J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314 DOI 10.1007/s10896-015-9676-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Violence Exposure in Young Children: Child-Oriented Routines as a Protective Factor for School Readiness Kimberly B. David & Monique M. LeBlanc & Shannon Self-Brown
Published online: 25 February 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Although domestic and community violence exposure has been associated with poor child functioning, protective factors, such as daily routines, may shield children from these negative outcomes. This study investigated whether daily, child-oriented routines moderated the association between exposure to violence and school readiness in preschool-aged children. Eighty-three preschool children completed a test of school readiness, and a primary caregiver completed measures of violence exposure and adherence to daily routines. Results indicated that discipline and daily living routines moderated the association between domestic violence exposure and school readiness. Findings suggest that routines in the home may serve a protective role for young children exposed to violence, but the protective impact was lessened when domestic violence exposure was high. Keywords School readiness . Violence exposure . Daily routines . Preschoolers
Researchers have estimated that between three and fifteen million children are exposed to violence each year (Cole et al. 2005) K. B. David Department of Education, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA M. M. LeBlanc Department of Psychology, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA, USA S. Self-Brown School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA K. B. David (*) Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
or live in a household with violence (Howell 2011), thereby increasing their risk for exposure. Recently, a national survey concerning children’s exposure to violence found that more than 25 % of children ages zero to 17 years were exposed to violence within the past year, with lifetime rates of approximately 33 % (Finkelhor et al. 2009). Specific to very young children, national survey results revealed that among children aged two to five years, 15.8 % witnessed family assault, 9.0 % witnessed community assault, and 21.2 % witnessed some form of violence in their lifetimes (Finkelhor et al. 2009). Violence exposure within the home and the community has been associated with disruptions in normal development and a sense of safety (Johnson et al. 2002; Kaufman et al. 2011; Ybarra et al. 2007) in preschool-aged children. Researchers have found correlations between violence exposure and negative psychological functioning, including externalizing behavior problems, such as aggressive and disruptive behavior (Bauer et al. 2006; Jouriles et al. 1996; Kalil et al. 2003; Linares and Morin 2006; Oravecz et al. 2008; Zhang and Eamon 2011) and internalizing problems, including symptoms of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression (Jouriles et al. 1996; Kalil et al. 2003; Linares and Morin 2006; Ybarra et al. 2007; Rossman and Ho 2000). Although less research has been conducted concerning cognitive development, violence exposure has been hypothesized to deleteriously affect cognitive functioning (Kaufman et al. 2011; PeekAsa et al. 2007; Ybarra et al. 2007). In support, Ybarra and colleagues (2007) found that violence-exposed preschoolers had significantly lower scores on a test of intelligence than non-exposed preschoolers, while Jouriles and colleagues (2008) demonstrated a negative correlation between domestic violence exposure and explicit memory functioning in preschool-age children. Exposure to violence may be particularly deleterious during this developmental stage, as preschool-aged children have less mature cognitive skills and greater dependence upon parental support than
304
older children, resulting in greater vulnerability to witnessing adult conflict (Martin and Clements 2002; Ybarra et al. 2007). Violence exposure also may interfere with the transition to greater emotional and behavioral control, which are key developmental tasks of the preschool years (Denham et al. 2003; Eisenberg et al. 2004). There is significant variability in the responses and outcomes of preschool-aged children to domestic and community violence exposure, indicating the presence of moderator variables (Howell 2011). Cicchetti and Lynch (1993) proposed an ecological-transactional model that has served as a framework for examining potential protective factors, which promote positive outcome in the face of violence exposure. Their model suggested that each child is surrounded by multiple ecological systems, including the community, school, family and individual, each influencing development according to proximity. Each level in the system was proposed to interact with the others over time with no one risk factor, such as domestic or community violence, being the singular cause of poor development. Protective factors at each level interact with risk factors to produce varied psychological, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes. Previous research has identified several potential familial protective factors that positively impact the development of youth exposed to violence, such as positive parenting practices, parental emotional availability, parent involvement in child’s life, and a positive parent–child relationship (Alvord and Grados 2005; Howell 2011; Howell et al. 2010; Johnson and Lieberman 2007; Kalil et al. 2003; Levendosky et al. 2003; Lewis-O’Connor et al. 2006). Another potentially