Internalising and externalising children's behaviour problems in Britain and the US: relationships...

Internalising and ExternalisingChildren's Behaviour Problemsin Britain and the US: Relationshipsto Family Resources1

Andrew McCullochInstitute for Economicand Social Research,University of Essex

Richard D. WigginsDepartment ofSociology,City University, London

Heather E. JoshiCentre for LongitudinalStudies, Institute ofEducation, London

Darshan SachdevPolicy Planning andResearch Unit,Barnardo's

A large sample of British children (n � 994) of varying ages (7±18

years) and a large sample of American children (n � 886) of varying

ages (7±16 years) were rated by their mothers using respectively the

Rutter Child Scale A and the Behaviour Problems Index both of

which cover a variety of behavioural problems. Factor analysis of the

behavioural scales distinguished externalising and internalising

dimensions of behaviour in both countries. We examined whether

children's experiences of family change, cognitive ability and family

adversity including economic deprivation were associated with

differences in the prevalence of the behavioural dimensions. Mean

cognitive scores decreased significantly with increasing level of

externalising behavioural problems in British and American children

but showed no significant relationship to levels of internalising

behaviour problems in either sample. Among American children

internalising and externalising behavioural problems were related to

experience of non-intact family structures and measures of family

adversity. Externalising behavioural problems were related to

measures of family adversity among British boys and girls but were

only related to experience of non-intact family structures in the

sample of British girls. Among British girls, internalising

behavioural problems were also related to non-intact family

structures. The associations between non-intact family structures and

behavioural problems were independent of measures of economic

deprivation in both samples of children. This study documents some

of the background factors which affect children's behavioural and

cognitive outcomes. Unlike children's family structure economic

deprivation can be influenced through policy intervention, and the

analysis supports the view that relieving economic deprivation would

help improve children's behavioural outcomes. Copyright # 2000

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

CHILDREN & SOCIETY VOLUME 14 (2000) pp. 368±383

1Funded under ESRC Programme Children 5-16: Growing into the 21st Century, Grant

L129251027. The authors are grateful to Elizabeth Cooksey for sharing data from the

National Longitudinal Study of Youth and to two referees for their helpful comments.

Correspondence to: Andrew

McCulloch, Institute for Economic

and Social Research, University of

Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ.

Behaviour problems among children are a major public health and educationalconcern. Behavioural problems in childhood have been found to predict a range ofproblems in later life, including rejection by peers, failure in school, delinquency,

job instability, substance abuse and problems in successive marital relationships (Kratzerand Hodgins, 1997; Hobcraft, 1998). A further reason for concern about behaviourproblems among children is that children who are rated higher also have other problems(Caron and Rutter, 1991). They show poor achievement at school, poor peer relations, anddisrupted relationships with their parents. In this paper we examine the pattern ofbehaviour problems from two large community samples of children in two differentcountries: Britain and America.

Family structure and child behaviour

A large body of research demonstrates that children from non-intact families consistentlyshow significantly higher rates of externalising behavioural problems,2 poor academicperformance and physical health problems when compared with children from intactfamilies containing both biological parents (Peterson and Zill, 1986; Ferguson, Dimond andHorwood, 1986; Hetherington, Cox and Cox, 1985; Hetherington, Bridges and Insabella,1998). To a somewhat lesser degree, children from non-intact families also display higherlevels of internalising behavioural problems.3 Notwithstanding this pattern, severalresearchers have noted that differences obtained between children from parentally intactand non-intact families with otherwise similar characteristics are often fairly modest. Whilegroup means indicate significant differences in children from intact and disrupted families,some children show no adjustment problems, while others appear to show improvedbehavioural outcomes following divorce (Barber and Eccles, 1992).

A number of studies have suggested that the absence of the father is implicated in the poorsocial, cognitive and academic development of children in non-intact families (Amato andKeith, 1991). However, they have tended not to consider a number of important factorsassociated with divorce and single parenthood. For example, economic and social dis-advantage and deprivation is a common consequence of divorce, particularly for female-headed, single-parent households. There is some evidence that the relationship betweenliving in a non-intact family and adverse child outcomes tends to become non-significantafter controlling for these intervening variables (Monroe-Blum, Boyle and Offord, 1988;Rodgers and Pryor, 1998). The overall pattern of results obtained on single-parent house-holds suggests that these families may have outcomes not significantly below thatexhibited by their two-parent counterparts given adequate financial and social support.

Studies attempting to assess the relative impact of single-parent and reconstituted familystructures have provided evidence of differences between the two. Children from recon-stituted families appear to show higher overall rates of conduct problems than do childrenfrom post divorce single-parent families (Ferguson, Dimond and Horwood, 1986). Thisdifference is particularly marked in girls and for children from families in the earlier stages

2Externalising behavioural problems are characterised by an undercontrol of emotions and include those items covering

difficulties in interaction with other children and at home, difficulties in concentration, having a strong temper and being

argumentative (Achenbach, Edelbrock and Howell, 1987).3Internalising behavioural problems are characterised by an overcontrol of emotions and include being withdrawn, demanding

attention, being too dependent or clingy and feeling worthless or inferior.

Relation Between Behavioural Problems and Family Resources 369

Copyright # 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14, 368±383 (2000)

of remarriage (Hetherington, Cox and Cox, 1985). Conversely, boys in stable reconstitutedfamilies appear to fare better than boys in single-parent families (Peterson and Zill, 1986).Hetherington, Cox and Cox (1985) focus on the relationship of boys and girls with theirmothers; whereas step-fathers are competitors with girls for mother's time they becomefather-figures and buffers against acrimonious mother-son relationships.

