RESEARCH ON CHILD ABUSE, VICTIMIZATION AND FAMILIAL HOMICIDE

Victimization, Parenting, and Externalizing BehaviorAmong Latino and White Adolescents

Carol Coohey & Lynette M. Renner & Bushra Sabri

Published online: 21 March 2013# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Given the large number of adolescents who haveexternalizing behavior problems and the increasing ethnicheterogeneity in many societies, it is important to examinewhether the mechanisms underlying externalizing behaviorare different among diverse groups. We specified separatemodels for ethnic groups and tested whether gender moder-ated the effect of victimization experiences and parent–childcharacteristics on externalizing behavior. The sample in-cluded 167 Latino and 625 White adolescents ages 10–17.For Latino adolescents, parental physical assault was relatedto more externalizing behavior for males and for females.More parental conflict and more criticism were related toless externalizing behavior for Latino females but not forLatino males. For White adolescents, all types of victimiza-tion (by parents, by siblings, by peers, witnessing domesticassault) and more parental conflict were related to moreexternalizing for males and for females. More monitoringwas related to less externalizing behavior for White malesbut not for White females or for Latino adolescents. Theintersection of ethnicity and gender may be important whenexamining adolescents’ externalizing behavior.

Keywords Ethnicity . Gender . Parental monitoring .

Aggression . Domestic violence . Physical abuse

Externalizing behaviors are outer-directed or under-controlled feelings or actions (Reynolds 1990) and may, forexample, include anger, aggression, and delinquency (Yoderet al. 2008). Externalizing behavior is common among ado-lescents in all major ethnic groups in the U.S. (Latino: 26.9 %,White: 22.5 %; African American: 16 %; Bird et al. 2001);yet, researchers have infrequently examined whether risk fac-tors for externalizing behavior differ among ethnic groups.Examining intra-ethnic differences are important because theprocesses that lead to externalizing behavior among Whiteadolescent males and females may be different than the pro-cesses that lead to externalizing behavior among males andfemales in other ethnic groups. Given the large number ofadolescents who have externalizing behavior problems andthe increasing ethnic heterogeneity in many societies, it isimportant to examine whether the mechanisms underlyingexternalizing behavior are similar or different among diversegroups of adolescents. If there are different processes at work,then an understanding of these factors could be used to in-crease the predictive accuracy of risk assessment tools fordiverse adolescents and to refine interventions.

In this study, we examined whether several factors predictadolescents’ externalizing behavior among Latino and Whitefamilies using data from the Developmental VictimizationSurvey (DVS; Hamby et al. 2005). Recognizing that theintersection of ethnicity and gender may be important tounderstanding human behavior (Dill and Zambrana 2009),we specified separate (stratified) models for each ethnicgroup and tested whether gender moderates the effect ofvictimization experiences and moderates the effect of parent-ing on externalizing behavior while controlling for the effectof socio-economic status (SES). In the literature review, wefocused on two important predictors of externalizing behavioramong adolescents, victimization, and parent–child

Author Note With permission, data used in this article were madeavailable by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Data from the DevelopmentalVictimization Survey were originally collected by Heather Turner andDavid Finkelhor, University of New Hampshire. Their study wassupported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention. Neither the collector of the original data, thefunder, the Archive, Cornell University, or its agents or employers bearany responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.The authors would like to thank statisticians Rhonda R. DeCook andMaureen E. Tierney for reviewing our statistical analyses.

C. Coohey (*) : L. M. RennerUniversity of Iowa, School of Social Work, 308 North Hall,Iowa City, IA 52242, USAe-mail: carol-coohey@uiowa.edu

B. SabriJohns Hopkins University, School of Nursing,Baltimore, MA, USA

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368DOI 10.1007/s10896-013-9503-3

interaction, and determined to what extent researchers haveaccounted for ethnicity and gender in their research on therelation between these two constructs and adolescents’ exter-nalizing behavior. Because our measure of externalizing be-havior is restricted to anger and aggression, most of the studieswe reviewed examined either anger or aggression amongadolescents.

Victimization

Adolescents may experience direct victimization (e.g., assaultby a parent), indirect victimization (e.g., witness assault in thehome), or both. Several theories have been used to account forthe direct and indirect effect of victimization on child andadolescent externalizing behavior. For instance, according tosocial learning theory (Bandura 1973), observation, imitation,and modeling are mechanisms by which children exhibitaggressive behavior. Adolescents who are physicallyassaulted by a parent or who are exposed to violence, forexample, observe angry and aggressive behavior and mayinterpret it as normative or learn that it is an effective copingstrategy. According to the cumulative effects approach(Watson et al. 2004), adolescents who are victimized bymultiple sources are more likely to use maladaptive behaviors,such as aggression, to cope with stressors. In this study, wefocus on frequently occurring types of direct and indirectphysical victimization (Finkelhor et al. 2005).

Studies on the effect of being physically assaulted by aparent and the effect of witnessing violence on behavioramong adolescents are abundant (see Margolin and Gordis2000, for a review). For example, Wolfe et al. (1998) founda positive relationship between physical abuse duringchildhood and aggressive behavior towards others in a sampleof adolescents. Similarly,Moylan et al. (2010) found that childphysical abuse was related to total externalizing behavior(aggression and delinquency were combined). Studies alsoconsistently show that witnessing domestic violence in thehome (see reviews by Kitzman et al. 2003; Wolfe et al. 2003)and witnessing violence in the community (see reviews byLynch 2003; McDonald and Richmond 2008 and a meta-analysis by Fowler et al. 2009) is associated with increasedexternalizing behaviors among adolescents.