important protective factor that has not been significantly investigated in the violence exposure literature is familial routines. A routine has been defined as an observable, recurring patterned interaction requiring little conscious attention and occurring regularly, daily or weekly (Fiese et al. 2002; McNamara and Humphry 2008; Sytsma et al. 2001). Empirical evidence indicated that family routines are composed of five dimensions: discipline; daily living; activities and positive attention; educational and social; and religious and hygiene (Wittig et al. 2007). Child routines may become increasingly important as preschoolers make the shift from the relatively unstructured preschool environment to a more academically structured kindergarten environment (Wildenger et al. 2008). Researchers have found strong correlations between child routines and functioning in children. Predictable routines have been associated with positive self-esteem and optimism (Brody and Flor 1997), appropriate social skills (Keltner 1990; Williams 2001), reduced problem behaviors (Loukas and Prelow 2004; McLoyd et al. 2008), school readiness (Fuligni et al. 2012) and academic achievement (Taylor and Lopez 2005). Although no research has investigated the moderating impact of routines for young children exposed to violence, researchers have examined routines in the context of other negative life events. For instance, Fiese (1992; Fiese
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314
et al. 2002) found that established child routines acted as a buffer for negative life events, such as divorce. Additionally, Keltner (1990) found that lower income preschool children enrolled in a Head Start program were more cooperative, more willing to engage with other children, and more academically skilled when they had predictable home routines. As the establishment of routines may promote positive outcomes and development of skills in children, familial routines may serve to protect preschoolers from the negative outcomes associated with exposure to violence. The first purpose of this study was to examine the relations between preschoolers’ exposure to violence in their homes and communities and school readiness. The second was to explore the moderating effect of child routines in this association. This study attempted to address key limitations of previous violence exposure research, particularly a dearth of research concerning preschool-aged children and outcomes pertinent to that age group (Mendez et al. 2002; McCloskey and Walker 2000; Osofsky 2003; Overstreet and Braun 1999; Schwartz and Gorman 2003). For instance, no known research has addressed school readiness in children who have been exposed to domestic and community violence. As violence exposure is negatively and significant correlated with school-aged children’s cognition and memory, violence exposure may be negatively associated with the readiness of young children to begin school. School readiness is an important outcome in that it is important predictor of later academic achievement (Overstreet and Braun 1999) and social competence (Fantuzzo et al. 2007). Moreover, research is often limited by separate consideration of violence in the home and community, despite the strong correlation between the two forms of exposure (Finkelhor et al. 2007) and the risk of overestimating the unique contribution of each form of violence exposure (Turner et al. 2010). This study addressed this weakness by including assessment of both violence in the home and community. Additionally, this study involved a largely AfricanAmerican sample as African-American children have been found to be at greater risk for higher levels of violence exposure and poor school readiness. Therefore, studying protective factors that promote resiliency in this ethnic group is particularly warranted (O’Keefe 1994; Ozer and Weinstein 2004; Dibble and Straus 1980; Thompson and Massat 2005). The present study had two hypotheses. First, it was hypothesized that domestic and community violence exposure would have a significant and negative association with school readiness. Second, it was hypothesized that child routines would moderate the relations between violence exposure and preschoolers’ school readiness, such that violence-exposed preschool children who have more routines in their homes would demonstrate greater school readiness than violence-exposed preschoolers with fewer child routines.
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314
305
Method Participants Participants were recruited from early childhood programs or medical settings that serve predominantly lower income families from high-crime neighborhoods within a southeastern state with violent crime rates higher than the national average (www.areaconnect.com). Data was collected during spring and summer months from 83 caretaker-preschooler dyads; however, five participants were excluded from analyses for incomplete or invalid measures. The child participants’ ages ranged from 3 to 2 years old (M = 4.25, SD = 0.81). Fortyseven percent were male (n = 39) and 53 % were female (n = 44). The child participants in this study were 69.9 % African American, 26.5 % Caucasian, and 1.2 % Asian. In the current study, approximately 45 % of the caregivers reported annual familial incomes of less than $15,000 and approximately 75 % reported income of less than $30,000. Notably, in 2008, the poverty threshold was $14,000 and the low-income level was $21,000 for two person households (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services 2008). See Table 1 for details concerning demographic information.
