Associations Between School Perceptions and ...

Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 21:414–426, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1067-828X print/1547-0652 online DOI: 10.1080/1067828X.2012.724280

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Associations Between School Perceptions and Tobacco Use in a Sample of Southern Middle School Students WILLIE H. OGLESBY Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

SARA J. CORWIN, RUTH P. SAUNDERS, MYRIAM E. TORRES, and DONNA L. RICHTER University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

Cigarettes are responsible for nearly 443,000 deaths per year in the United States. Eighty percent of adult smokers began smoking before the age of 18. In 2009, 17.2% of high school and 5.2% of middle school youths reported being a smoker. Research on school perceptions suggests that “engaged” students get more from school on all levels, including reduced health risk behaviors. The purpose of this study was to identify which school perceptions are protective against tobacco use in a sample of middle school youths. Results conclude that high levels of educational attachment are significantly associated with low levels of tobacco use. KEYWORDS middle school, school bonding, school connectedness, school perception, student engagement, tobacco use

INTRODUCTION Cigarettes are responsible for nearly 443,000 deaths per year in the United States and cost more than $193 billion in health care costs and lost productivity (USDHHS, 2010). Although all states have laws making it illegal to sell cigarettes to youths under 18 years of age (Grunbaum et al., 2002), 80% of

This study was sponsored, in part, by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Address correspondence to Willie H. Oglesby, PhD, MSPH, FACHE, P. O. Box 5190, 750 Hilltop Drive, 315 Lowry Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

414

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

School Perceptions and Tobacco Use

415

adult smokers report that they began smoking before the age of 18 (SAMHSA, 2009a). Each day, approximately 3,450 youths between 12 and 17 years old smoke their first cigarette and an estimated 850 youths become daily cigarette smokers (SAMHSA, 2009b). In 2009, 17.2% of high school students reported being a smoker. Of those high school students, 14.8% were female, 7.4% were African-American, 19.2% were Hispanic, and 19.4% were white (CDC, 2010). During the same time period, 5.2% of middle school students reported being a smoker. Of those middle school students, 4.7% were female, 5.2% were African-American, 6.7% were Hispanic, and 4.3% were white. In addition to the health risks of tobacco use, school-age cigarette smokers are more likely to engage in a physical fight, carry a weapon, attempt suicide, drink alcohol, and use marijuana and cocaine (Everett, Malarcher, Sharp, Husten, & Giovino, 2000) as compared to their nonsmoking peers. Research on the determinants of these health-compromising behaviors suggests that negative school perceptions play an important role. Analysis of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Youth Survey (N = 10,473) revealed youths who felt alienated from “positive” social institutions (family, school, and positive peers) due to negative environmental factors were more likely to experiment with alcohol and drugs than youths more connected to positive institutions (Sale, Sambrano, Springer, & Turner, 2003). Youths feeling detached from their families, school, and positive peers find deviant peers with whom they can connect, and these associations lead to early experimentation and later abuse of cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs (Sale et al., 2003). In addition, stronger school connectedness and bonding has been linked to the prevention of self-directed violence (i.e., suicide) (Borowsky, 2002), violence directed at others (Bell & Fink, 2000; Griffin, Botvin, Scheier, Doyle, & Williams, 2003; Rodney, Johnson, & Srivastava, 2005), underage drug use (Griffin et al., 2003; Moody, Childs, & Sepples, 2003), and delinquency (Griffin et al., 2003). Research indicates that engaged students get more from school on all levels than do their disengaged peers (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; National Research Council, 2004; Norris, Pignal, & Lipps, 2003); however, more research is needed to determine the extent that school perceptions influence engagement in health risk behaviors.

PURPOSE OF STUDY This study sought to examine the relationship between school perceptions and tobacco use among a convenient sample of middle school youths and to identify which school perceptions had the strongest and weakest associations.

