Influence of Family Factors on Substance Use in Early Adolescents: A Longitudinal Study in Hong Kong

Figures & data

Table 1. Results of IGC models (Model 1–3) for adolescent substance abuse (Wave 1–3).

		Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
		Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
Fixed effects
Intercept	β0j
Intercept	γ00	.08***	.002	.07***	. 002	.07***	.005
Gender ^a	γ01					.01**	.002
Family economic status ^b	γ02					.01	.005
Family intactness ^c	γ03					–.01**	.004
Linear Slope	β1j
Time	γ10			.02***	. 002	.02***	.003
Gender ^a	γ11					–.0002	.002
Family economic status ^b	γ12					–.01*	.003
Family intactness ^c	γ13					–.001	.002
Random effects
Level 1 (within)
Residual	rij	.01***	.0002	.01***	.0003	.01***	.0003
Level 2 (between)
Intercept	u0j	.01***	.0004	.01***	.0005	.01***	.0005
Time	u1j			.002***	.0002	.002***	.0003
Fit statistics
Deviance		–9421.64		–9800.35		–9833.40
AIC		–9415.64		–9788.35		–9809.40
BIC		–9394.75		–9746.57		–9726.05
Intra-class correlation		.50
df		3		6		12

^aFemale = –1. Male = 1.

^bHaving economic disadvantage = –1, Not having economic disadvantage = 1.

^c Not intact family = –1. Intact family = 1.

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.

Table 2. Results of IGC models with level-2 predictors for adolescent substance abuse (Wave 1–3).

		Model 4a		Model 4b		Model 4c
		Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
Fixed effects
Intercept	β0j
Intercept	γ00	.06***	.005	.07***	.005	.06***	.005
Gender ^a	γ01	.01***	.002	.01*	.002	.01**	.002
Family economic status ^b	γ02	.01*	.005	.01	.005	.01*	.005
Family intactness ^c	γ03	–.01*	.004	–.01*	.004	–.01	.004
Paternal behavioral control	γ04	–.01***	.003
Maternal behavioral control	γ05	–.01***	.003
Paternal psychological control	γ06			.005	.003
Maternal psychological control	γ07			.004	.003
Father–child relational quality	γ08					–.01***	.003
Mother–child relational quality	γ09					–.02***	.003
Linear Slope	β1j
Time	γ10	.02***	.003	.02***	.003	.02***	.003
Gender ^a	γ11	–.0004	.002	–.0003	.002	–.0003	.002
Family economic status ^b	γ12	–.01*	.003	–.01*	.003	–.01*	.003
Family intactness ^c	γ13	–.001	.003	–.001	.002	.0001	.003
Paternal behavioral control	γ14	.001	.002
Maternal behavioral control	γ15	–.004*	.002
Paternal psychological control	γ16			.001	.002
Maternal psychological control	γ17			.002	.002
Father–child relational quality	γ18					–.001	.002
Mother–child relational quality	γ19					–.005**	.002
Random effects
Level 1 (within)
Residual	rij	.01***	.0003	.01***	.0003	.01***	.0003
Level 2 (between)
Intercept	u0j	.01***	.0005	.01***	.0005	.01***	.0005
Time	u1j	.002***	.0003	.002***	.0003	.002***	.0003
Fit statistics
Deviance		–9915.46		–9850.37		–9965.05
AIC		–9983.46		–9818.37		–9933.05
BIC		–9772.32		–9707.23		–9821.91
df		16		16		16

^aFemale = –1, Male = 1.

^bHaving economic disadvantage = – 1. Not having economic disadvantage = 1.

^cNot intact family = – 1. Intact family = 1.

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.

Table 3. Concurrent predictive effects of parent–child subsystem qualities on substance abuse.

