Connecting the Dots: How Connectedness to Multiple Contexts Influences the Psychological and Academic Adjustment of Urban Youth

Abstract

Cluster analyses and hierarchical linear modeling were used to investigate the impact of perceptions of connectedness to family, school, and neighborhood contexts on academic and psycho-social outcomes for 437 urban ethnically diverse adolescents. Five profiles of connectedness to family, school, and neighborhood were identified. Two profiles were characterized by reports of either strong or weak connectedness to all contexts. The other three profiles were anchored by reports of low family connectedness, low neighborhood connectedness, or average connectedness. Race/ethnic differences were found in profiles and outcomes. Hierarchical linear models showed that each profile of connectedness was significantly associated with adolescents' self-report of grades, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms after adjusting for correlates, suggesting that the domain and number of contexts matter for positive youth development. These analyses underscore the importance of considering the independent and joint effects of family, schools, and neighborhoods on adolescent well-being. Implications for research and intervention are discussed.

Work on the article was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (25-56110-F3980) awarded to principal investigators of the Center for Research on Culture, Development, and Education at New York University, and the first author's work was supported in part by a pre-doctoral fellowship from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (5 F31 GM076914-02). We would like to express appreciation to the adolescents and schools whose cooperation made this study possible, as well as to research assistants and fieldworkers who facilitated this work.

Notes

¹A total of five schools were selected across the two cross-sectional studies used for the present investigation. In the pilot, three schools were selected based on the criteria delineated in the text. In the wave one longitudinal study, four schools were selected based on identical criteria. Of the four schools, two of the pilot schools continued to participate in the wave one sample and two additional schools were added because one of pilot schools did not accept incoming sixth graders and the other was added to gain greater ethnic and academic performance diversity.

²The first cohort was surveyed during the spring of 2004 (N = 379), and the second cohort was surveyed during the spring of 2005 (N = 419), as the first wave of data collection for the larger study. Only those students with complete data for targeted variables were included in the study analyses. The pilot study was designed to assess the reliability and validity of existing and newly created measures.

Note: The superscripts indicate profiles' connection that were not significantly different from one another.

³Raudenbush & Bryk (2002) notation is used throughout the paper to identify fixed and random effects. School hostility was group-mean centered; negative family relationships and neighborhood calamity and problems were grand-mean centered.

⁴The use of random slopes (all models) as well as the group-mean hostility for each classroom (grades model) were entered in other models but did not significantly improve model fit. Therefore, these models are not presented.

Notes: β₀₁ through β₀₅ are dummy codes for race/ethnicity. The reference categories are female, White, residentially immobile, multi-low connected youth.

SE = Standard Error.

p < .10^t. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

⁵Additional exploratory analyses using a different measure of family connection (PSS-Family; Procidano & Heller, 1983) suggested similar patterns of prediction for self esteem and depressive symptoms as the NRI.