printed by The Aftercare and School Observation System: Characteristics of out-of-home contexts and young children’s behavior problems Erin M. Ingoldsby, OMNI Institute, Denver, CO Tonya Lane, Lauretta Brennan, Elizabeth Shelleby, and Daniel S. Shaw, University of Pittsburgh Tonya Lane, Lauretta Brennan, Elizabeth Shelleby, and Daniel S. Shaw, University of Pittsburgh As children transition to school, their environment rapidly expands and they spend over half their time in school and afterschool activities. It is important to understand how the quality of children’s relationships, experiences, and contextual characteristics in these out-of-home settings may confer risk or protection for behavior problems. Some studies have examined children’s experiences within school (Leff & Lakin, 2005) and afterschool settings (Rosenthal & Vandell, 1996), yet few have observed similar environmental qualities across multiple settings in relation to child outcomes, or examine differences by gender. Some studies have indicated that boys and girls may respond differently to experiences in out-of-home contexts (Pierce et al., 2010). We developed a comprehensive coding system to assess the frequency and quality of children’s experiences in diverse social settings. We examined the utility of the system by conducting factor analyses and examining associations between factors and behavior problems. Findings suggest that observed characteristics of children’s out- of-home contexts can be reliably and validly assessed, and that they demonstrate small but significant associations with early school-age children’s conduct problems. Interestingly, peer deviancy was associated with conduct problems in girls, but not boys. This finding may reflect the “gender paradox” (i.e., when girls exhibit deviant behavior it is more easily observed by others). Alternatively, it may be that peer deviancy observation ratings captured chains of relational aggression, which has been found to occur more often among girls of this age (Parker et al., 2006). In future analyses, we will examine organizational features and behavior:  in the different after-school contexts in which boys and girls are participating.  in relation to family contextual factors and experiences.  as moderators (e.g., do protective factors in one context mitigate risk factors experienced in others). Factor Analysis: PCA with varimax rotation resulted in 8 distinct, conceptually-meaningful cross- contextual factors that accounted for 63% of the variance and demonstrated adequate psychometric properties (alphas >.50).   Can distinct, meaningful characteristics of children’s experiences in unstructured school settings and after-care settings be reliably assessed?  How are these experiences in out-of-home settings associated with boys’ and girls’ behavior problems? ABSTRACT RESEARCH OBJECTIVES RESULTS SAMPLE The sample is 427 low-income families participating in a home- based multi-site preventive intervention RCT aimed at reducing ecological risks for child conduct problems (Early Steps Project; N=731; Shaw et al., 2006). Data collection occurred at 3 sites, Pittsburgh, PA; Eugene, OR; and Charlottesville, VA. Mean yearly income: $15-20,000 per year Mean education level: High school/GED degree Location: 36% urban, 38% suburban, 26% rural Child gender: 50% female, 50% male Group status: 50% intervention, 50% control MEASURES Aftercare and School Observation System (ASOS): Trained observers rated 11 adult, child, and peer behaviors and qualities related to their interactions and activities in 30-second intervals in two 10-minute periods, and provided 20 global impression ratings assessing characteristics of the overall context. Observers established high reliability (>70% agreement with a master coder). Child Externalizing Behavior: Parent, alternate caregiver, and teacher reports of child disruptive behaviors from Child Behavior Checklist/Teacher Report form (Achenbach, 1991) at age 7.5. METHODS Domains Factor Score (# of items) Select Included Items Organizational Features Structured Context (2) Appropriate structure Context conducive to deviant behavior Positive Climate (2) Child positive affect Positive emotional climate Adult Monitoring and Adult-Child Relationships Adult Active Involvement (7) Adult active surveillance Adult responsivity Positive management Adult Negative Behavior (3) Adult negative management Negative emotional climate Child Relationships Child-Peer Positive Dyad (3) Child prosocial behavior Peer prosocial behavior Excluded Child (3) Child actively isolates Peer actively excludes Conduct Problems in the Setting Child Peer Deviancy (3) Child supports peer deviant behavior Peer-child deviancy training Negative Aggressive Context (6) Child aggression to peer Peer negative/aggressive behavior Negative emotional climate Significant correlations between SCHOOL contextual factors and conduct problems, by gender Organizational Features Adult Monitoring and Adult-Child Relationships Child Relationships Conduct Problems in the Context Conduct Problem Ratings Informant Structured Context Positive Climate Adult Active Involvement Adult Negative Behavior Child- Peer Positive Dyad Excluded Child Child- Peer Deviancy Negative Aggressive Context Rule-breaking PC M-.28**.16*.15* * F AC M ** F * Teacher M-.17*.19* *.31** F.21**.15*.29** Externalizing Total PC M-.25**.20**.14*.13* F *.19**.15* AC M-.16*.29**.18*.15* F Teacher M ** *.23* F.32** *.37** Conduct Problems Teacher M-.14*.19*.21**.13*.22**.34** F.24**.16*.34** Note: +p.01; N=324; PC = Primary Caregiver, AC = Alternate Caregiver; M = Male, F = Female Significant correlations between AFTERSCHOOL contextual factors and conduct problems, by gender Organizational Features Adult Monitoring and Adult-Child Relationships Child Relationships Conduct Problems in the Context Conduct Problem RatingsInformant Structured Context Positive Climate Adult Active Involvement Adult Negative Behavior Child- Peer Positive Dyad Excluded Child Child- Peer Deviancy Negative Aggressive Context Rule-breaking PC M-.17*-.19*-.16* ** F AC M-.11*-.24**-.17*.23* F Teacher M-.21*-.13+ F-.14*.13* **.18* Externalizing Total PC M-.14*-.19** **.24** F AC M **-.13*.26** F Teacher M-.22*.20** F-.18*.15*.24**.20* Conduct Problems Teacher M-.23** F-.20**.24**.21** Note: +p <.10; *p<.05; **p<.01; N=366; PC = Primary Caregiver, AC = Alternate Caregiver; M = Male, F = Female Highlighted Differences by Setting: Positive and warm interactions were negatively associated with behavior problems in after-school settings, but not in school settings. Adult negative behavior management in unstructured school settings was related to child behavior problems, but not after- school settings. Highlighted Differences by Gender: In general, contextual factors were more frequently significantly associated with boys’ behavior problems across both settings. For boys, greater adult involvement and monitoring in school settings was consistently significantly associated with higher problems across informants. However, opposite relationships were found in after-school settings. Boys who were more actively excluded or socially isolated from peers (in either setting) received higher problem ratings. In contrast, child-peer deviant behavior was only associated with behavior problems for girls. RESULTS CONTINUED Correlations with Child Behavior Problems: When school and after-school settings were characterized by negative and aggressive behavior, low structure, and greater adult involvement, child CP ratings were higher across informants and gender, albeit at a modest level. CONCLUSIONS and FUTURE DIRECTIONS For a copy of this poster, please visit