We focus on the child's experience of family change and other factors known to beassociated with adverse behavioural outcomes (Hetherington, Bridges and Insabella, 1998;McLoyd, 1998). We also examine whether the various behavioural dimensions aredifferentially related to children's cognitive outcomes. There are two things that favourcomparative analysis of the subject: the empirical evidence of its generalised importanceand the reasonable assumption that its most important underlying factors are commonlypresent, that is the major shifts in family and economic life that have taken place indeveloped economies since the early seventies (Rutter and Smith, 1994; Silver, 1993). Ourinterest is to identify the problem areas for children and the possible ways in whichchildren become vulnerable. The ultimate goals of our work is to help professionalsinvolved with children and families to more effectively support children and to use theresources available to them to best advantage.

Method

Study and questionnaire

The Children's Behaviour Questionnaire for completion by parents (Child Scale A: Rutter,Tizard and Whitmore, 1970) was administered to the mothers of a sample of children whowere seven years or older as part of the fifth sweep of the British National Child Develop-ment Study (NCDS) in 1991. The Behaviour Problems Index (BPI; Peterson and Zill, 1986)is administered to the mothers of children who are four years or older as part of theAmerican National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY). Both questionnaires providevalid and reliable screening measures of a child's behaviour at home. The mother and childquestionnaires included as part of the 1991 NCDS follow-up were based on instrumentsused by the NLSY and their inclusion was designed to permit comparisons to be made.

The NCDS is a study of over 17 000 people in Britain born between the third and ninthof March in 1958. Follow-up sweeps took place in 1965, 1969, 1974, 1981 and 1991. The 1991NCDS follow-up achieved an overall response rate of approximately 75 per cent andobtained information not only from the cohort member, but from the children of one inthree cohort members and from the mother of these children (Ferri, 1993). The version ofthe Rutter Child Scale A contained in the NCDS consists of a series of 18 behavioural itemsto which the respondent replies `does not apply'Ðscored 0, `applies somewhat'Ðscored 1and `certainly applies'Ðscored 2 (Table 1). In the original research describing the use ofthis scale (Rutter, Tizard and Whitmore, 1970), neurotic and antisocial sub-scales wereobtained by summing individual item scores. Cut-off scores were then used to identifychildren with high levels of reported problem behaviours. Once a child was identified asshowing some behavioural or emotional disorder the neurotic and antisocial sub-scaleswere used to describe the nature of the child's problems. The power of the scale todiscriminate between these two types of problems was tested by comparing questionnaireresults with diagnoses made from the case notes of children attending clinics.

370 Andrew McCulloch and others


The NLSY is a nationally representative sample of approximately 14 000 men and womenborn in the US between 1958 and 1965. Respondents were first interviewed in 1979 whenthey were between 14 and 21 years of age, and they have been re-interviewed every yearsince 1979. The 1991 NLSY interview achieved an overall response rate of approximately 90per cent. Beginning in 1986, the NLSY also collected data on the children born to thewomen only of this youth cohort; this information has been collected biannually since. Inthe NLSY the mothers of children who are four years or older report on a wide range ofchildren's behavioural and emotional problems using the BPI (Peterson and Zill, 1986)which is adapted from the more comprehensive Child Behaviour Checklist developed byAchenbach and Edelbrock (1981). The BPI scale consists of a series of 28 behavioural itemsto which the respondent replies `not true'Ðscored 0, `sometimes true'Ðscored 1 and`often true'Ðscored 2 (Table 2). The items are arranged in six sub-scales measuringantisocial, anxious, headstrong, hyperactive, dependent behaviour and peer conflicts(Baker and Mott, 1989). An additional four items ( feel persecuted, friends bad influence,secretive, worries) were included in the NLSY child behaviour assessment to tap dimen-sions not adequately covered by the 28 items forming the BPI. It should be noted that ouranalyses differ from those reported previously in including these items in the factor analysisof the behavioural scales (Menaghan and Parcel, 1988; McLeod and Shanahan, 1993).

Study sample

In the NCDS mothers ratings of child behaviour from the Rutter Child Scale A werecollected for 994 children (487 boys and 507 girls) living with a cohort member mother. Theoldest was 18 and the average age 10.58. The NLSY sample contains 437 boys and 449 girls.The oldest was 16.9 and the average age 10.66. To allow comparison with the NCDS cohortwe used data from the 1992 NLSY mother and child interviews and restricted our sampleto children whose mothers were then between 30 and 34 years old. These data are therefore

Table 1: Mean item scores for boys and girls on the Rutter Scale A: NCDS/Great Britain

Boys(n � 487)

Girls(n � 507)

w2(2 d.f.)

Restless 0.71 0.55 50.01Fidgety 0.49 0.42 0.18Destructive 0.17 0.11 50.01Fights 0.53 0.44 0.01Not liked 0.16 0.16 0.54Worries 0.67 0.71 0.40Solitary 0.66 0.66 0.79Irritable 0.68 0.66 0.68Miserable 0.28 0.35 0.10Twitches 0.10 0.05 0.08Sucks thumb 0.11 0.21 50.01Bites nails 0.44 0.47 0.60Disobedient 0.65 0.53 50.01Poor concentration 0.35 0.25 50.01Fearful 0.31 0.41 50.01Fussy 0.41 0.57 50.01Lies 0.41 0.36 0.28Bullies 0.15 0.09 0.06

Each items is scored as follows: 0 � does not apply, 1 � applies somewhat, 2 � certainly applies.



more representative of teen mothers, and hence less educated mothers than a full cross-section of mothers or children. The children in the NCDS are almost exclusively of whiteethnic origin. For the purpose of comparison with the NCDS the NLSY sample is restrictedto children of white ethnic origin. The study design excludes the small minority of childrennot living with their mother, that is, with the father or in care.