Despite the abundance of research on the adverse effectsof victimization on externalizing behavior, there is littleconsensus on whether victimization has a different effecton males than on females. In their review, Evans et al.(2008) found that adolescent males who witnessed domesticviolence were at a higher risk for externalizing behaviorproblems than females; however, other reviews have foundno evidence for gender moderation on externalizing behav-iors (Kitzman et al. 2003; Wolfe et al. 2003). Similarly,reviews on witnessing community violence have found no

evidence for gender moderation (Fowler et al. 2009;McDonald and Richmond 2008).

Although several reviews on indirect victimization (cf.exposure to violence) have included studies with ethnicallydiverse samples, examining the moderating effect of ethnic-ity was either not examined (Wolfe et al. 2003) or not foundto be related to externalizing behaviors (Fowler et al. 2009)in these reviews. When researchers have examined the rela-tionship between indirect victimization and externalizingbehavior (e.g., aggression, antisocial behavior), they founda significant relationship for Latino and for White adoles-cents (Amato and Fowler 2002; Schwab-Stone et al. 1999).

Although researchers have examined the relationship be-tween sibling conflict and behavior and found that moresibling conflict was related to more externalizing behavior(Deater-Deckard et al. 1996; Dunn and Munn 1986; Dunn etal. 1994; Garcia et al. 2000; Kim et al. 1999; Linares 2006),the relationship between sibling assault and externalizingbehavior has been studied infrequently. We were only ableto locate one study; Button and Gealt (2010) found a relation-ship between being a victim of sibling assault and aggressionamong adolescents. It is important to examine the effect ofbeing victimized by a sibling, because siblings may provideanother model for angry and aggressive behavior. Accordingto Hoffman, Kiecolt, and Edwards, “Children who observe orexperience such negative exchanges learn behavior to imitatein similar situations, as well as rationales and motivations forusing violence” (2005, p. 1,105), such as maintaining power.

Research on peer victimization and externalizing behav-ior among adolescents is also scant but growing. It appearsthat adolescents who are victimized by their peers are morelikely than adolescents who are not victimized to be angry,be aggressive toward others, or have an externalizing be-havior problem (Leadbeater et al. 2008; Prinstein et al.2001; Sullivan et al. 2006; Vitaro et al. 2007). While con-tributing to our understanding of the relationship betweentype of victimization and externalizing behavior, none of thestudies we reviewed on sibling or peer assault examinedwhether the effect of victimization on externalizing behaviordiffered for White and for Latino adolescents. Among stud-ies that examined gender subgroups, Leadbeater et al.(2008) and Prinstein et al. (2001) found no difference inthe relationship between peer victimization and externaliz-ing behavior for adolescent males or for adolescent females.

Parent–child Characteristics

While there is little empirical evidence to suggest beingvictimized will lead to externalizing behavior for Latinobut not for White adolescents, or vice versa, or for malesbut not for females, some cultural values theorists suggestthat characteristics of the parent–child relationship may

360 J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368

have a different effect on emotional adjustment, includingexternalizing behavior, among ethnic groups. According tothe cultural values model, the relationship between parent-ing and adolescent adjustment may differ because parentingbehaviors are interpreted differently depending on the ado-lescents’ cultural context. For instance, Lamborn and Felbab(2003) argue differences may exist in the acceptance ofparents’ negative emotional expressions or in the types ofstrategies parents use to regulate their adolescents’ emotionsand behavior. Hill et al. (2003), for instance, write thatchildren in Latino families may perceive acceptance andemotional security through high behavioral expectationsand not through praise. Important parenting constructs, suchas criticism, therefore, may be viewed by Latino adolescentsas a neutral or even positive emotional expression and maynot be related to externalizing behavior. In this section, wedescribed what is known about strategies used by parents toregulate their adolescents’ emotions and behavior, includingmonitoring and supportive or positive interactions betweenadolescents and their parents.

Monitoring is often defined as the extent to which parentsknow where their adolescents are and what they are doing(Dishion and McMahon 1998). Researchers have observed arelationship between parental monitoring and externalizingbehavior among White adolescents consistently (Beyers etal. 2004; Kim et al. 1999; Lansford et al. 2006; Pettit et al.1999). Theorists believe that monitoring may provide anexternal constraint on adolescents’ aggressive behavior byundermining their association with negative peer influences(Stattin et al. 2010), or monitoring may serve as a proxy fora constellation of positive parenting behaviors that reduceexternalizing behavior (e.g., teaches accountability, demon-strates caring and concern). While there appears to be sub-stantial research showing less parental monitoring is relatedto externalizing behavior in White samples, the findings onmonitoring and externalizing behavior among Latinoadolescents are mixed.

Some studies have found a relationship between parentalmonitoring and aggression or delinquency among Latinoadolescents (Amato and Fowler 2002; Eamon and Mulder2005; Forehand et al. 1997; Gorman-Smith et al. 1996;Lamborn et al. 1996); however, other researchers have not(Bird et al. 2001; Smith and Krohn 1995). Forehand et al.(1997) tested whether gender moderated the effect of mon-itoring on externalizing behavior but did not detect a signif-icant interaction. Loukas and Prelow (2004), however,found that more monitoring by Latino mothers was relatedto lower levels of externalizing behavior for adolescentfemales but not for adolescent males. The lack of consistencybetween studies on Latinos may be due to how researchersmeasured monitoring and externalizing behavior, to differ-ences in the Latino subgroups’ country of origin (e.g.,Mexico, Puerto Rico), and to the use of small sample sizes.

