key domains predict
                            wellbeing while simultaneously
                  .04*      controlling for the effects of other
Community                   domains. Family strongest,
                            community weakest.
(Note: *p<.05, ***p<.001)
       GENERAL AGE TRENDS

Family connectedness, school
 connectedness and wellbeing decrease
 with age.

Peer connectedness remains relatively
 stable across age.

Community and technology
 connectedness increase with age.
            BULLYING OUTCOMES
We measured rates of
being bullied and
victimized both in and
outside school and via
text messages.

For schools we also
measured rates of
witnessing bullying and
anti-bullying initiative
effectiveness.

A selection of outcomes
are presented here.
BULLYING OUTCOMES - GENERAL
 Self-report school bullying decreased as school decile
  increased, but not self report school victimization.

 Like traditional bullying, males were more likely to send or
  receive a mean text message than females.

 Year 8 (12 to 13 years) appears to be a time when sex
  and school decile differences in bullying rates temporarily
  disappear (developmental phase?).

 Participants were more likely to be victimised in school
  than outside school or via text.

 Rates of being bullied outside school showed a pattern of
  decrease with advancing school year.

 Being a bully or a victim was more likely for those who
  said they had a boyfriend or girlfriend (holds across age
  groups and text bullying).
 THE POWER OF TEACHERS?
 Post survey focus group participant: ‘teachers need to care,
 to watch that bullying doesn’t happen’.


Effectiveness of                  .23***
school anti-bully                                  Wellbeing
    initiative                  (.10***)

                                                       .41***
                              Quality of              (.38***)
              .36***         relationship
                             with teacher

Partial mediation of the impact of school bullying initiative on
wellbeing by quality of relationship with teacher, sobel = 11.90***.
                          (Note: ***p<.001)
RATES OF NEUTRALS, BULLIES, VICTIMS & BULLY-
VICTIMS FOR TRADITIONAL vs. TEXT




Note. Straight frequency reported within the prior month outside of
brackets. Weighted frequency (by cluster analysis) within brackets.

Bully-victim rates (weighted) are higher for text compared to
traditional bullying (text wars?)

Domain overlap: neutral 70.6% (86.6); bully-victim 42.3% (23.3);
bully 18.2% (16.1); victim 16.4% (9.7).

Text bullying clusters demonstrate similar relationships with other
variables as traditional bullying clusters - but typically not as strong.
TRADITIONAL BULLYING CLUSTERS (weighted results)
 A sample of findings
  Substance use (particularly cigarettes), truancy and a higher degree
    of deviant peer affiliation was more likely in bullies and bully-victims.

  Susceptibility to negative peer influence: neutral<victim<bully<bully-
    victim.

  Bully-victims tended to have poorer social skills and used more
    negative coping strategies, with those in the neutral group reporting
    the highest adjustment in these areas.

  Self harming actions/thoughts were more likely in bullies, victims and
    bully-victims than in the neutral group.

  Family conflict was highest in bully-victims. Bullies and victims also
    report higher levels of family conflict than the neutral group.

  Victims and bully-victims were least likely to feel they would have
    reliable support when in trouble, while bullies reported less guidance
    support than those in the neutral group.

  Bullies and bully-victims reported less secure bonding and
    reassurance of worth than those in the neutral group.
SCHOOL CELL-PHONE POLICIES - 1
The most common policies were prohibition of use during class
time or handed into the school during the school day. Leniency
increased with school year. Of those who said cell-phones were
not allowed in class time, 30% specified that breaking the rules
resulted in confiscation.

              Not allowed at school

                                                                         School
  Must hand in during school hours                                        Year

                                                                            10
 Allowed to posses but not to use in
                                                                            8
               school
                                                                            6

  Allowed in school but not in class



                  Allowed/no policy

                                                                           %
                                       0   10   20   30   40   50   60
SCHOOL CELL-PHONE POLICIES - 2
We collapsed policies into two groups: 1/ allowed during
the school day and 2/ not allowed. We then examined
mean differences in student data as a function of group
membership.

RESULTS
Lower decile schools were more likely to fall into the ‘not
allowed’ category.

Controlling for school year and decile, we also found that the
‘not allowed’ category (compared to allowed) was associated
with higher levels of text traffic on both school days and
weekends and higher rates of text bullying – both sent and
received.