Measures of family structure and adversity

In order to study the relationship between the behavioural dimensions suggested by factoranalysis and the child's experience of family change we examine the association betweenthe behavioural dimensions and individual dummy variables describing several experi-ences which are not mutually exclusive. We distinguish children who were born in a loneparent family, children who had ever experienced the separation of their parents andchildren who had ever lived in a step-family. In the NCDS the percentages of children whohad experienced these types of family circumstances were 5.3, 26.7 and 14.6, respectively.

Table 2: Mean item scores for boys and girls on the BPI: NLSY/United States

Boys(n � 437)

Girls(n � 449)

w2(2 d.f.)

Mood changes 0.78 0.81 0.02Feels unloved 0.38 0.38 0.53High strung 0.49 0.33 50.01Cheats/tells lies 0.49 0.43 0.06Fearful 0.36 0.33 0.62Argues 0.91 0.92 0.80Poor concentration 0.60 0.34 50.01Confused 0.25 0.18 0.07Bullies 0.35 0.27 0.05Disobedient at home 0.65 0.61 0.33Doesn't feel guilt 0.41 0.34 0.07Trouble getting along 0.28 0.21 0.06Impulsive 0.70 0.57 50.01Feels worthless 0.30 0.26 0.21Not liked 0.18 0.14 0.43Obsessive 0.38 0.31 0.11Restless 0.57 0.33 50.01Stubborn 0.60 0.59 0.37Strong temper 0.58 0.44 50.01Unhappy 0.26 0.28 0.45Withdrawn 0.16 0.13 0.09Destructive 0.18 0.05 50.01Clings 0.24 0.30 0.06Cries 0.18 0.20 0.31Demands attention 0.53 0.50 0.67Too dependent 0.24 0.23 0.96Feels persecuted 0.18 0.13 0.22Friends bad influence 0.23 0.14 50.01Secretive 0.33 0.39 0.15Worries 0.47 0.55 0.03Disobedient at school 0.30 0.12 50.01Trouble with teachers 0.19 0.09 50.01

Each item is scored as follows: 0 � not true, 1 � sometimes true, 2 � often true.



In the NLSY the equivalent figures were 12.5, 25.4 and 19.6. We also examine the relation-ships of the behavioural dimensions and indicators of family circumstances: (1) theeconomic resources of the family, (2) the mother's educational attainment, (3) whether thechild's mother gave birth in her teens, and (4) the degree of parental interest in the child'seducation. In analyses using the NLSY we use per-capita family income for the year ofinterview as a measure of the family's economic resources. In analyses using the NCDS wechoose not to use an equivalent measure because of missing income data. We thereforeexamine the association of the behavioural dimensions and two independent indicators offamily poverty: living in social housing (that is, rented from council or housing association)and having no access to a car. The latter is commonly used together with tenure as anindicator of deprivation (Townsend, Phillimore and Beattie, 1989) and both these measuresare certainly related strongly to income (Davies, Joshi and Clarke, 1997). We also examinethe impact of family structure on children's behavioural problems while adjusting foreconomic inequalities across family groups. As poor cognitive outcomes are typicallyassociated with reports of childhood behavioural problems (Hinshaw, 1992), we alsoexamined the variation in the mathematics, reading recognition and reading comprehen-sion sub-scales of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT; Dunn and Markward,1970) with increasing level of behavioural problems.

Results

Item distributions

The mean responses for each of the items for boys and girls separately is shown in Table 1for the NCDS and Table 2 for the NLSY. There was considerable variation in the distribu-tion of scores among the items. In the NCDS boys were more frequently described asrestless, disobedient, destructive, as having poor concentration and getting into fights.Girls, on the other hand, were noted as being more often fussy and fearful and suckingtheir thumb. In the NLSY a similar distinction emerges in the responses which distinguishbetween boys and girls. Boys were described as being more frequently highly strung, easilyconfused, restless, impulsive, destructive, disobedient at school and in trouble withteachers, as showing mood swings, a strong temper and poor concentration and asbullying. Girls were noted as more often worrying.

Factor analyses of each scale revealed two factors corresponding to the broad dimensionsof externalising and internalising behaviour problems found in previous research. For thepurposes of further analysis two scales were constructed from the unweighted sums ofthese items contributing to internalising and externalising behavioural dimensions. Higherscores indicate more behaviour problems. Further details are available from the authors onrequest. In the NCDS the values of Cronbach's alpha were 0.62 for the internalising scaleand 0.82 for the externalising scale indicating a reasonably high level of internal con-sistency for each scale. In the NLSY the values of Cronbach's alpha were 0.77 for theinternalising scale and 0.86 for the externalising scale. The prevalence rates of internalisingand externalising problems calculated using the mean plus two standard deviations as acut-off criteria are given in Table 3. In the NCDS students t-tests indicated significant(P5 0.05) sex differences in the behavioural measures with boys having higher external-ising problem scores than girls, and girls having greater internalising problem scores thanboys. In the NLSY boys had significantly higher externalising scores than girls (P5 0.05)but there was no sex difference in internalising scores.