In addition to parental monitoring, researchers have useda wide range of instruments to measure the quality of theparent–child relationship and externalizing behavior.Despite using different measures, it appears that morewarmth, affection, support, involvement, and communica-tion are related to less externalizing behavior at least amongWhite or predominantly White samples of adolescents(Barnes et al. 2006; Beyers et al. 2004; Choi et al. 2005;Frick et al. 1999; Krishnakumar et al. 2003). Similarly, re-searchers have found that more negative parent-adolescentrelationships (e.g., more conflict, criticism, hostility) wererelated to a higher level of externalizing behavior (Buehler2006; Egeland et al. 2002; Kim et al. 1999; Krishnakumar etal. 2003). Parent-adolescent relationships that are character-ized by conflict and criticism may lead to escalating cycles ofcoercive exchanges between parents and adolescents that leadto adolescents and parents’ feeling angry and becomingaggressive (Patterson 1982).

Several researchers have conducted studies on Latinoadolescents only. These types of studies are important becausethey have the potential to identify whether and which parent-ing constructs may be most important when explaining exter-nalizing behavior among Latino adolescent females andmales. Similar to the literature on Latinos and monitoring,the results are not straightforward and vary depending on theparenting construct and on gender (Davidson and Cardemil2009; Forehand et al. 1997; Loukas and Prelow 2004). Forinstance, Hill and colleagues (2003) reported that amongMexican American adolescents, more acceptance and lessconflict was related to less externalizing behavior. Amatoand Fowler (2002) found that more support (e.g., talking with,spending time with parents) was related to fewer behaviorproblems among Latino adolescents, and Bird et al. (2001)found that poorer family relations were associated with anti-social behavior for Puerto Ricans and mainland Hispanics.Crean (2008) and Eamon and Mulder (2005) found that moreconflict with parents was related to more externalizing behav-ior for both Latino males and females. However, more emo-tional support, in Crean’s (2008) study, was related to lessexternalizing behavior for females but not for males. Anemotionally supportive relationship with one parent moderat-ed the relationship between high conflict with the other parentand externalizing behavior for males but not for females.

In summary, the literature suggests that, depending on thetype of victimization, there is either substantial or emergingevidence that direct and indirect victimization affects Whiteadolescents’ externalizing behavior adversely. There is farless research examining whether direct or indirect victimi-zation affects Latino adolescents’ externalizing behavior,especially as it relates to peer and sibling victimization.Nevertheless, we predicted that the adverse effect of victimi-zation would be invariant across ethnic group and acrossgender; adolescents who were directly or indirectly victimized

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368 361

would havemore externalizing behavior than adolescents whowere not victimized, regardless of ethnicity or gender.

Research on the relationship between the parent–childrelationship and externalizing behavior, however, suggeststhere may be gender differences among Latino and amongWhite families. For instance, while the relationship betweenparental monitoring and externalizing behavior for Whiteadolescent males is well-established, and we expected toreplicate this finding, the relationship between monitoringand externalizing behavior is less established for Latinosand for females. Similarly, higher quality parent–child re-lationships (e.g., less conflict, more support) seem to berelated to less externalizing behavior among White families;however, few studies have examined these relationshipsamong Latino families. Crean’s (2008) results, in particular,underscore the importance of examining the intersection ofethnicity and gender. Given the lack of research on theintersection of ethnicity and gender and externalizing be-havior, we did not make predictions for the relationshipbetween our parent–child constructs—warmth, criticism,and conflict—and externalizing behavior.

Method

Participants

Data from the DVS were used to understand the relationshipbetween externalizing behavior, parent-adolescent charac-teristics, and victimization. Turner and Finkelhor designedthe DVS to assess whether different types of victimizationdid or did not occur within the last year among a nationallyrepresentative sample of children ages 2–17 living in theU.S. (Larrabee-Warner 2007). They used a telephone surveyto select respondents randomly. English-speaking parentsand adolescents were interviewed between December 2002and February 2003 using a computer-assisted telephoneinterview procedure. They selected the child in the house-hold with the most recent birthday as the focal child for thestudy. The interviewers made numerous callbacks to com-plete the interviews and completed interviews for 79.5 % ofthe eligible participants. From the total sample of 2,030children, we selected participants who were in early ormiddle adolescence (ages 10–17) and who were living withtheir parents. Because of the relatively small number ofAfrican American adolescents in the subsample andinadequate variation for a key variable (e.g., less than3 % reported assault by caregiver), we included White andLatino adolescents only in the analysis. To control for the8-year span in age, we included adolescents’ age in ourstatistical models.

The final sample consisted of 792 adolescents; 167 of theadolescents were Latino and 625 were White. The sample

included 381 males (48.1 %) and 411 females (51.9 %) whowere, on average, 13.7 years old. About 12 % of the familieshad an income of less than $20,000, 35.2 % had an incomeof $20,000–50,000, and 52.4 % had an income more than$50,000. We used a continuous measure of SES that wasbased on household income (all wages, public assistance,and child support) and the highest educational attainment(from grade school to graduate degree) of the parent in ouranalyses (z-scores are reported). Family structure wasrecoded into two categories: single parent only (1) and morethan one adult in the home (0; adolescent was living withtwo biological or adoptive parents, or one biological parentand one step parent or unmarried partner). Table 1 shows that16.2 % of the adolescents were living with a single parent (ascompared to 83.8%who were in a two adult household) at thetime of the interview. In addition to providing descriptivestatistics for the total sample, we provided descriptive infor-mation separately for Latinos and for White adolescents.

Measures

The institutional review boards of the University of NewHampshire and the University of Iowa approved the study.Staff from an experienced survey firm conducted the inter-views with the parents and the adolescents. The respondingparent was the person who was “most familiar with the child’sdaily routine and experiences” (Larrabee-Warner 2007, p. IV).In our subsample, slightly more than 70 % of the parents whoresponded to these items were biological mothers.