416

W. H. Oglesby et al.

METHODOLOGY

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Measuring School Perceptions Even the most cursory review of the literature on this subject reveals a huge divide between concepts that are well defined and measured and those that are not. The literature contains numerous studies that use different terminology to describe similar or identical concepts and use similar or identical terms to describe concepts that are different. Interestingly, not only do differences exist in the definition and measurement of the concepts, researchers do not agree on the basic domains for the concepts (i.e., whether a concept is cognitive, perceptual, or behavioral). This observation is echoed in Libbey (2004), who identified many instances in the literature where conflicting definitions and measures of school perceptions are used. A review of scientific literature revealed concepts of school perceptions in four major areas: (1) student/academic achievement, (2) school/student connectedness, (3) school/student attachment, and (4) school/student engagement. STUDENT/ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Studies that mention student academic achievement, either as an independent or dependent variable, relied exclusively on the means by which schools calculated grades (including scores on standardized tests if used in the study) and did not add any other dynamic (Duncan et al., 2007; Kwok, Hughes, & Luo, 2007; Loe & Feldman, 2007; Schulting, Malone, & Dodge, 2005; Vandell, Pierce, & Dadisman, 2005). This was the only area in which the literature agreed on a common domain (e.g., behavioral) and measurement (i.e., course grades, standardized test scores, etc.). The remaining three areas varied widely. SCHOOL/STUDENT CONNECTEDNESS In Sale, Sambrano, Springer, and Turner (2003), students who felt alienated from “positive” social institutions (such as school) were considered to be less “connected” to their schools. They assert that school connectedness is a composite of school bonding and self-efficacy. However, in the discussion of findings, self-efficacy is missing and concrete terminology from which a definition of school bonding can be derived was lacking. Borowsky (2002) offered a more comprehensive definition of school connectedness and stated that connectedness to school is defined as the student’s perceived closeness to people at school, feeling like teachers care about the student, feeling like teachers treat students fairly, feeling part of the school, and feeling happy and safe at school. This broad concept of student connectedness was supported by much of the literature (Giles, Harrington, & Fearnow-Kenney, 2001; Hagborg, 1998; Hotton & Haans, 2004; Jenkins, 1997; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998; Voelkl, 1996).

School Perceptions and Tobacco Use

417

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

SCHOOL/STUDENT ATTACHMENT Rather than provide a direct definition for school attachment, Bell and Fink (2000) assert that school attachment can be increased by expanding the school day and school year to provide structured academic and recreational activities for children and including a nutritious dinner meal. From the recommendations and discussion presented in the article, one can infer that the authors defined student attachment as the number of direct contact hours students have with school activities or personnel—a strictly behavioral domain. On the other hand, the bulk of the literature (Borowsky, 2002; Borowsky, Ireland, & Resnick, 2002; Brooks, Stuewig, & LecRoy, 1998; Gottfredson, 1984; Hagborg, 1998; Jenkins, 1997; Patton et al., 2000; Sale et al., 2003; Voelkl, 1996) suggests that school/student attachment is a psychosocial property of students’ perceptions of their teachers, classes, principals and other staff, school, and/or their peers. But only Jenkins (1997) and Gottfredson (1984) stated items for the measurement of the teacher, class, principal and other staff, school, and peer dimensions. SCHOOL/STUDENT ENGAGEMENT Giles, Harrington, and Fearnow-Kenney (2001) define student engagement as the degree to which students participated and were involved in classroom activities—a strictly behavioral construct. Their approach to measurement, however, is inconsistent with this operational definition as it included attitudes toward involvement in classroom activities (e.g., perceptual domain). Much of the literature (Finn, 1993; Giles et al., 2001; Hagborg, 1998; Hotton & Haans, 2004; Jenkins, 1997; Oetting, Donnermeyer, & Deffenbacher, 1998; Voelkl, 1996), however, defined school/student engagement as the degree to which students attend class, are involved in class activities, are involved in school activities, and put forth effort in schoolwork, and the reasons for such involvement and effort—a mix of behavioral and perceptual domains. OTHER IMPORTANT CONCEPTS Although not specifically cited in the preceding paragraphs, several other relevant concepts were identified in the literature: the school’s academic emphasis (i.e., expectations for academic attainment and amount of homework) (Dworkin, 1989), teachers’ actions during lessons (i.e., prompt starting of class, more time discussing topics rather than managing behavioral problems, and more group rather than individual instruction) (Dworkin, 1989), the use of rewards and praise for students’ achievements (Coker & Borders, 2001; Dworkin, 1989; Gottfredson, 1984; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998), good working conditions for students (i.e., teacher accessibility and freedom to use school building during breaks) (Dworkin, 1989), the inclusion of students in the curricula development process (Dworkin, 1989), and attachment to education in general (Dworkin, 1989).