Family structure and adversity

The internalising and externalising behavioural measures can be analysed as continuousresponses however, grouping may help interpretation of the scores. Consequently, toexamine the relationships between the child behavioural measures, family structure, familyadversity and child cognitive measures, each behavioural measure was categorised intofour groups using the approximate 50, 75 and 90 percentile scores. The variation inprevalence of the dichotomous variables describing family change and family adversityacross the categories is shown in Tables 4 and 5 for the NCDS and NLSY, respectively. Theassociations between the behavioural outcomes and each of these variables was testedusing the Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test of linear association. To examine the associa-tions between behavioural scores and cognitive outcomes a linear regression model wasfitted in which each cognitive outcome was modelled as a linear function of the groupedbehavioural score and child's age (Tables 6 and 7). This procedure was also used toexamine the associations between behavioural scores and per-capita income in the NLSY.To examine the extent to which associations between behavioural scores and othervariables could be explained by the confounding effects of economic deprivation a logisticor linear regression model was fitted in which each outcome was modelled as a linearfunction of the categorised behavioural score and factors measuring economic deprivation(per-capita income in the US/NLSY and social housing and no-car access in the GB/NCDS).

In analyses using the NCDS externalising behavioural problems among boys and girlswere significantly related to economic deprivation. The percentages of boys and girls livingin social housing or whose mother has no educational qualifications increased significantlyas the externalising behavioural problem score increased from category I to category IV.The percentages of boys living in a family with no access to a car also increased signifi-cantly from category I to category IV. Among boys internalising and externalising beha-vioural problems showed no statistically significant relationship at the 5 per cent level toany of the variables which describe their experience of family change. Girls with higherlevels of externalising behavioural problems were more likely to have experienced theseparation of their parents, to have been born in a lone parent family or to have lived with astep-parent when compared to girls with lower levels of such problems. Internalisingbehavioural problems were also related to the experience of non-intact family structuresamong girls. Girls who had been born in a lone parent family or who had lived with a step-parent were more likely to have higher levels of internalising behavioural problemscompared to girls who had not experienced these types of family disruption. In the

Table 3: Percentages of boys and girls scoring above the cut-off score onthe internalising and externalising measures from the Rutter Child ScaleA (Great Britain) and BPI (United States)

Measure Boys Girls

Rutter Child Scale A/GBInternalising 2.7% (n � 13) 5.2% (n � 26)Externalising 5.6% (n � 27) 3.8% (n � 19)

BPI/USInternalising 7.2% (n � 32) 4.6% (n � 21)Externalising 7.0% (n � 31) 2.2% (n � 10)



Tab

le4:

Ru

tter

Sca

les:

NC

DS

/G

reat

Bri

tain

Bo

ys

Ex

tern

alIn

tern

al

I1II

III

IVU

nad

j.4A

dj.5

I2II

III

IVU

nad

j.4A

dj.5

soci

alh

ou

sin

g0.

240.

240.

400.

445

0.01

0.29

0.27

0.33

0.36

0.43

no

car

acce

ss0.

140.

140.

170.

290.

020.

170.

130.

170.

280.

48n

om

ater

nal

qu

alif

icat

ion

s0.

150.

210.

210.

405

0.01

50.

010.

190.

220.

190.

240.

750.

83fi

rst

bir

th5

200.

210.

220.

180.

400.

070.

190.

270.

170.

210.

160.

070.

09lo

ne

par

enth

oo

d0.

050.

070.

080.

040.

650.

950.

050.

040.

090.

080.

290.

09p

aren

tal

sep

arat

ion

0.22

0.25

0.27

0.35

0.07

0.71

0.27

0.23

0.15

0.52

0.96

0.63

step

-par

ent

0.13

0.15

0.17

0.19

0.16

0.99

0.14

0.15

0.14

0.28

0.25

0.42

no

par

enta

las

pir

atio

ns3

0.07

0.05

0.01

0.14

0.86

0.61

0.06

0.07

0.06

0.12

0.35

0.21

Gir

ls

Ex

tern

alIn

tern

al

I1II

III

IVU

nad

j.4A

dj.5

I2II

III

IVU

nad

j.4A

dj.5

soci

alh

ou

sin

g0.

300.

270.

350.

645

0.01

0.32

0.32

0.34

0.4

0.36

no

car

acce

ss0.

150.

140.

230.

220.

100.

140.

170.

210.

150.

28n

om

ater

nal

qu

alif

icat

ion

s0.

140.

160.

280.

405

0.01

50.

010.

170.

230.

180.

210.

540.

72fi

rst

bir

th5

200.

210.

130.

230.

290.

380.

650.

180.

190.

270.

190.

170.

2lo

ne

par

enth

oo

d0.

030.

040.

100.

090.

020.

070.

030.

020.

060.

155

0.01

0.19

par

enta

lse

par

atio

n0.

260.

200.

320.

515

0.01

0.02

0.25

0.3

0.31

0.3

0.30

0.44

step

-par

ent

0.11

0.11

0.23

0.31

50.

015

0.01

0.12

0.14

0.15

0.26

0.03

0.05

no

par

enta

las

pir

atio

ns3

0.03

0.02

0.07

0.07

0.15

0.16

0.03

0.05

0.04

0.06

0.26

0.27

1 in

terv

als

of

sum

med

exte

rnal

beh

avio

ura

lsc

ale

sco

res

(1±

10,

11±

15,

16±

18,

19±

20)

and

nu

mb

ero

fch

ild

ren

inea

chin

terv

al(4

88,

244,

146,

98).

2 in

terv

als

of

sum

med

inte

rnal

beh

avio

ura

lsc

ale

sco

res

(4±

7,8

±9,

10,

11±

12)

and

nu

mb

ero

fch

ild

ren

inea

chin

terv

al(4

51,

250,

203,

72).