Table 1 Means, Percentages, and Standard Deviations (in parentheses)by Ethnicity

Latino White Total Samplen=167 n=625 n=792

Demographic:

Males (%) 44.0 49.1 48.1

SES (M) −0.37 (0.95) 0.19 (0.96) −0.07 (0.99)

Age (M) 13.5 (2.50) 13.7 (2.16) 13.7 (2.23)

Single Parent (%) 29.6 12.5 16.2

Assaulted by:

Parent (%) 10.1 5.7 6.6

Sibling (%) 33.1 33.5 33.5

Peer (%) 17.6 14.2 15.0

WitnessedAssault (%)

40.0 42.2 41.7

Parent–child Relationship:

Monitoring (M) 8.65 (1.53) 8.95 (1.28) 8. 89 (1.35)

Conflict (M) 2.61 (1.00) 2.38 (1.04) 2.43 (1.04)

Criticism (M) 4.89 (1.89) 5.13 (1.80) 5.08 (1.83)

Warmth (M) 13.78 (1.74) 13.76 (1.71) 13.78 (1.50)

Externalizing (M) 4.84 (5.10) 3.57 (4.07) 3.83 (4.34)

362 J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368

Externalizing behavior Externalizing behavior was mea-sured using the nine-item externalizing behavior subscaleof the Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC; Briere 1996).Adolescents reported angry thoughts, feelings, and behav-iors including feeling mad, feeling mean, and hating others;having difficulty de-escalating anger; wanting to yell at orhurt people; and arguing and fighting in the last month. Eachitem was rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all)to 3 (very often). The nine items were summed to create atotal score (theoretical range of 0 to 27, with higher scoresindicating higher levels of externalizing behavior). Themean score for externalizing behavior in this study was four,which is consistent with other normative or non-clinicalsamples (Nilsson et al. 2008). Internal consistency reliability(α) for the TSC externalizing behavior subscale was 0.89 inBriere’s (1996) standardization study, 0.87 in Finkelhor etal. (2007) study, and 0.89 in this subsample of adolescents.

Victimization Victimization was measured using theJuvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ; Hamby et al.2005). The interviewers asked the adolescent whether he orshe experienced different types of victimization in the lastyear. We examined three types of direct victimization (i.e.,assaulted by a parent, assaulted by a sibling, assaulted by apeer) and one type of indirect victimization (i.e., witnessedan assault within or outside the home). Assaulted by aparent was measured by asking the adolescent whether heor she was hit, beat, kicked, or physically hurt in anyway bya parent (1=assaulted by parent, 0=not assaulted).Assaulted by a sibling included being hit or attacked withor without a weapon; hit, beat, kicked, or physically hurt; orjumped or attacked by a sibling (1=assaulted by sibling, 0=not assaulted). Assaulted by a peer was measured based onthe adolescent’s report of being hit or attacked with orwithout a weapon; hit, beat, kicked, or physically hurt; orjumped or attacked by a non-sibling peer (1=assaulted bypeer, 0=not assaulted). Witnessed an assault was measuredbased on the adolescent witnessing someone, in or outsidethe home, get attacked or hit on purpose, with or without aweapon (1=witnessed; 0=did not witness assault). Theweapons included a stick, rock, gun, knife, or other objectthat could hurt. Witnessed assault within the home wascombined with witnessed assault outside the home becauseof a small cell problem in the analysis for Latinos. The JVQhas adequate test-retest reliability and construct validity(Finkelhor et al. 2005).

Parent–child relationship The items for the parent–childrelationship were completed by the parents. To measuremonitoring, each parent responded to three questions andreported the extent to which they knew who their child’sfriends were, where their child was when they were not athome, and what their child was doing when they were not

with them, using a 4-point scale ranging from stronglydisagree (1) to strongly agree (4; theoretical range 3–12,with higher scores indicating more monitoring; a=0.76). Asingle item was used to measure parent-adolescent conflict.The parent was asked, “How often do you have argumentsor disagreements with your (fill-in)-year-old?” The re-sponses ranged from never or almost never (1) to very often(5), with higher scores indicating more arguments and dis-agreements. The measure for criticism included three items.Each parent was asked whether they were often critical oftheir child, they often need to tell them they were unhappywith their behavior, and they thought they were sometimestoo demanding of their child. We summed the three items tocreate a composite score for criticism. The responses rangedfrom strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4; theoreticalrange 3–12, with higher scores indicating more criticism;a=0.66). Parental warmth was constructed using five items.Parents reported whether they had a close relationship withtheir children, they talked to them about very differentthings, they let them know they loved them, they had a lotof fun together, and they let them know they were alwaysthere for them on a scale ranging from strongly disagree (1)to strongly agree (4; theoretical range 5–20, with higherscores indicating more warmth; a=82).

Data Analyses

The analyses proceeded in three steps. First, we applied apost-stratification weight to adjust for differences in ethnicgroup proportion between the sample and national statisticsand for differences in the probability of selection givenvariation in the number of eligible children and adolescentsin households (see Larrabee-Warner 2007, for details). Byapplying the weight, we can generalize to English-speakingWhite and Latino adolescents in the U.S. Second, wereported descriptive information for the variables includedin the multivariate analysis for Latino adolescents, for Whiteadolescents, and for the entire sample (see Table 1). Third,to understand the relative importance of risk factors and totest gender interactions for each ethnic group, we specifiedseparate (stratified) models (Karter 2003). A multivariatePoisson regression analysis with robust standard errors(Neter et al. 1996) was performed for each ethnic group totest the relationship between the dependent variable, exter-nalizing behavior, and victimization (assault by a parent, bya sibling and by a peer, and witnessed assault) and theparent-adolescent relationship (monitoring, conflict, criti-cism, warmth), controlling for gender, SES, child’s age,and single parent status (see Table 2). Robust standard errorswere used for hypothesis testing to provide more conserva-tive results. To understand whether the relationship betweenthe predictors and externalizing behavior was different formales than it was for females, we tested the interaction