418

W. H. Oglesby et al.

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Even though the literature contains inconsistent uses of terminology to describe student/academic achievement, school/student connectedness, school/student attachment, and school/student engagement, several themes do exist. A critical synthesis of the disparate literature suggests that five themes encompass perceptions students have of their schools: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

the effort and involvement of students in school and classroom activities; perceptions of the school’s environment; the attachment and bonding students have with their school; the perception of the rewards for positive school interactions; and the overall attitude students have toward education.

These themes were distilled into a set of constructs that were defined using all of the available literature (see Table 1).

Study Setting The study was conducted with students attending two middle schools located in a southeastern metropolitan city. Some middle school students from these schools are also participating in a grant-funded after-school enrichment program focused on increasing exposure to the arts. The two schools were selected to participate in the after-school program because they are at risk for delinquency, poor academic performance, and withdrawal from school before receiving their diploma.

Field Testing and Final Survey Administration Students participating in the summer school program at one school were recruited to field-test the student survey. After the field-test implementation of the survey, several items were changed to increase clarity. The final survey was administered at both schools on the same day in November 2005. For logistical reasons, the surveys were administered to sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students separately. To help ensure response confidentiality and to help preclude students from talking during survey implementation, the students were arranged so that there was an empty seat on either side and across from each student.

Subjects Several key demographic questions were asked of participants, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, grade level, school, parental rearing, and number and makeup of household. Most students (90.4%) ranged in age from 11 years to 14 years old, half (54.3%) were female, and most (93.1%) were African-American. Students were fairly evenly distributed across grade levels (35.6% in sixth grade, 23.4% in seventh grade, and 38.8% in eighth grade)

School Perceptions and Tobacco Use

419

TABLE 1 School Perception Constructs, Dimensions, Descriptions, Possible Ranges, and Reliability Coefficients

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Construct (Main Sources)

Dimension

Connectedness & School Engagement (Dworkin, 1989; Giles et al., 2001; Jenkins, 1997; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998; Sale et al., 2003) Class

Description

Involvement in school activities, such as selling things to raise money, attending special events during school, and participating in school activities after school Involvement in classroom activities, participation in the development of class lessons, and class punctuality Schoolwork Effort in assigned schoolwork and timeliness and cleanliness of submitted schoolwork Environment (Dworkin, Class Beginning class on time, time 1989; Jenkins, 1997; spent on instruction, and Oetting & Donnertype of instruction (individmeyer, 1998) ual versus group work) School Consistent consequences for breaking rules, size of student body, racial equality, nature of schoolwide student/teacher relationship, and presence of school spirit Attachment & Bonding Teacher The degree to which students (Gottfredson, 1984; like, feel close to, respect, Jenkins, 1997) and trust teachers Principals The degree to which students & Other like, feel close to, respect, Staff and trust the principal and other staff Peers The degree to which students like, feel close to, respect, and trust their peers Class Importance and relevance of classes School The degree to which a student “fits in” to the school and regards the school as safe, enjoyable, nurturing, and inspiring success Rewards (Coker & The degree to which the Borders, 2001; school provides rewards for Gottfredson, doing well in school 1984; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998) Educational Attachment Importance and relevance of (Eggert, Herting, & education in general and the Thompson, 1996; expectations and expectanJenkins, 1997; Marcos cies of future performance & Bahr, 1995) in school

Possible Reliability Range Coefficient 4–12

.440

3–12

.241

4–18

.401

3–12

.307

6–25

.429

12–43

.861

6–24

.840

3–12

.502

6–22

.738

12–43

.840

6–20

.536

10–44

.720

420

W. H. Oglesby et al.

but more students (59.0%) came from School B than School A (37.8%). This was due to the fact that school staff in School B were more successful in obtaining signed parent consent forms than the school staff in School A.

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Data Analysis Data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0 for Windows. This program can be used to handle missing data, provide descriptive statistics, compute reliability statistics, and to conduct multivariable analysis. Missing data were analyzed at the case and variable level. Missing data were imputed provided that the total number of missing data did not exceed 10% (Shrive, Stuart, Quan, & Ghali, 2006). If more than 10% of the data were missing, the cases and variables were excluded from further analysis. Case-level analysis revealed 4 cases (2.08% of the sample) that were missing more than 10.0% of the responses. All 4 of these cases were excluded from analysis, leaving a sample size of N = 188. After deleting the four cases, each variable was analyzed to determine the level of missing data. Seventy-eight variables contained less than 10% missing data; mostly only missing 1 or 2 questions. These few missing responses were imputed using the median response of the subject’s scale score.