3 fo

rch

ild

toco

nti

nu

eed

uca

tio

nb

eyo

nd

min

imu

msc

ho

ol-

leav

ing

age.

4 P(w

2 )tr

end

.5 P

(w2 )

tren

dad

just

edfo

rso

cial

ho

usi

ng

and

no

car

acce

ss.



Tab

le5:

BP

I:N

LS

Y/

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Ex

tern

alIn

tern

al

Bo

ys

I1II

III

IVU

nad

j.4A

dj.5

I2II

III

IVU

nad

j.4A

dj.5

eval

uat

ion

chil

d's

sch

oo

lin

g3

0.24

0.19

0.27

0.44

0.05

0.04

0.24

0.24

0.25

0.36

0.21

0.16

no

mat

ern

alq

ual

ific

atio

ns

0.11

0.20

0.15

0.16

0.23

0.55

0.16

0.14

0.13

0.13

0.50

0.65

firs

tb

irth

520

0.46

0.48

0.39

0.46

0.64

0.70

0.52

0.45

0.33

0.34

50.

015

0.01

lon

ep

aren

tho

od

0.09

0.14

0.08

0.26

50.

015

0.01

0.10

0.10

0.20

0.19

0.03

0.07

par

enta

lse

par

atio

n0.

220.

180.

280.

310.

110.

220.

210.

300.

200.

260.

420.

61st

ep-p

aren

t0.

190.

150.

170.

300.

240.

270.

160.

240.

180.

250.

170.

20

Ex

tern

alIn

tern

al

Gir

lsI1

IIII

IIV

Un

adj.4

Ad

j.5I2

IIII

IIV

Un

adj.4

Ad

j.5

eval

uat

ion

chil

d's

sch

oo

lin

g3

0.16

0.16

0.29

0.40

50.

010.

020.

150.

170.

260.

360.

010.

03n

om

ater

nal

qu

alif

icat

ion

s0.

110.

160.

270.

100.

040.

080.

140.

160.

160.

080.

760.

71fi

rst

bir

th5

200.

390.

380.

510.

520.

060.

290.

410.

410.

420.

380.

910.

80lo

ne

par

enth

oo

d0.

110.

120.

140.

210.

190.

500.

140.

090.

130.

140.

730.

37p

aren

tal

sep

arat

ion

0.21

0.34

0.37

0.28

0.02

0.02

0.22

0.25

0.42

0.35

50.

015

0.01

step

-par

ent

0.18

0.20

0.21

0.28

0.27

0.24

0.14

0.17

0.38

0.22

50.

015

0.01

1 in

terv

als

of

sum

med

exte

rnal

beh

avio

ura

lsc

ale

sco

res

(18

±25

,26

±30

,31

±35

,36

±50

)an

dn

um

ber

of

chil

dre

nin

each

inte

rval

(457

,22

0,14

3,71

).2 i

nte

rval

so

fsu

mm

edin

tern

alb

ehav

iou

ral

scal

esc

ore

s(6

±7,

9,9

±10

,11

±17

)an

dn

um

ber

of

chil

dre

nin

each

inte

rval

(428

,22

0,14

3,95

).3 f

or

chil

dto

con

tin

ue

edu

cati

on

bey

on

dh

igh

sch

oo

l(o

nly

reco

rded

for

chil

dre

nag

e10

and

ov

er).

4 P(w

2 )tr

end

.5 P

(w2 )

tren

dad

just

edp

erca

pit

ain

com

e.



Tab

le6:

Ass

oci

atio

ns

of

beh

avio

ur

wit

hco

nti

nu

ou

sv

aria

ble

s:N

CD

S/

GB

Ex

tern

alIn

tern

al

Bo

ys

IIII

IIV

mea

nU

nad

j.1A

dj.2

IIII

IIV

mea

nU

nad

j.1A

dj.2

mat

hs

1.45

ÿ2.4

8ÿ6

.48

ÿ1.7

45

0.01

50.

01ÿ1

.93

ÿ1.3

8ÿ0

.32

ÿ0.5

50.

290.

36re

adin

gre

cog

nit

ion

0.57

ÿ2.8

3ÿ1

0.89

ÿ2.7

05

0.01

50.

01ÿ1

.56

0.08

ÿ3.1

1ÿ0

.51

0.45

0.62

read

ing

com

pre

hen

sio

n1.

43ÿ0

.31

ÿ6.7

3ÿ1

.38

50.

010.

02ÿ1

.63

1.03

ÿ0.0

20.

170.

770.

55

Ex

tern

alIn

tern

al

Gir

lsII

III

IVm

ean

Un

adj.1

Ad

j.2II

III

IVm

ean

Un

adj.1

Ad

j.2

mat

hs

ÿ0.8

6ÿ2

.98

ÿ6.7

7ÿ1

.93

50.

015

0.01

1.07

ÿ1.4

5ÿ0

.60

ÿ0.4

40.

290.

41re

adin

gre

cog

nit

ion

ÿ0.4

2ÿ4

.63

ÿ10.

57ÿ2

.97

50.

015

0.01

ÿ0.6

6ÿ2

.33

ÿ3.9

6ÿ1

.25

0.01

0.02

read

ing

com

pre

hen

sio

nÿ0

.84

ÿ3.8

3ÿ8

.52

ÿ2.4

35

0.01

50.

010.