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368 363

between gender and parent–child characteristics and be-tween gender and victimization for Latino and for Whiteadolescents.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 includes descriptive statistics for the total sample. Arelatively small percent, 6.6 %, of the adolescents reportedthat a parent assaulted them. About one-third of the adoles-cents in the total sample reported they had been assaulted bya sibling, and 15 % of adolescents reported they had beenassaulted by a peer during the last year. A large proportionof the adolescents, more than 40 %, reported they witnessedan assault within the past year. On a scale ranging from 1–5,the mean frequency of conflict reported by the parents was2.43. The mean for criticism was 5.08, and the mean formonitoring was 8.89 (range of 3–12).

Poisson Regression

We hypothesized that all types of direct and indirect victim-ization would be related to increased externalizing behaviorregardless of ethnicity. Table 2 shows that after controlling

for gender, SES, age, and whether two parents were in thehome, direct and indirect victimization increased externaliz-ing behavior among White adolescents. For Latinos, ado-lescents who were assaulted by their parents had higherexternalizing behavior. However, no other type of direct orindirect assault was associated with higher externalizingbehavior for Latino adolescents. Consistent with our hy-pothesis, all four types of victimization were positivelyrelated to externalizing behavior for White adolescents.Being assaulted by one’s parent, being assaulted by one’speer(s), being assaulted by one’s sibling(s), and witnessingassault were all related to higher externalizing behavior. Wethen tested whether gender moderated the effect of victim-ization on externalizing behavior. For both Latino and Whiteadolescents, we found no significant interaction effects (resultsnot shown). Gender did not moderate the effect of victimiza-tion on externalizing behavior.

When we examined the four parent–child relationshipvariables, we found no variable that was related to external-izing behavior for both Latino and for White adolescents.Among Latino families, more criticism was marginally (p=0.07) related to less externalizing behavior in the maineffects model. When we tested the interaction betweengender and the four parenting characteristics, however, wefound that among Latinos gender moderated the relationshipbetween criticism and externalizing behavior and between

Table 2 Effect of Victimization and Parent–child Relationship on Behavior

Latino White

Coef. SE z p Coef. SE z p

Males −0.10 0.21 −0.47 NS 0.06 0.08 0.78 NS

SES −0.25 0.10 −2.46 ** −0.12 0.04 −2.75 **

Age −0.05 0.07 −0.76 NS 0.07 0.02 4.00 **

Single Parent −0.49 0.22 −2.22 * 0.09 0.11 0.78 NS

Assaulted by:

Parent 0.58 0.21 2.69 ** 0.36 0.13 2.73 **

Sibling 0.25 0.26 0 0.98 NS 0.44 0.10 4.41 **

Peer 0.29 0.29 1.00 NS 0.57 0.11 5.28 **

Witnessed Assault 0.32 0.28 1.15 NS 0.53 0.09 5.55 **

Parent–child Relationship:

Monitoring 0.09 0.07 1.28 NS −0.06 0.03 −1.80 **

Conflict −0.19 0.12 −1.59 NS 0.15 0.04 3.76 **

Criticism −0.11 0.05 −2.09 NS −0.03 0.03 −1.14 NS

Warmth −0.05 0.08 −0.64 NS −0.02 0.02 −0.70 NS

Gender by:

Monitoring −0.04 0.16 −0.25 NS 0.16 0.05 2.93 **

Conflict −0.54 0.21 −2.56 ** 0.08 0.08 0.93 NS

Criticism −0.19 0.10 −1.98 * −0.19 0.05 −0.35 NS

Warmth 0.11 0.13 0.81 NS −0.05 0.05 −1.14 NS

*p≤0.05. **p≤0.01

364 J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368

conflict and externalizing behavior. More criticism was re-lated to less externalizing behavior among Latino adolescentfemales but not among Latino adolescent males (z= −1.98,p<0.05). Similarly, more conflict between Latino adolescentfemales and their parents was related to less externalizingbehavior but more conflict was not related to externalizingbehavior for Latino adolescent males (z= −2.56, p<0.01).

Among White adolescents, we found a main effect formonitoring and conflict but not for criticism and warmth.Less monitoring was related to more externalizing behavior,and more conflict was related to more externalizing behav-ior. We also found a significant interaction for monitoringfor White adolescents. More monitoring was related to lessexternalizing behavior among White adolescent males butnot among White adolescent females (z=2.93, p<0.01).

Discussion

Substantial research and theory suggest direct and indirectvictimization is related to greater externalizing behavioramong adolescents. Accordingly, we hypothesized that di-rect and indirect victimization would be related to external-izing behavior regardless of ethnicity and gender. Consistentwith previous research, we found that direct and indirectvictimization was related to a higher level of externalizingbehavior among White adolescents after controlling for age,family structure, and SES. Parent assault, sibling assault,peer assault, and witnessing assault each had a deleteriouseffect on White adolescents’ externalizing behavior, andgender did not appear to moderate the relationship betweenvictimization and externalizing behavior.

Although Latino adolescent males and females who wereassaulted by their parents were more likely to have exter-nalizing behavior, being assaulted by a sibling, beingassaulted by a peer and witnessing assault were not relatedto externalizing behavior. Although previous researchershave not examined the relationship between externalizingbehavior and sibling and peer assault, we still expectedvictimization would be related to externalizing amongLatinos based on social learning theory and the cumulativeeffects approach (Watson et al. 2004). Because of the rela-tively small sample of Latinos in this study and because wedid not examine other characteristics of victimization (e.g.,frequency, with and without injury), it may be premature tosuggest that being assaulted by a parent is more salient inpredicting externalizing behavior than being assaulted by asibling or a peer. Accordingly, these results need to bereplicated in future research and other characteristics ofvictimization need to be examined.