Procedure Children ages three to six years of age and their primary caregiver were recruited from early childhood programs and medical settings that served predominantly lower income families Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the sample
n (%) Highest education of primary caregiver Elementary school (K-8) 6 (7.2) High school or equivalent 27 (32.5) Post-high school 49 (59.0) Family income $30,001 21 (25.3) Relationship to child Mother Father Grandparent Other Child ethnicity African American Caucasian Asian Hispanic Other
75 (90.4) 3 (3.6) 4 (4.8) 1 (1.2) 58 (69.9) 22 (26.5) 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 2 (2.4)
in a southeastern state. Some participants were recruited through packets sent home with children, and others were recruited in person. Primary caregivers were provided with written information about the study, the consent form, and parent-report measures. Instructions specified that the questionnaires should be completed by a primary caregiver. If multiple primary caregivers were present, instructions indicated that only one person should complete the questionnaires. One packet of surveys was completed per household. Children with valid consent and verbal assent were individually administered the Bracken Basic Concept Scale -Revised (BBCS-R). Children were provided a small treat, such as a sticker, following participation. The researchers also provided information about local and national support options for families. This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. Measures Domestic Violence Exposure The Conflict Tactics Scale-2 (CTS2; Straus et al. 1996) was originally developed to assess the frequency of acts of domestic violence completed by a respondent and his/her partner. The present study modified the CTS2 to assess children’s exposure to domestic violence using primary caregiver report, consistent with procedures used by previous researchers (Kolbo 1996). The modified version of the CTS2 changed the wording of the instructions slightly to instruct the primary caregivers to indicate how often their child witnessed (saw or heard) each violent act. The same seven-point scale and response choices were used as the original CTS. The CTS2 measured varied types of domestic violence exposure, including verbal/psychological and physical assault. Similar to previous research with young children, a composite score was obtained for a child’s lifetime exposure to domestic violence, which included psychological and physical violent acts (Ybarra et al. 2007). Researchers have previously demonstrated the psychometric properties of the CTS2, including good test-retest reliability and internal consistency (Johnson and Lieberman 2007; Jouriles et al. 2008; Lieberman et al. 2005; Straus 2007), as well as evidence of construct and content validity (Straus 2007). Coefficient alpha in this sample was 0.95. Community Violence Exposure The Violence Exposure Scale for Children–Revised Parent Report (VEX-R PR; Fox and Leavitt 1996) was used to assess children’s exposure to violence within their community or neighborhood, as rated by a primary caregiver. The VEX-R PR is a 20-item measure with responses ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (lots of times). A variety of forms of community violence were assessed, including robbery, slapping, chasing, beating, threatening with a weapon, stabbing, and shooting. Caregivers were instructed to exclude violent acts seen on movies, television, radio, or the
306
news, as well as rough-housing or horse playing among children or siblings. Again, a total score was calculated for lifetime community violence exposure. The VEX-R PR scale demonstrated good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.72 to 0.86. Additionally, the VEX-R PR correlated highly with other measures of violence exposure, such as Richters and Martinez’s (1990) measure, BThings I Have Seen and Heard: An Interview for Young Children about Exposure to Violence^ (Shahinfar et al. 2000). Coefficient alpha was 0.87 in this sample. Preschool Routines The Child Routines Questionnaire: Preschool (CRQ: P; Wittig et al. 2007) is a 35-item questionnaire, completed by the child’s primary caregiver, which assesses the degree of adherence to daily routines in the home. Caregivers were asked to rate how often their preschool-aged child engages in each routine on a five-point, likert-type scale (never to nearly always). Higher scores indicate greater adherence to routines. Previous analyses of the CRQ: P revealed five factors: Discipline, Daily Living, Activities/Positive Attention, Educational/Social, and Religious/Hygiene. The Discipline factor contains eight items relating to positive household rules and parental guidance (e.g., daily chores, clean-up routine) or the consistency of parental expectations and management of misbehaviors. The Daily Living factor also contains eight items and represents consistent mealtime and sleep procedures. The third factor, Activities/Positive. Attention, contains seven items related to typical familial activities and positive reinforcement. The Educational/Social factor includes six items representing age appropriate educational opportunities and development of social skills. The last factor, Religious/Hygiene, includes five items pertaining to the family’s religious activities, limits on fun activities, and the child’s hygienic responsibilities (Wittig et al. 2007). See Table 2 for select items within each factor. According to Wittig et al. (2007), the CRQ:P total scale has good internal consistency (α = 0.89), adequate test-retest reliability (r = .74), and good inter-rater reliability (r = .73). Each of the five factors has adequate to good internal consistency, ranging from 0.62 to 0.83, test-retest reliability, ranging from 0.65 to 0.82, and inter-rater reliability, ranging from 0.61 to 0.75. As this is a relatively new measure, internal consistency for the total score and each of the subscales was investigated in this sample. Similar to Wittig et al. (2007), the results of the current study reveal good reliability for the total scale (α = 0.93). For each of the routine factors, good internal consistency was found for Daily Living (α = 0.84), and adequate i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y w as f o u n d f o r D i s c i p l i n e (α = 0.80), Activities/Positive Attention (α = 0.76), and Educational/Social (α = 0.71). Poor internal consistency was found for Religious/Hygiene routines (α = 0.45).