36±

2.23

ÿ0.5

1ÿ0

.60

0.18

0.24

Mat

hs,

read

ing

reco

gn

itio

nan

dre

adin

gco

mp

reh

ensi

on

test

sco

res

wer

est

and

ard

ised

for

age

by

incl

ud

ing

age

iny

ears

asan

exp

lan

ato

ryv

aria

ble

.1 P

(w2 )

tren

d.

2 P(w

2 )tr

end

adju

sted

for

soci

alh

ou

sin

gan

dn

oca

rac

cess

.



Tab

le7:

Ass

oci

atio

ns

of

beh

avio

ur

wit

hco

nti

nu

ou

sv

aria

ble

s:N

LS

Y/

US

Ex

tern

alIn

tern

al

Bo

ys

IIII

IIV

mea

nU

nad

j.1A

dj.2

IIII

IIV

mea

nU

nad

j.1A

dj.2

inco

me

ÿ0.2

0ÿ0

.18

ÿ0.2

7ÿ0

.09

50.

01ÿ0

.04

ÿ0.0

8ÿ0

.21

ÿ0.0

60.

10m

ath

sÿ1

.10

ÿ5.0

5ÿ6

.47

ÿ2.2

55

0.01

50.

01ÿ0

.85

ÿ2.2

4ÿ1

.49

ÿ0.6

70.

150.

17re

adin

gre

cog

nit

ion

ÿ1.6

9ÿ4

.04

ÿ6.6

2ÿ2

.15

50.

015

0.01

ÿ1.7

1ÿ0

.33

0.84

0.10

0.87

0.77

read

ing

com

pre

hen

sio

nÿ1

.47

ÿ4.1

1ÿ5

.77

ÿ1.9

65

0.01

50.

01ÿ2

.29

ÿ2.6

80.

12ÿ0

.41

0.46

0.52

Ex

tern

alIn

tern

al

Gir

lsII

III

IVm

ean

Un

adj.1

Ad

j.2II

III

IVm

ean

Un

adj.1

Ad

j.2

inco

me

ÿ0.1

4ÿ0

.22

ÿ0.2

3ÿ0

.10

0.03

ÿ0.0

8ÿ0

.13

ÿ0.1

3ÿ0

.05

0.19

mat

hs

ÿ1.4

3ÿ1

.37

ÿ4.8

5ÿ1

.21

0.01

0.07

ÿ0.3

80.

20ÿ2

.36

ÿ0.4

10.

360.

65re

adin

gre

cog

nit

ion

ÿ1.6

3ÿ3

.96

ÿ6.3

7ÿ2

.02

50.

015

0.01

1.38

ÿ0.5

6ÿ1

.80

ÿ0.4

00.

450.

36re

adin

gco

mp

reh

ensi

on

ÿ1.9

7ÿ3

.41

ÿ4.3

1ÿ1

.59

50.

015

0.01

ÿ1.0

2ÿ1

.01

ÿ2.4

5ÿ0

.70

0.14

0.12

Mat

hs,

read

ing

reco

gn

itio

nan

dre

adin

gco

mp

reh

ensi

on

test

sco

res

wer

est

and

ard

ised

for

age

by

incl

ud

ing

age

iny

ears

asan

exp

lan

ato

ryv

aria

ble

.1 P

(w2 )

tren

d.

2 P(w

2 )tr

end

adju

sted

per

cap

ita

inco

me.



analyses adjusting for economic deprivation, the relationships among girls betweenexternalising behavioural problems and experience of non-intact family structures andinternalising behavioural problems and having lived with a step-parent remain statisticallysignificant. Of the cognitive outcomes, mean mathematics, reading recognition and readingcomprehension test scores all decreased significantly from category I to category IV of theexternalising behavioural problems score in all analyses. There was also a significantrelationship between reading recognition test scores and increasing levels of internalisingbehavioural problems among girls.

In analyses using the NLSY, children with higher levels of externalising behaviouralproblems were more likely to have a mother with lower maternal expectations of theireducation and lower family income than those with lower levels of behavioural problems.Girls with higher levels of externalising behavioural problems were more likely to have amother with no educational qualifications and to have a teen mother. Girls with higherlevels of internalising behavioural problems were more likely to have a mother with lowermaternal expectations of their education than those with lower levels of such behaviouralproblems. In the NLSY behavioural outcomes were also associated with the child'sexperience of family change. Externalising behavioural problems were significantly relatedto the experience of parental separation among girls and not having lived with a loneparent among boys. Girls with higher levels of internalising behavioural problems weremore likely to have experienced the separation of their parents or to have lived with a step-parent than girls with lower levels of such problems. Boys with higher levels ofinternalising behavioural problems were more likely to have lived with a lone parent or tohave a teen mother than boys with lower levels of such problems. The associations betweenchildren's experience of family change, indicators of family adversity and higher levels ofbehavioural problems remain statistically significant when adjusted for per-capita incomeexcept for those associations among girls between externalising behaviour problems andteenage motherhood and no maternal qualifications. Of the cognitive outcomes, meanmathematics, reading recognition and reading comprehension test scores all decreasedsignificantly from category I to category IV for externalising behavioural problems bothwhen unadjusted and adjusted for the economic resources of the family.

Discussion

In the context of concern in Britain and America about the health and welfare of childreneither born to lone parents or experiencing the break-up of their parents' marriage we haveexamined the pattern of behavioural problems and associations with cognitive outcomes,children's experience of family change and family adversity in samples of children fromeach country. In the British children, girls who were born to a lone mother, had experi-enced the separation of their parents or lived with a step-parent were more likely to bereported as having higher levels of externalising behavioural problems than girls who hadnot experienced family disruption. Boys behavioural outcomes were however independentof their mother changing partners or of being born in a lone parent family. Among bothboys and girls externalising behavioural problems were associated with measures ofeconomic deprivation but family disruption has an independently significant effect.