The findings on the parent–child relationship and exter-nalizing behavior are consistent, in part, with the culturalvalues model which states parenting behaviors may be

interpreted differently depending on the adolescents’ cultur-al context (Lamborn and Felbab 2003). More conflict wasrelated to a higher level of externalizing behavior amongWhite adolescents; however, more conflict was related to alower level of externalizing behavior among Latina adoles-cents. It is possible that the Latino and White parents andadolescents interpreted this item differently, accounting forthe divergent finding. Latino parents and daughters mayhave interpreted more frequent conflict—“arguments or dis-agreements”— as neutral or as positive, whereas Whiteparents and adolescents may have interpreted more frequentconflict as negative. Disagreements among Latinas, in fact,could have occurred in the context of a warm, caring and/orrespectful relationship. If Latina adolescents tend to inter-pret disagreements with their parents as concern or caringabout them, they may feel less frustrated or angry.

More parental monitoring was related to less externaliz-ing behavior among White adolescent males but not amongLatino adolescent males and females or among White ado-lescent females. The results for Latinos are consistent withBird et al. (2001) and Smith and Krohn’s (1995) findingsand seem to suggest that monitoring is less important inunderstanding White female and Latino adolescents’ angerand aggression. White adolescent males may interpret a lackof monitoring as indifference and express more anger andaggression toward their parents and others, whereas Whiteadolescent females and Latino adolescents may interpretparental monitoring as neutral.

Parental criticism is used, in part, to shape behavior andis often viewed as having a negative effect on behavior;however, we found that more criticism was related to lessexternalizing behavior for Latina females than for Latinomales. In interpreting this finding, it is important to note thatthe majority of parents in this study were mothers. Hence,the gender of parent and adolescent may have accounted forthis finding. For instance, Latina adolescent may haveinterpreted criticism as concern or as setting a higher standardfor their behavior. Examining the adolescents’ relationshipwith their mothers and their fathers may be particularly im-portant, as noted by Crean (2008), in understanding differ-ences in externalizing behavior between Latino adolescentmales and females.

It is important to acknowledge this study had some lim-itations that may have influenced the results. First, the DVSallowed us to examine some dimensions of parenting; how-ever, it seems likely there are other dimensions of theparent–child relationship that are of equal importance whentrying to explain externalizing behavior among differentgroups of adolescents. For instance, parental monitoring,which is thought to play an important role in reducingexternalizing behavior among adolescent males may not beas relevant for other cultures or for adolescent females.According to Crockett et al. (2007), researchers need to

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368 365

determine which dimensions of parenting Latino parentsand adolescents see as culturally relevant to addressingadolescents’ feelings and behaviors. The results of theirqualitative study provide a rich source of potential variablesthat could be examined in future research on Latino adoles-cents’ externalizing behavior.

In addition to other parenting variables, it would havealso been desirable to examine other dimensions of victim-ization. The DVS was designed to estimate the incidence oftypes of victimization in the past year, and, although somefollow-up questions were asked for some types of victimi-zation, frequency and duration of victimization were notamong these questions. Therefore, we did not account fortwo important dimensions of victimization that mayhave a profound effect on adolescents’ level of anger andaggression.

Second, we cannot be sure how parents and adolescentsinterpreted the parenting items. In addition to paying moreattention to which parenting concepts are most salient orculturally relevant among different ethnic groups, assuggested by the cultural values model, we need to paycloser attention to potential cultural differences in the mean-ing ascribed by parents and by adolescents to items used tomeasure quality of parenting among diverse ethnic groups.For instance, conflict was measured with one item, argumentsand disagreements, in this study. Clearly, conflict is morecomplex than a single item, and arguments and disagreementsmay havemultiple interpretations andmay not be indicative ofa highly conflictual relationship. Understanding how a mes-sage is expressed by the parent may be as important asunderstanding how it is received by the adolescent.

Finally, our reliance on secondary data also limited ourability to look at a broader range of ethnic groups, includingAfrican American adolescents, and to examine diversegroups of Latino adolescents, such as Mexicans, PuertoRicans, Hondurans, and English-speaking and non-English-speaking Latinos. Therefore, it would be inappro-priate to generalize the results of this study to all Latinoadolescents.

Despite these limitations, our results do have implicationsfor assessment and intervention. Similar to most studies, wefound that some types of victimization were related toadolescents’ externalizing behavior. These findings drawattention to the need for prevention and intervention atmultiple levels (e.g., individual, family, school, and com-munity). For instance, types of victimization that were re-lated to externalizing behavior could be added to riskassessment tools to identify adolescents at higher risk ofdeveloping or maintaining externalizing behavior. At thefamily level, parent education and skills training programscould be used to decrease parental assaults and increase par-ents’ ability to intervene in sibling assaults. Neighborhood andschool-level anti-violence programs aimed at prevention may

also lead to a reduction in peer assault and witnessing violencein the community and, consequently, to lower externalizingbehaviors among White adolescent females and males.

Parenting behaviors also appear to be related to adoles-cents’ externalizing behaviors. To address externalizing be-havior among White adolescents, practitioners should assessthe type and level of parental monitoring that adolescentsreceive and the valence and frequency of parent-adolescentdisagreements or arguments. Less monitoring of White ad-olescent males by their parents may contribute to adoles-cents’ externalizing behavior and be a potential area forintervention. To address externalizing behavior amongLatino adolescents, it may be useful to explore whetherparents and adolescents disagree and how they characterizethese types of interactions, paying careful attention to thevalence of these interactions and not just how they aredescribed (e.g., as arguments). Among Latinas, no or infre-quent mother-daughter conflict may indicate less engagementand may be problematic.