FOCUS GROUP
Results were reported to a post-survey focus group of 13
to 16 year olds who indicated that being told they cannot
have a cell phone makes them want to use it more and
banning serves to create ‘hidden’ use (which can’t be
monitored).
INTERNET – KEY FINDINGS - 1
Internet use, having net friends and using the net to maintain
Proximal/distal ties showed a robust linear increase with age.




 Note: All values are percentages

 Females used the internet to maintain proximal and
 distal ties more often than males.
INTERNET – KEY FINDINGS - 2
 Within internet users, those with net friends chatted on
  the net with known others more often than those
  without net friends, suggesting a strong tendency to
  accrue ‘stranger’ friendships via social networking with
  known others.

 Those with net friends spent more time gaming than
  those without net friends.

 High risk rates for negative peer influence and
  externalization, by level of internet engagement:

        non-net users: 31%
        net users without net friends: 26%
        those with net friends: 50%

 The ‘net friends’ group also showed a pattern of having
  the poorest outcomes across a wider range of family,
  school, peer and wellbeing indicators (age, sex, decile
  controlled for).
NET FRIENDS vs. TRADITIONAL FRIENDS

 Young people rated traditional friend’s support higher
  than net friend support – however, 10-11 year olds
  made less of a distinction between support from the
  two sources (r = .42), while 14 to 15 years made the
  most distinction (r = .19).

 The positive impact of net friend support on wellbeing
  lost significance when its effects were considered in
  tandem with traditional friend support.

 Higher levels of net friend support were associated
  with a greater susceptibility to being influenced by
  others, while the opposite was true for traditional
  friend support.
Family Data
Who participated in the family survey?

- 1889 parents/caregivers answered our survey
  (Mothers: 1342; Fathers: 254)

- Different family structures in our sample

             Family structure      n

             Intact               1150
             Lone                  454
             Step/complex          205
             Extended               72
             Other                   8
             Total                1889
Family dimensions
• Cohesion

• Identity

• Mutual activities

• Autonomy

• Monitoring and Supervision

• Conflict
 Family perceptions

• 1 Family
                    Young person


• 2 “Informants”
                   Parent/caregiver
     Parents/caregivers’ and young people’s views
                       on family

Dimension                           Significant differences

Cohesion                            Parents > Young people (M/S)

Identity                   Parents > Young people (M/S)

Mutual activities          Parents > Young people (M/S)

Autonomy                            Parents > Young people (M/L)

Monitoring and supervision Parents > Young people (M/L)

Conflict                            No differences



           (Effect Size: S = small, M = medium, L = large)
Family structure: how it matters

• Looking beyond outcomes’ mean differences

• Family structure: a moderator


        Family                  Young people’s
      dimensions                  outcomes


                     Family
                    structure
     Links between family dimensions and cigarette
                       smoking
    RQ: Is the link between family dimensions (mutual activities,
      monitoring/supervision, and conflict) and smoking equally
      important for young people in all family structures?




              Family Mutual
                                  - .03*
                Activities



            Family Monitoring    - .18**                Young people’s
             and Supervision                               cigarette
                                                         consumption

                                  .10**
              Family Conflict
                                            Family
                                           structure
(Note: *p<.05, **p<.01)
Mutual activities and smoking:
Lone cf Intact families




Figure 1. Family structure (lone cf intact families) as a moderator between family
            mutual activities and young people’s cigarette consumption.
Mutual activities and smoking:
Step cf Intact families




 Figure 2. Family structure (step cf intact families) as a moderator between family
           mutual activities and young people’s cigarette consumption.
Monitoring/supervision and smoking:
Extended cf Intact families




 Figure 3. Family structure (extended cf intact families) as a moderator
  between family monitoring and supervision and young people’s cigarette
                               consumption.
 Conclusion - General links

 In relation to cigarette consumption…
• Family mutual activities have a negative association
  with cigarette consumption (ie., higher activities’
  levels = lower consumption)

• Family monitoring/supervision have a negative
  association with cigarette consumption (ie., higher
  monitoring/supervision = lower consumption)

• Family conflict has a positive association with
  cigarette consumption (ie., higher conflict levels =
  higher consumption)
Conclusion - Moderation links

In relation to cigarette consumption…
• Family mutual activities are especially important
  for young people in lone and step families

• Family monitoring/supervision is especially
  important for young people in extended families

• Family structure did not moderate the relationship
  between family conflict and smoking.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:9/18/2012
language:Unknown
pages:27