1. Albert Kopak1,2 Stephanie Ayers2 Vera Lopez1 Phillip Stevenson3
Explaining Substance Use in Arizona’s Adolescent Population: The Role of Parents
Albert Kopak1,2
Stephanie Ayers2
Vera Lopez1
Phillip Stevenson3
1Justice & Social Inquiry, Arizona State University
2Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center, ASU
3 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2. 30-day prevalence of alcohol & marijuana use
Arizona
Alcohol use (30 days)
12th graders
43.1%
46.8%
10th graders
28.8%
37.7%
8th graders
15.9%
23.2%
Marijuana (30 days)
19%
18.7%
14%
15.1% 6%
7.6%
Sources: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 2008; Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2008.

3. Parenting practices & substance use
Greater parental monitoring is likely to reduce alcohol use (Barnes, Reifman, Farrell, & Dintcheff, 2000)
The less parents know about how adolescents spend their time, the greater the chances of involvement in substance use (Fletcher, Darling, & Steinberg, 1995)

4. The details related to parenting & substance use
Address the ambiguity surrounding the term “monitoring”
Measures need to assess degree to which parental awareness is related to problem behavior (Dishion & McMahon, 1998)
Greater ‘parental knowledge’ was negatively associated with delinquency and school related problems (Kerr & Stattin, 2000)

5. Research Aims
Examine the relationships between multiple dimensions of parental monitoring (i.e. knowledge & supervision) and substance use.
2. Determine the extent to which these parenting measures are associated with substance experimentation versus higher levels of use.

6. Data 2008 Arizona Youth Survey
Administered statewide in early 2008 in public and charter schools
15 counties, 319 schools, 8th, 10th, 12th grades
n=54,734

7. Key independent variables
Parental knowledge: 3 items
1. When I am not at home, one of my parents knows where I am and who I am with
2. My parents ask if I’ve gotten my homework done
3. Would your parents know if you did not come home on time
Parental supervision: 3 items
1. If you drank some beer, wine, or liquor without your parents’ permission, would you be caught by your parents
2. If you carried a handgun to school, would you be caught by your parents
3. If you skipped school, would you be caught by your parents
Response categories: (1) NO, (2) no, (3) yes, (4) YES

8. Dependent variables
Alcohol use: “On how many occasions (if any) have you had beer, wine, or hard liquor to drink in the past 30 days?
Marijuana use: “On how many occasions (if any) have you used marijuana in the past 30 days?
Response categories (0) 0 occasions, (1) 1-2 occasions, (2) 3-5 occasions, (3) 6-9 occasions, (4) occasions, (5) occasions, (6) 40+ occasions

9. Controls Racece Parental education Family Structure Age
Black or African American
7.2%
Hispanic or Latino
34.6%
Asian or Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
4.6%
American Indian or Alaskan Native
8.1%
White
45.5%
Parental education
Some education beyond high school
66.7%
Family Structure
2-parent home
53.1%
Age
M=15.17, SD=1.69

10. Methods: Key issues
10% random sample (Tragressor, Beauvais, Swaim, Edwards, & Oetting, 2007).
Reports of no drug use in past 30 days:
87.3 % reported no marijuana use
66.9% reported no alcohol use
Statistical analyses for non-normal data with a preponderance of zeros:
Distributional tests using STATA 11

11. Methods

12. Methods
Loglikelihood test and Vuong’s statistic favor zero-inflated negative binomial regression
Mplus 5.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 2007) was used for subsequent analyses
Analyses accounted for sampling design

13. Simplified ZINB SEM model
Parental knowledge
Alcohol/ marijuana use
(use/nonuse)
Controls
Parental supervision
Alcohol/ marijuana use
(frequency)

14. Results: Logistic portion of model
Alcohol use
Marijuana use
Variable
Odds of use 1/(expb) SE
Odds of
use
1/(expb)
Sex
3.49**
0.250
1.26†
0.135
Age
1.31**
0.078
1.13**
0.039
Family structure
0.64†
0.246
0.72**
0.109
Usual grades
0.55**
0.156
0.70**
0.059
Parent’s education level
0.93
0.100
1.01
0.045
Hispanic or Latino
1.38
0.268
0.87
0.170
Black/African American
0.72
0.536
1.21
American Indian/Alaskan Native
0.85
0.568
1.60*
0.214
Asian/Pacific Islander
0.36*
0.515
1.00
0.307
†p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01

15. Results: Counts portion of model
Alcohol use
Marijuana use
Variable
Rates of use (IRR) SE
Rates of
use (IRR)
Sex
0.96
0.067
0.72**
0.085
Age
1.06**
0.020
1.13**
0.030
Family structure
1.05
0.069
0.95
0.088
Usual grades
0.90**
0.039
0.91*
0.041
Parent’s education level
1.02
0.021
0.98
0.032
Hispanic or Latino
1.08
0.073
0.93
0.105
Black/African American
0.92
0.110
0.85
0.147
American Indian/Alaskan Native
0.88
0.113
1.23
0.120
Asian/Pacific Islander
1.25
0.177
1.10
0.159
†p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01

16. Results
Parental knowledge
Alcohol/ marijuana use
(use/nonuse)
0.37*
0.91
0.85
0.38**
0.09**
0.85
Parental supervision
Alcohol/ marijuana use
(frequency)
0.76**
0.86 †
Coefficients are reported as odds of use (1/expb) for logistic and incidence rate ratio (expb) for count portion

17. Discussion
Supervision is associated with lower odds of alcohol & marijuana use
Adolescents’ perceptions of getting caught likely influencing these effects
Knowledge is associated with lower odds of alcohol use, but not marijuana
Are adolescent more likely to lie to parents about activities associated with marijuana use?

18. Discussion
Higher levels of supervision are associated with lower incidence rates of alcohol use for those that report use
Evidence that perceptions of getting caught are associated with lower rates of use
Greater parental knowledge is not significantly related to rates of alcohol or marijuana use

19. Limitations Temporal order: Cross-sectional data
Inability to determine longitudinal effect that perceptions of parental monitoring on substance use
Absence of references to specific parent
Cannot specify the influences of maternal and paternal monitoring

20. References
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. (2008). Arizona Youth Survey: State Report Phoenix, AZ: The Statistical Analysis Center (SAC). Barnes G.M., Reifman, A. S., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2000). The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: A six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Parental monitoring and peer influences on adolescent substance use. In Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives, J. McCord (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dishion, T. J. & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1(1), Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2008). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, Volume I: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No A). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 707 pp.

21. References (continued)
Kerr, M. & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36(3),
Tragressor, S. L., Beauvais, F., Swaim, R. C., Edwards, R. W., Oetting, E. R. (2007). Parental monitoring, peer drug involvement, and marijuana use across three ethnicities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6),