		Wave 1 Substance abuse ^a			Wave 2 Substance abuse ^b			Wave 3 Substance abuse ^c
Model	Predictors	β	t	Cohen’s f^2	β	t	Cohen’s f^2	β	t	Cohen’s f^2
1	Gender ^d	.06	3.24**	.004	.04	1.96*	.001	.05	2.55*	.003
	Family economic status ^e	.03	1.60		.02	.74		–.02	–.72
	Family intactness ^f	–.05	–2.61**	.003	–.08	–3.70***	.01	–.06	2.64*	.003
	R^2 change	.01			.01			.01
	F change	6.04***			5.90***			5.31**
2	PBC	–.10	–3.50***	.005	–.07	–2.70**	.003	–.11	–3.90***	.01
	PPC	.07	3.29**	.004	.07	3.17**	.004	.08	3.61***	.01
	FCRQ	–.06	–2.30*	.002	–.09	–3.16**	.004	–.04	–1.53
	R^2 change	.02			.03			.03
	F change	21.10***	21.10***		22.85***			21.61***
3	MBC	–.02	–.57		–.03	–1.07		–.08	–2.93**	.003
	MPC	.03	1.66		.08	3.88***	.01	.09	4.05***	.01
	MCRQ	–.15	–5.68***	.01	–.13	–4.93***	.01	–.09	–3.51***	.01
	R^2 change	.03			.03			.04
	F change	26.40***			31.07***			30.30***
4	PBC	–.08	–2.98**	.003	–.06	–2.03*	.002	–.08	–2.71**	.003
	PPC	.07	2.95**	.003	.03	1.43		.05	2.02*	.002
	FCRQ	–.01	–.51		–.04	–1.53		–.01	–.23
	MBC	.01	.16		–.0001	–.02		–.04	–1.60
	MPC	.0001	.07		.06	2.69**	.003	.06	2.58*	.003
	MCRQ	–.14	–4.61***	.01	–.11	–3.99***	.01	–.09	–3.09***	.004
	R^2 change	.04			.04			.04	.04
	F change	17.27***			18.92***			18.16***

For models 2–4, demographic variables were controlled.

^aParent–child subsystem qualities measured at Wave 1 were used.

^bParent–child subsystem qualities measured at Wave 2 were used.

^cParent–child subsystem qualities measured at Wave 3 were used.

^dFemale = – 1. Male = 1.

^eHaving economic disadvantage = – 1. Not having economic disadvantage = 1.

^fNot intact family = – 1. Intact family = 1.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p< .001.

PBC = paternal behavioral control; PPC = paternal psychological control; FCRQ = father–child relational quality; MBC = maternal behavioral control; MPC = maternal psychological control; MCRQ = mother–child relational quality.

Table 4. Longitudinal predictive effects of parent–child subsystem qualities on substance abuse.

		Wave 2 Substance abuse			Wave 3 Substance abuse
Model	Predictors	β	t	Cohen’s f^2	β	t	Cohen’s f^2
1	Gender ^a	.04	1.96*	.001	.05	2.55*	.003
	Family economic status ^b	.02	.74		–.02	–.72
	Family intactness ^c	–.08	–3.70***	.004	–.06	–2.64**	.003
	R^2 change	.01			.01
	F change	5.90***			5.31**
2	PBC	–.07	–2.58*	.002	–.06	–2.64**	.002
	PPC	.06	2.77**	.003	.05	2.29*	.002
	FCRQ	–.08	–2.89**	.003	–.09	–2.27*	.004
	R^2 change	.02			.02
	F change	17.33***			18.11***
3	MBC	–.04	–1.41		–.03	–1.13
	MPC	.04	1.71		.04	1.74
	MCRQ	–.13	–4.89***	.01	–.16	–5.78***	.01
	R^2 change	.03			.04
	F change	24.94***			30.66***
4	PBC	–.04	–1.46		–.04	–1.35
	PPC	.06	2.39*	.002	.04	1.78
	FCRQ	–.04	–1.22		–.04	–1.34
	MBC	–.02	–.74		–.01	–.51
	MPC	.01	.30		.01	.61
	MCRQ	–.12	–4.15***	.01	–.14	–4.95***	.01
	R^2 change	.03			.04
	F change	15.11***			17.60***

For models 2–4, demographic variables were controlled; parent–child subsystem qualities measured at Wave 1 were used as predictors.

^aFemale = –1. Male = 1.

^bHaving economic disadvantage = –1. Not having economic disadvantage = 1.

^cNon intact family = –1. Intact family = 1.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

PBC = paternal behavioral control; PPC = paternal psychological control; FCRQ =father–child relational quality; MBC = maternal behavioral control; MPC = maternal psychological control; MCRQ = mother–child relational quality.