RESULTS Internal Consistency To measure the degree to which the instrument would yield similar results if repeatedly administered, an internal consistency measure was obtained for each of the scales. Of all the widely used methods for computing instrument reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha method is most appropriate given that subjects will not be retested and because the sample size will be too small for split-half comparison. As presented in Table 1, only 5 out of 12 school perception scales had Cronbach’s alpha values of .7 or higher (Attachment & Bonding to Teachers, Attachment & Bonding to Principal and Other Staff, Attachment & Bonding to Class, Attachment & Bonding to School, and Educational Attachment). The low alpha values of the remaining seven scales necessitated their removal from further analysis due to concerns of reliability.

Descriptive Statistics Self-reported tobacco use among the sample was low. Most (between 87.3% and 94.1%) of the females and most males (between 81.7% and 93.9%) reported never using cigarettes, chewing tobacco, or cigars. The differences between gender were not statistically significant at the p < .05 level (Table 2).

School Perceptions and Tobacco Use

421

TABLE 2 Self-Reported Risk Behaviors Related to Tobacco Use Female

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Behavior How old were you when you smoked a whole cigarette for the first time? I have never smoked a whole cigarette. 8 years old or younger 9 years old 10 years old 11 years old 12 years old 13 years old 14 years old or older During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke a cigarette? 0 days 1–5 days 6–10 days 11–15 days 16–20 days 21–25 days 26–30 days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you use chewing tobacco, snuff, or dip, such as Redman, Levi Garrett, Beechnut, Skoal, Skoal Bandits, or Copenhagen? 0 days 1–5 days 6–10 days 11–15 days 16–20 days 21–25 days 26–30 days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigars, cigarillos, or little cigars? 0 days 1–5 days 6–10 days 11–15 days 16–20 days 21–25 days 26–30 days

%

Male (N)

%

(N)

χ2 (df) p-Value 7.551 (7) .374

87.3

(89)

81.7

(67)

2.0 1.0 5.9 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

(2) (1) (6) (2) (2) (0) (0)

3.7 1.2 3.7 2.4 1.2 1.2 4.9

(3) (1) (3) (2) (1) (1) (4) 9.095 (6) .168

91.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.9

(93) (4) (0) (0) (2) (0) (3)

90.2 1.2 1.2 2.4 0.0 2.4 2.4

(74) (1) (1) (2) (0) (2) (2) 4.972 (5) .419

94.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 1.0

(96) (0) (0) (1) (1) (3) (1)

93.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 3.7 1.2 0.0

(77) (0) (1) (0) (3) (1) (0) 2.323 (5) .803

92.2 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.9

(94) (2) (2) (0) (1) (0) (3)

91.5 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.7

(75) (2) (1) (0) (0) (1) (3)

Self-reported school perceptions varied among males and females but were only statistically significant for class environment (Table 3). Female students reported statistically significantly lower scores than males on classroom perceptions including beginning class on time, the amount of time

W. H. Oglesby et al.

422

TABLE 3 Means, Standard Deviations, F-Statistic, and p-Values of Scale Scores by Gender

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Female

Male F-Statistic p-Value

Variable

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Attachment & Bonding to Teachers Attachment & Bonding to Principals & Others Attachment & Bonding to Peers Attachment & Bonding to Class Attachment & Bonding to School Educational Attachment Connectedness & Engagement to School Connectedness & Engagement to Class Connectedness & Engagement to Schoolwork School Environment Class Environment School Rewards

31.08

(5.62)

30.87

(6.67)

.055

.815

17.74

(4.14)

17.48

(4.36)

.171

.680

9.28

(1.95)

9.34

(1.91)

.040

.842

18.24

(2.47)

18.20

(3.29)

.009

.925

30.58

(5.93)

31.96

(6.19)

2.384

.124

38.43 9.28

(3.78) (1.66)

37.39 9.13

(5.28) (1.78)

2.425 .348

.121 .556

9.27

(1.62)

9.60

(1.65)

1.776

.184

13.48

(1.93)

13.18

(2.27)

.922

.338

16.95 7.55 12.65

(2.37) (1.54) (3.07)

17.46 8.05 12.65

(3.05) (1.82) (3.29)

1.642 4.075 .000

.202 .045* .999

Notes. F-statistic derived from ANOVA. *p < .05.

spent on instruction (versus time spent on behavioral problems), and type of group instruction (individual versus group work).