In the American children externalising behavioural problems showed associations amongboys with the experience of living in a lone parent family and among girls with the



experience of parental separation. The adjustment for per-capita income did not modify theresults suggesting that family structure has an association with externalising behaviouralproblems which is independent of the families economic resources.

Among British boys and girls internalising behavioural ratings showed no relationships tomeasures of economic deprivation. In the sample of British girls internalising behaviouralproblems were however associated with living with a step-parent even when statisticallyadjusted for economic deprivation. In American children, internalising behavioural scoreswere significantly related among boys to the experience of lone parenthood and to having ateen mother and among girls to parental separation and living with a step-father. Adjust-ment for per-capita income did not modify the results. As noted previously the presence ofa step-father seems to be a risk factor for the development of behavioural problems in girls(Hetherington, Cox and Cox, 1985) and the replication of this finding in both previousresearch and in both countries lends support to the meaningfulness of the association. Inboth British and American children no significant relationships were found betweeninternalising behavioural problems and cognitive outcomes or between internalisingbehavioural problems and the measures of economic deprivation.

Among British children the mother's lack of educational qualifications was uniformlyassociated with higher levels of behavioural problems and this relationship was inde-pendent of the household's financial status. Improved mother's education raises children'semotional adjustment through complex mechanisms. Education may provide motherswith the knowledge, skills and self-confidence necessary for happy marital relationshipsand successful child rearing. On the other hand lack of educational qualifications may alsobe a more general indicator of social disadvantage. There is evidence of some of thesepathways from other studies (Hess and Holloway, 1984; Demo and Alcock, 1996; Hobcraft,1998).

Among American girls the mother's lack of educational qualifications and teen parenthoodwere associated with higher levels of externalising behavioural problems before adjust-ment for differences in per-capita income but were not associated with higher levels ofsuch problems after adjustment for differences in per-capita income. This suggests that inthe NLSY the economic resources of the family are a more significant factor influencingchildren's behavioural adjustment than no maternal education. Those children withparents with a positive evaluation of their child's schooling appeared able however toovercome the barriers set by low economic status. Many researchers have emphasised thatparenting differences account substantially for differences in child adjustment (Demo andAlcock, 1996). Although our data are limited in the extent to which we can measure familyprocesses, there is some evidence that parental `competence' plays an important role.

Our findings are consistent with other studies in which non-intact family structures werefound to have a significant impact on externalising and to a lesser extent internalisingbehavioural problems in children (Peterson and Zill, 1986; Ferguson, Dimond andHorwood, 1986; Hetherington, Cox and Cox, 1985; Hetherington, Bridges and Insabella,1998). However, if we assess the family background factors as factors that might explainadverse behavioural outcomes the general picture that emerges in both countries is of anaccumulation of risk factors. These factors include growing up in a non-intact family, lackof economic resources and having mothers with low educational attainment and involve-ment in their children's schooling. Each factor is associated with a gradual increase in the



risk of a poor behavioural outcome and not merely a threshold effect reflecting a pooroutcome associated with a high incidence of a risk factor. More important, the significanceof externalising behaviours for children is indicated by their association with poorcognitive outcomes in the children from both countries. The co-occurrence of poorcognitive outcomes and externalising behavioural problems in children increases the risk ofmany other negative outcomes during childhood, such as poor school performance andweak social skills, and also predicts an accumulation of economic and social problems overchildren's subsequent lives (Hinshaw, 1992; Kratzer and Hodgins, 1997; Hobcraft, 1998).Our results are consistent with the growing awareness that given the complex causalstructure of externalising and internalising behavioural problems in children there are fewinterventions that will single-handedly yield significant improvements in children'semotional adjustment. Viewed in the proper perspective, the impact of programmes toreduce family hardship may lead to small but important improvements in children'sadjustment.

It needs to be emphasised that these findings are based upon the mother's perceptions ofchildren's behaviour. Rutter, Tizard and Whitmore (1970) have reported a relatively lowcorrelation between teachers' and parents' ratings of the same child (r � 0.5). McGee, Silvaand Williams (1983) and Cundall (1987) showed that mothers who assessed themselves asanxious and depressed were more likely also to rate their children as disturbed whereasteachers' ratings were unrelated to mothers' symptoms. This being the case, the presentresults may not apply to teachers' ratings of behaviour problems.

The association of changing family circumstances and behavioural problems in childrenhas helped fuel the view that changing family circumstances are the cause of the adversebehavioural outcomes shown by children from non-intact families. It is hard to dispute theevidence that children experiencing family disruption have tough lives and limitedoptions. What remains at issue is the validity of the causal link between family disruptionand the cognitive and behavioural outcomes of young children. The adverse outcomesattributed to family disruption may simply reflect pre-existing differences in familybackground which make non-intact families different from intact families. As such, theapparent consequences noted earlier may have little to do with family disruption. Randomassignment to treatment and control groups is the standard evaluation method for dealingwith the confounding influences of such pre-existing factors when estimating causal effects(Sobel, 1996). Use of experimental designs is not possible, however, in the context ofresearch on children's family structure. Rather researchers must use statistical techniques toadjust for the influence of pre-existing differences between non-intact and intact familygroups. Statistical techniques may not completely adjust for all the background differencesbetween children experiencing family disruption and children from intact families and, assuch, produce biased estimates. This is because many factors not measured in availabledata sets, or factors that cannot be measured, are likely to affect children's cognitive andbehavioural outcomes.