When working with diverse families, practitioners shouldview the parent-adolescent relationship and parenting char-acteristics through the socio-cultural lens of each uniquefamily. Consistent with the cultural values model, it isimportant to understand that characteristics of effective par-enting may differ among and between ethnic groups. It isequally important to understand how adolescents areinterpreting the words, actions, and intentions of their par-ents. Understanding these factors will likely aid in providingmore culturally competent interventions that are consistentwith the values, beliefs, and desired outcomes of a particularcommunity (Kumpfer et al. 2002; Nation et al. 2003).

References

Amato, P. R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjust-ment, and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and the Family,64, 703–716. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00703.x.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. NewYork, NY: Prentice Hall.

Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff,B. A. (2006). Effects of parental monitoring and peer deviance onsubstance use and delinquency. Journal ofMarriage and the Family,68, 1084–1104. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00315.x.

Beyers, J. M., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2004).Neighborhood structure, parenting processes, and the developmentof youths’ externalizing behaviors: A multilevel analysis. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 31, 35–53. doi:10.1023/A:1023018502759.

Bird, H. R., Canino, G. J., Davies, M., Zhang, H., Ramirez, R., &Lahey, B. B. (2001). Prevalence and correlates of antisocial be-haviors among three ethnic groups. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 29, 465–478. doi:10.1023/A:1012279707372.

Briere, J. (1996). Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC)professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources.

366 J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368

Buehler, C. (2006). Parents and peers in relation to early adolescentproblem behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 109–124. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00237.x.

Button, D. M., & Gealt, R. (2010). High risk behaviors among victimsof sibling violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 131–140.doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9276-x.

Choi, Y., Harchi, T., Gillmore, M. R., & Catalno, R. (2005). Applica-bility of the social development model to urban ethnic minorityyouth. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 15, 505–534.doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00109.x.

Crean, H. (2008). Conflict in the Latino parent-youth dyad: The role ofemotional support from the opposite parent. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 22, 484–493. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.484.

Crockett, L. J., Browny, J., Russell, S., & Shen, Y. (2007). Themeaning of good parent–child relationships for Mexican Ameri-can adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 639–667. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00539.x.

Davidson, T., & Cardemil, E. (2009). Parent–child communication andparental involvement in Latino adolescents. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 29, 99–121. doi:10.1177/0272431608324480.

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K., Bates, J., & Pettit, G. (1996). Physicaldiscipline among African American and European mothers: Linksto children’s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology,32, 1065–1072. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1065.

Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Emerging intersections: Race,class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and theprevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A concep-tual and empirical foundation. Clinical Child and Family Psy-chology Review, 1, 61–75. doi:10.1023/A:1021800432380.

Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1986). Sibling quarrels and maternal interven-tion: Individual differences in understanding aggression. Journalof Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, 583–595. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1986.tb00184.x.

Dunn, J., Slomkowski, C., Bcardsall, L., & Rende, R. (1994). Adjustmentin middle childhood and early adolescence: Links with earlier andcontemporary sibling relationships. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 35, 491–504. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01736.x.

Eamon, M. K., & Mulder, C. (2005). Predicting antisocial behavioramong Latino young adolescents: An ecological systems analysis.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 117–127. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.1.117.

Egeland, B., Yates, T., Appleyard, K., & van Dulmen, M. (2002). Thelong-term consequences of maltreatment in the early years: Adevelopmental pathway model to antisocial behavior. Children’sServices, 5, 249–260. doi:10.1207/S15326918CS0504_2.

Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domesticviolence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131–140. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.02.005.

Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S. L., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2005).The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire: Reliability, validity,and national norms. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 383–412.doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.11.001.

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). Thevictimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national sur-vey.Child Maltreatment, 10, 5–25. doi:10.1177/1077559504271287.

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007). Poly-victimization:A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse &Neglect, 31, 7–26. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.008.

Forehand, R., Miller, K. S., Dutra, R., & Chance, M. W. (1997). Therole of parenting in adolescent deviant behavior: Replicationacross and within two ethnic groups. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 65, 1036–1041. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.6.1036.

Fowler, P. J., Tompsett, C. J., Braciszewski, J. M., Jacques-Tiura, A. J.,& Baltes, B. B. (2009). Community violence: A meta-analysis onthe effect of exposure and mental health outcomes of children andadolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 227–259.doi:10.1017/S0954579409000145.

Frick, P., Christian, R., & Wootton, J. (1999). Age trends in the associ-ation between parenting practices and conduct problems. BehaviorModification, 23, 106–128. doi:10.1177/0145445599231005.

Garcia, M. M., Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E. B., & Yaggi, K. E. (2000).Destructive sibling conflict and the development of conduct prob-lems in young boys. Developmental Psychology, 36, 44–53.doi:10.1037//0012-1649.36.1.44.

Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996).The relation of family functioning to violence among inner-cityminority youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 115–129.doi:10.1037//0893-3200.10.2.115.

Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2005).The juvenile victimization questionnaire (JVQ): Administrationand scoring manual. Durham, NH: Crimes Against ChildrenResearch Center.

Hill, N. E., Bush, K. R., & Roosa, M. W. (2003). Parenting and familysocialization strategies and children’s mental health: Low-incomeMexican American and Euro-American mothers and children.Child Development, 74, 189–204. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00530.

Hoffman, K. L., Kiecolt, J., & Edwards, J. N. (2005). Physical violencebetween siblings: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal ofFamily Issues, 26, 1103–1130. doi:10.1177/0192513X05277809.