Multivariable Statistics To measure statistical associations between tobacco use and the school perceptions under study, a logistic regression was used. The independent variables with acceptable reliability coefficients were entered into a logistic regression model using the enter method. To control for the potential effects of age on the dependent variable, grade level was included in all models as a main effect. Independent variables with statistical significance p > .05 were removed from the logistic regression model and were rerun until only statistically significant (p < .05) independent variables and the control variable TABLE 4 Summary of Logistic Regression Associations With Tobacco Use While Controlling for Grade Level (N = 186) Variable Educational Attachment Grade Level Constant

β −.148 .552 2.536

S.E. .042 .259 1.632

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp( β )

12.562 4.542 2.417

1 1 1

.000 .033 .120

.862 1.737 12.634

School Perceptions and Tobacco Use

423

TABLE 5 Summary of Logistic Regression Associations With Tobacco Use While Controlling for Grade Level and Gender (N = 183) Variable

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Educational Attachment Grade Level Gender Constant

β

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp( β )

−.139 .543 −.409 2.448

.042 .268 .448 1.637

10.804 4.107 .836 2.236

1 1 1 1

.001 .043 .361 .135

.870 1.721 .664 11.562

remained. The dependent variable used was self-reported lifetime cigarette usage. The constant was included in all regression models. Logistic regression analysis yielded a model with only one statistically significant independent variable: educational attachment. The logistic regression model suggests that lower educational attachment is associated with tobacco use ( β = –.148, p < .000) when controlling for grade level. Even though tobacco use did not differ by gender or differ on any of the independent variables used in the logistic regression, gender was entered into a logistic regression to control for any possible effects. Even when controlling for gender, tobacco use was still associated with low levels of educational attachment (Tables 4 and 5).

DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to identify school perceptions that are associated with tobacco use using a sample of urban middle school students located in a southeastern state. Analysis showed only one measured school perception was statistically associated with tobacco use: educational attachment. This finding supports other literature that links positive school perceptions with low levels of health risk behaviors but did not successfully measure all of the school perceptions that could also affect tobacco use in middle school youths. Additional work is needed to quantify school perceptions into reliable and valid scales of measurement. As noted earlier, the initial survey consisted of 12 scales measuring all of the constructs found in the search of the academic literature. Only five scales, however, had adequate internal consistency to be used in further analysis. This is due, in part, to the small sample size (N = 188) but also to the conflicting manner in which school perceptions are measured in the literature. Much of the school perceptions measures have not been properly subjected to psychometric testing, factor analytic, and other scale development procedures to determine reliability and validity—leaving the field improperly prepared to use these constructs in analysis. Considerably more research is needed to quantify school perceptions into a set of validated and reliable scales that can then be used in a variety of beneficial research.

424

W. H. Oglesby et al.

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

Limitations This study used a cross-sectional design, where data were self-reported at one point in time from a convenience sample of middle school students. Data were not collected over time from a random and representative sample of students, thus inferences based on the study’s findings must be limited. Another limitation of the study is due to the fact that school perceptions may fluctuate during the day, week, semester, or school year depending on a number of factors outside the control of the investigation. In addition, recall of health behaviors and truthfulness in responding to health behavior questions are also limitations in this study. Effort was taken to ensure confidentiality; nevertheless, students could have over- or underestimated their school perceptions and could have over- or underreported their health risk behaviors. In summary, the focus of this study was not to establish “cause and effect” or to extrapolate its findings to all middle school youths; rather, it is a small contribution to a limited body of scientific knowledge of the complex interrelationships between school perceptions and involvement and health risk behaviors among middle school youths.