Many different factors, or combinations of factors, may affect children's attainments andchildren may vary widely in the factors that account for their experience. Moreover, theimportant factor may be one which underlies some of the variables but is not adequatelycaptured by them, as would be the case if the important factor was parenting capacity. It isintrinsically difficult to capture adequately the factors that make for heterogeneity amongchildren. However, it is very difficult to do more than obtain a few (largely indirect)



quantifiable observations on the quality of family life. It should therefore be bourne inmind that the variables we use to describe family life inevitably represent a far lesscomplete and concrete picture of children's lives than do the demographic and socio-economic variables in their own areas.

References

Achenbach, TM and Edelbrock, C (1981) Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parentsof normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society forResearch in Child Development, Serial No. 188

Achenback, TM, Edelbrock, C and Howell, CT (1987) Èmpirically based assessment of thebehavioural/emotional problems of 2 and 3 year-old children', Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 15, 629±650

Amato, PR and Keith, B (1991) `Parental divorce and the well-being of children: a meta analysis',Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26±46

Baker, PC and Mott, FL (1989) The NLSY Child Handbook 1989, Columbus, Ohio: Center for HumanResources Research, The Ohio State University

Barber, BL and Eccles, JS (1992) `Long-term influence of divorce and single parenting on adolescentfamily and work-related values, behaviors, and aspirations', Psychological Bulletin, 111, 108±126

Caron, C and Rutter, M (1991) `Comorbidity in child psychopathology: Concepts, issues and researchstrategies', Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 1063±1080

Cundall, DB (1987) `Children and mothers at clinics: who is disturbed?', Archives of Disease inChildhood, 62, 820±824

Davies, H, Joshi, H and Clarke, L (1997) Ìs it cash the deprived are short of?', Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society, Series A, 160, 107±126

Demo, DH and Alcock, AC (1996) `Family structure, family process, and adolescent well-being',Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457±488

Dunn, L and Markward, C (1970) Peabody Individual Achievement Test Manual, Circle Pine, MN:American Guidance Service

Ferguson, DM, Dimond, ME and Horwood, LJ (1986) `Childhood family placement history andbehavior problems in 6-year-old children', Journal of Child Psychiatry, 27, 213±226

Ferri, E ed (1993) Life at 33: The Fifth Follow-up of the National Child Development Study, NationalChildren's Bureau

Hess, R and Holloway, S `Family and school as educational institutions', in Parke, RD ed (1984)Review of Child Development Research, (Vol. 7, 179±222). Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Hetherington, EM, Cox, M and Cox, R (1985) `Long-term effects of divorce and remarriage on theadjustment of children', Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 518±530

Hetherington, EM, Bridges, M and Insabella, GM (1998) `What matters? What does not? Fiveperspectives on the association between marital transitions and children's adjustment', AmericanPsychologist, 53, 167±184

Hinshaw, SP (1992) Èxternalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhoodand adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms', Psychological Bulletin, 111,127±155

Hobcraft, J (1998) Intergenerational and life-course transmission of social exclusion: influences ofchildhood poverty, family disruption, and contact with the police. CASEpaper 15, Centre foranalysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics

Kratzer, L and Hodgins, S (1997) Àdult outcomes of child conduct problems: a cohort study', Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 65±81

McGee, R, Silva, PA and Williams, S (1983) `Parents' and teachers' perceptions of behaviour problemsin seven year old children', Exceptional Children, 30, 151±161



McLeod, JD and Shanahan, MJ (1993) `Poverty, parenting and children's mental health', AmericanSociological Review, 58, 351±366

McLoyd, VC (1998) `Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development', American Psychologist, 53,185±204

Menaghan, EG and Parcel, TL (1988) Measuring temperament in a large cross sectional survey:reliability and validity for children of the NLSY. Working paper. Columbus: The Ohio StateUniversity, Department of Sociology

Munroe-Blum, H, Boyle, MH and Offord, D (1988) `Single-parent families, child psychiatric disorderand school performance', Annual Programs Child Psychiatry Child Development, 27, 179±191

Peterson, JL and Zill, N (1986) `Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavioralproblems in children', Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 295±307

Rodgers, B and Pryor, J (1998) Divorce and Separation: the Outcomes for Children, Joseph RowntreeFoundation

Rutter, M and Smith, DJ (1994) Psychosocial Disorders in Young People: Time Trends and their Causes,New York: Wiley

Rutter, M, Tizard, J and Whitmore, K (1970) Education, Health and Behaviour, LongmansSilver, H (1993) `National conceptions of the new urban poverty', International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research, 17, 336±354Sobel, M (1996) `An introduction to causal inference', Sociological Methods and Research, 24, 353±379Townsend, P, Phillimore, P and Beattie, A (1989) Health and Deprivation, Routledge

Contributors' details

Heather Joshi is Professor of Economic and Developmental Demography in the Centre forLongitudinal Studies, Institute of Education.

Darshan Sachdev is a Principal Officer, Research and Development in the Policy Planning andResearch Unit, Barnardo's and a visiting Research Fellow of the Centre for Longitudinal Studies,Institute of Education.

Richard D. Wiggins is Reader in Social Statistics in the Sociology Department, City University and avisiting Research Fellow of the Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education.

Andrew McCulloch is a Research Officer in the Institute of Social and Economic Research, EssexUniversity.



Internalising and externalising children's behaviour problems in Britain and the US: relationships...

Documents

Transcript of Internalising and externalising children's behaviour problems in Britain and the US: relationships...