Prenatally drug-exposed toddlers were compared to preterm toddlers of similar low socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and single-parent households on intellectual functioning, quality of play, and security of attachment to the primary caregiver. The drug-exposed toddlers had significantly lower developmental scores, less representational play, and the majority had insecure, disorganized, avoidant attachments. In all areas investigated, the prenatally drug-exposed toddlers showed more subtle behavioral deficits within each domain. Although developmental quotients were within the average range, they were significantly lower than the preterm comparison group and did not adequately represent the more evident deficits seen through play in an unstructured situation. Unstructured assessments that required the child's initiation, goal setting, and follow-through were more revealing of developmental disorganization within and among domains than were adult structured assessments such as developmental tests. While modest differences were seen in structured tasks, the marked differences between the drug-exposed and preterm groups were most evident in the unstructured tasks. The lack of coherence across developmental domains was illustrated by the large difference between developmental quotient scores and the poor performance in the cognitive representional competencies demonstrated in play. Insecurity and disorganization in attachment were found to compromise further the development of the drug-exposed toddlers.

In order to test the hypothesis that the relation between childrearing history and parental behavior varies as a function of marital quality, retrospectively reported childrearing histories obtained from 92 middle- and working-class mothers-to-be in the last trimester of pregnancy were used to predict maternal positive and negative affect when children were 3-years-old. As anticipated on the basis of findings from high-risk samples, the intergenerational transmission process appeared to vary as a function of marital quality, with problematic histories predicting negative maternal affect when marriages were less positive/more negative and supportive histories predicting positive maternal affect when marriages were more positive/less negative. Unanticipated results also revealed that reports of supportive and rejecting parenting in childhood were associated with low-negative maternal affect when marriages were of high quality. These findings were interpreted in terms of buffering and gatekeeping processes, whereby marital quality defines both conditions of continuity and discontinuity with respect to the intergenerational transmission of parenting. Follow-up analyses revealed that physical attractiveness might determine which women with more problematic childrearing histories end up in more positive/less negative marriages that function protectively with respect to the intergenerational transmission of parenting. These results are particularly relevant to the study of developmental psychopathology not only by revealing risk and protective factors, but also by showing that processes at work in high-risk samples also seem to function under lower risk conditions.

This research examines the frequency and stability of internalizing symptoms in a sample of 325 5-year-olds. Parent and teacher ratings, teacher nominations, parent-child interaction, and child measures were obtained. Of the sample, 4% were nominated as depressed by teachers. With the use of cutoff scores on teacher ratings, an average of 17% of the children were rated as having moderate problems on the internalizing scale in November and April of kindergarten, and in February of first grade. Parent-teacher stability correlations ranged from .24 to .27, while teacher ratings from November and April correlated at .60. Instability in internalizing symptoms from kindergarten to first grade was related to a number of concurrent and previously assessed factors, most notably, attention problems, reliance on mother, and child intelligence. These factors combined to account for an additional 8% of the variance in first grade internalizing symptoms after controlling for internalizing symptoms in kindergarten.

The question of which informant on childhood behavior disorders is the most useful an'd valid for which disorders influences diagnostic accuracy and research findings. The present study focuses on 177 boys, most of whom had been referred to outpatient services because they were displaying disruptive behavior. The boys, their mothers, and their teachers responded to a psychiatric interview concerning the boys' behavior. Analyses of conditional agreements between informants show that children, as compared with mothers and teachers, were less adequate informants on their own hyperactivity and inattentiveness. The same applied to children's reports of their own oppositional behavior. In contrast, children's reports of their conduct problems tended to complement the reports by adults. Although informants agreed significantly on the presence of many disruptive child behaviors, there were several on which they did not agree, particularly in the realm of hyperactivity/inattentiveness. There were few age differences between older and younger boys in this sample of 7- to 12-year-olds. The implications of the findings for research and clinical practice are discussed.

This review of family, twin, and adoption studies on offender behaviors points to the importance of a genetic predisposition as a partial explanation for criminality in some populations. Twin and adoption studies show that criminality increases with the presence of criminality in biological relatives; the environmental effects of having a criminal adoptive parent also increase the risk of adoptee criminality. Delinquency is described developmentally as a fairly typical phase for many adolescents. Because of the high base rate for delinquency, any genetic predisposition for offense behaviors may be difficult to uncover in adolescence. Three groups are differentiated that may aid in this detection: continuous antisocials are delinquents who continue to be criminal as adults; transitory delinquents are delinquents but not criminals; and late bloomers are criminals but not delinquents.

Despite extensive theoretical and empirical advances in the last two decades, little attention has been paid to the development of statistical techniques suited for the analysis of data gathered in studies of developmental psychopathology. As in most other studies of developmental processes, research in this area often involves complex constructs, such as intelligence and antisocial behavior, measured indirectly using multiple observed indicators. Relations between pairs of such constructs are sometimes reported in terms of latent variables (LVs): linear combinations of the indicators of each construct. We introduce the assumptions and procedures associated with one method for exploring these relations: partial least squares (PLS) analysis, which maximizes covariances between predictor and outcome LVs; its coefficients are correlations between observed variables and LVs, and its LVs are sums of observable variables weighted by these correlations. In the least squares logic of PLS, familiar notions about simple regressions and principal component analyses may be reinterpreted as rules for including or excluding particular blocks in a model and for “splitting” blocks into multiple dimensions. Guidelines for conducting PLS analyses and interpreting their results are provided using data from the Goteborg Daycare Study and the Seattle Longitudinal Prospective Study on Alcohol and Pregnancy. The major advantages of PLS analysis are that it (1) concisely summarizes the intercorrelations among a large number of variables regardless of sample size, (2) yields coefficients that are readily interpretable, and (3) provides straightforward decision rules about modeling. The advantages make PLS a highly desirable technique for use in longitudinal research on developmental psychopathology. The primer is written primarily for the nonstatistician, although formal mathematical details are provided in Appendix 1.