REFERENCES Bell, C. C., & Fink, P. J. (2000). Prevention of violence. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 86, 37–47. Borowsky, I. W. (2002). The role of the pediatrician in preventing suicidal behavior. Minerva Pediatrica, 54(1), 41–52. Borowsky, I. W., Ireland, M., & Resnick, M. D. (2002). Violence risk and protective factors among youth held back in school. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 2(6), 475–484. Brooks, A. J., Stuewig, J., & LecRoy, C. W. (1998). A family based model of Hispanic adolescent substance use. Journal of Drug Education, 28(1), 65–86. CDC. (2010). Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2000–2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59(33), 1063–1068. Coker, J. K., & Borders, L. D. (2001). An analysis of environmental and social factors affecting adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 200–208. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., … Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. Dworkin, P. H. (1989). School failure. Pediatrics in Review, 10(10), 301–312. Eggert, L. L., Herting, J. R., & Thompson, E. A. (1996). The Drug Involvement Scale for Adolescents (DISA). Journal of Drug Education, 26(2), 101–130. Everett, S. A., Malarcher, A. M., Sharp, D. J., Husten, C. G., & Giovino, G. A. (2000). Relationship between cigarette, smokeless tobacco, and cigar use, and other health risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. Journal of School Health, 70(6), 234–240.

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

School Perceptions and Tobacco Use

425

Finn, J. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. NCES Publication No. 065 000005956. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. Giles, S. M., Harrington, N. G., & Fearnow-Kenney, M. (2001). Evaluation of the All Stars Program: Student and teacher factors that influence mediators of substance use. Journal of Drug Education, 31(4), 385–397. Gottfredson, G. (1984). The effective school battery. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Incorporated. Griffin, K. W., Botvin, G. J., Scheier, L. M., Doyle, M. M., & Williams, C. (2003). Common predictors of cigarette smoking, alcohol use, aggression, and delinquency among inner-city minority youth. Addictive Behaviors, 28(6), 1141–1148. doi: S0306460302002253 [pii] Grunbaum, J. A., Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Williams, B., Ross, J. G., Lowry, R., & Kolbe, L. (2002). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51(SS-4), 1–64. Hagborg, W. J. (1998). An investigation of a brief measure of school membership. Adolescence, 33(130), 461–468. Hotton, T., & Haans, D. (2004). Alcohol and drug use in early adolescence. Health Reports, 15(3), 9–19. Jenkins, P. (1997). School delinquency and the school social bond. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), 337–367. Kwok, O. M., Hughes, J. N., & Luo, W. (2007). Role of resilient personality on lower achieving first grade students’ current and future achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 45(1), 61–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.07.002 Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274–283. Loe, I. M., & Feldman, H. M. (2007). Academic and educational outcomes of children with ADHD. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 7(Suppl. 1), 82–90. Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1995). Drug progression model: A social control test. International Journal of the Addictions, 30(11), 1383–1405. Moody, K. A., Childs, J. C., & Sepples, S. B. (2003). Intervening with at-risk youth: Evaluation of the youth empowerment and support program. Pediatric Nursing, 29(4), 263–270. National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Norris, C., Pignal, J., & Lipps, G. (2003). Measuring school engagement. Education Quarterly Review, 9(2), 25–34. Oetting, E. R., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (1998). Primary socialization theory: The etiology of drug use and deviance. I. Substance Use and Misuse, 33(4), 995–1026. Oetting, E. R., Donnermeyer, J. F., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1998). Primary socialization theory. The influence of the community on drug use and deviance. III. Substance Use and Misuse, 33(8), 1629–1665. Patton, G. C., Glover, S., Bond, L., Butler, H., Godfrey, C., Di Pietro, G., & Bowes, G. (2000). The Gatehouse Project: A systematic approach to mental health promotion in secondary schools. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(4), 586–593.

Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [Willie Oglesby] at 07:33 17 October 2012

426

W. H. Oglesby et al.

Rodney, L. W., Johnson, D. L., & Srivastava, R. P. (2005). The impact of culturally relevant violence prevention models on school-age youth. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(5), 439–454. doi: 10.1007/s10935-005-0003-y Sale, E., Sambrano, S., Springer, J. F., & Turner, C. W. (2003). Risk, protection, and substance use in adolescents: A multi-site model. Journal of Drug Education, 33(1), 91–105. SAMHSA. (2009a). Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings. Retrieved from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/ nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8results.pdf SAMHSA. (2009b). Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/ fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm Schulting, A. B., Malone, P. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 860–871. Shrive, F. M., Stuart, H., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A. (2006). Dealing with missing data in a multi-question depression scale: A comparison of imputation methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 57. USDHHS. (2010). How tobacco smoke causes disease: The biology and behavioral basis for smoking-attributable disease: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Vandell, D. L., Pierce, K. M., & Dadisman, K. (2005). Out-of-school settings as a developmental context for children and youth. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 33, 43–77. Voelkl, K. (1996). Measuring students’ identification with school. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 760–770.