Karter, A. J. (2003). Race and ethnicity: Vital constructs fordiabetes research. Diabetes Care, 26, 2189–2193. doi:10.2337/diacare.26.7.2189.

Kim, J. E., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations amongfamily relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizingbehaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development,70, 1209–1230. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00088.

Kitzman, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003).Child witness to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339–352.doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.339.

Krishnakumar, A., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K. (2003). Youth percep-tions of interparental conflict, ineffective parenting, and youthproblem behaviors in European-American and African-American families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,20, 239–260. doi:10.1177/0265407503020002007.

Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Smith, P., & Bellamy, N. (2002).Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based preventioninterventions. Prevention Science, 3, 241–246. doi:10.1023/A:1019902902119.

Lamborn, S. D., & Felbab, A. J. (2003). Applying ethnic equivalenceand cultural values models to African-American teens’ percep-tions of parents. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 601–618.doi:10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00059-9.

Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Ethnicityand community context as moderators of the relations betweenfamily decision making and adolescent adjustment. Child Devel-opment, 67, 283–301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01734.x.

Lansford, J. E., Malone, S., Stevens, K. I., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E.,& Pettit, G. S. (2006). Developmental trajectories of externalizingand internalizing behaviors: Factors underlying resilience in phys-ically abused children. Development and Psychopathology, 18,35–55. doi:10.1017/S0954579406060032.

Larrabee-Warner, H. (2007). Developmental victimization survey(DVS), 2002–2003, user’s guide and codebook. Ithaca, NY: Na-tional Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Leadbeater, B., Banister, E., Ellis, W., & Yeung, R. (2008). Victimiza-tion and relational aggression in adolescent romantic

J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368 367

relationships: The influence of parental and peer behaviors, andindividual adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37,359–372. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9269-0.

Linares, L. O. (2006). An understudied form of intra-family violence:Sibling-to-sibling aggression among foster children. Aggressionand Violent Behavior, 11, 95–109. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.07.001.

Loukas, A., & Prelow, H. (2004). Externalizing and internalizingproblems in low-income Latino early adolescents: Risk, resourcesand protective factors. Journal of Early Adolescents, 24, 250–273. doi:10.1177/0272431604265675.

Lynch, M. (2003). Consequences of children’s exposure to communityviolence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 265–274. doi:10.1023/B:CCFP.0000006293.77143.e1.

Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family andcommunity violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology,51, 445–479. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.445.

McDonald, C. C., & Richmond, T. R. (2008). The relationship betweencommunity violence exposure and mental health symptoms inurban adolescents. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental HealthNursing, 15, 833–849. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2008.01321.x.

Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl,R. C., & Russo, M. J. (2010). The effects of child abuse andexposure to domestic violence on adolescent internalizing andexternalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence,25, 53–63. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9269-9.

Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D.,Morrissey-Kane, E., et al. (2003). What works in prevention:Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psycholo-gist, 58, 449–456. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.449.

Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtscheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W.(1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.

Nilsson, D., Wadsby, M., & Svedin, C. G. (2008). The psychometricproperties of the Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSCC) for childrenin a sample of Swedish children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 627–636. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.09.009.

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The

impact of after-school peer contact on early adolescent external-izing problems is moderated by parental monitoring, perceiveneighborhood safety, and prior adjustment. Child Development,70, 768–778. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00055.

Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt andrelational aggression in adolescence: Social psychological ad-justment in aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child

& Adolescent Psychology, 30, 479–491. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_05.

Reynolds, W. M. (1990). Introduction to the nature and study ofinternalizing disorders in children and adolescents. School Psy-chology Review, 19 , 137–141. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/about.aspx.

Schwab-Stone, M., Chen, C., Greenberger, E., Silver, D., Lichtman, J.,& Voyce, C. (1999). No safe haven II: The effects of violenceexposure on urban youth. Journal of the American Academy ofChild & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 359–367. doi:10.1097/00004583-199904000-00007.

Smith, C., & Krohn, M. (1995). Delinquency and family life amongmale adolescents: The role of ethnicity. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 24, 69–93. doi:10.1007/BF01537561.

Stattin, H., Kerr, M., & Tilton-Weaver, L. (2010). Parental monitoring:A critical examination of research. In J. Gullamo-Ramos, A.Jaccard, & P. Dittus (Eds.), Parental monitoring of adolescents(pp. 3–38). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Sullivan, T., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization inearly adolescence: Association between physical and relationalvictimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviorsamong urban middle school student. Development and Psychopa-thology, 18, 119–137. doi:10.1017/S095457940606007X.

Vitaro, F., Boivin, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Peers and violence: Atwo-sided developmental perspective. In D. J. Flannery, A. T.Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook ofviolent behavior and aggression (pp. 361–387). Cambridge,MA: Cambridge University Press.

Watson, M. W., Fischer, K. W., Andreas, J. B., & Smith, K. W. (2004).Pathways to aggression in children and adolescents. HarvardEducational Review, 74, 404–430. Retrieved from http://www.hepg.org/main/her/Index.html.

Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., & Lefebvre, L. (1998).Factors associated with abusive relationships among maltreatedand nonmaltreated youth. Development and Psychopathology, 10,61–85. doi:10.1017/S0954579498001345.

Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G.(2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: Ameta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family PsychologyReview, 6, 171–187. doi:1096-4037/03/0900-0171/0 C.

Yoder, K. A., Longley, S. L., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2008). Adimensional model of psychopathology among homeless adoles-cents: Suicidality, internalizing, and externalizing disorders. Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 95–104. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9163-y.

368 J Fam Viol (2013) 28:359–368