Study of Disruptive Behavior Disorders in Puerto Rican Youth: I. Background, Design, and Survey Methods

• NCJ Number: 215614
• Journal: Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Volume: 45 Issue: 9 Dated: September 2006 Pages: 1032-1041
• Author(s): Hector R. Bird M.D.; Glorisa J. Canino Ph.D.; Mark Davies MPH; Christiane S. Duarte Ph.D.; Vivian Febo Ph.D.; Rafael Ramirez Ph.D.; Christina Hoven Dr.PH; Judith Wicks B.A.; George Musa B.A.; Rolf Loeber Ph.D.
• Date Published: September 2006
• Length: 10 pages
• Grant Number(s): RO-1 MH56401; P20 MD000537-01
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Mental Health
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: For the second article in this study, see NCJ-215615.

Annotation

This first of two articles on a study of disruptive behavior disorders in two populations of Puerto Rican children (one in Puerto Rico and one in New York City) reports on the study's background, design, and methodology.

Abstract

The study was conducted between 2000 and 2003 for the purpose of assessing the prevalence, associated comorbidities (accompanying disorders), and correlates of disruptive behavior disorders in the two populations. The study design and methodology were successful in producing samples that were representative of the populations of the study sites, which were the South Bronx in New York City and the Standard Metropolitan Areas of San Juan and Caguas in Puerto Rico. Of the 2,940 children who were eligible for the study, 2,491 participated (85 percent). The study results, which will be presented in the second article, are thus generalizable to the two target populations. Probability samples of children ages 5 to 13 were drawn at the two sites. Subjects and their primary caretakers were interviewed with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children-IV and a wide array of risk-factor measures. The samples were weighted to correct for differences in the probability of selection resulting from sample design and to adjust for differences from the 2000 U.S. Census in the age/gender distribution. 4 tables and 82 references