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314 Table 2
Items within the five routine factors
Items F1: Discipline My child is given a warning before changing activities. My child has a clean-up routine. My child knows what will happen if he/she does not follow parent instructions or rules. F2: Daily living My child eats supper at about the same time each day. My child has a routine for getting ready in the morning. My child has a regular bedtime each night F3: Activities/positive attention My child is provided with activities or toys when out in public. My child engages in regular, planned activities with the family each week. My child has a routine for saying hello or goodbye to family. F4: Educational/social My child is introduced to new objects, toys, or activities regularly. My child engages in an age-appropriate educational activity daily. My child is encouraged to share toys or food with his peers or family members daily. F5: Religious/hygiene My child says prayers before meals and/or before bedtime. My child attends church with the family weekly. My child washes hands before mealtime.
School Readiness The School Readiness Composite (SRC) of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale -Revised (BBCS-R; Bracken 1998) was utilized to assess a child’s knowledge of concepts associated with adequate preparation for formal education. It consists of 88 items and takes approximately 15 min to administer. The SRC assesses six conceptual domains, particularly colors, letters, numbers/counting, sizes, comparisons, and shapes. The BBCS-R was age-normed and standardized on more than 1100 children. Bracken (1998) reported strong internal consistency, ranging from 0.96 to 0.99, as well as strong test-retest reliability (r = 0.94). Concurrent validity was evaluated by examining the relationship between BBCS-R and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised (WPPSI-R) and they were highly correlated (r = 0.89). Demographic Questionnaire The primary caregiver completed a questionnaire concerning demographic information about the child and their family. Some of the child information collected included age, grade, and the child’s relation to the primary caregiver. Familial information collected included income, ethnicity, marital status, and educational level.
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314
Results Description of Domestic and Community Violence Exposure The primary caregiver reported frequency of their child’s exposure to domestic violence, using the modified CTS2, and community violence, using the VEX-PR. Overall, 68.7 % of primary caregivers reported that their child has seen or heard at least one violent domestic act in their lifetime, while 87.8 % had been exposed to at least one community violent act. Concerning domestic violence, 48 % of primary caregivers reported that their child had witnessed the caregiver or the caregiver’s partner Bshout or yell;^ 20.5 % reported their child had witnessed the primary caregiver Bpush or shove^ their partner; 19.3 % noted that their child had heard the caregiver call their partner Bfat or ugly;^ and 9.4 % indicated that their child had witnessed the caregiver’s partner Bchoke^ the caregiver. Concerning violence in the community, 82.9 % of primary caregivers reported that their child had witnessed a mild form of violence, such as Bseen a person yell at another person,^ while 19.5 % of caregivers noted their child had witnessed Bsomeone get arrested;^ 13.4 % endorsed that their child had witnessed Bsomeone beat up another person;^ 4.9 % of caregivers reported their child had seen Bsomeone point a gun or a knife at a person;^ and 3.7 % of caregivers reported their child had seen Bsomeone shoot a person.^ Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics for key variables are provided in Table 3. Potential differences between caregivers concerning routines and community and domestic violence exposure were examined using t-tests for unequal variance. There were no significant differences for these outcomes when mothers were compared to non-mothers. Therefore, due to concerns about power, all participants were retained for these analyses. Bivariate correlations between the predictor variables, outcome variable, and family income were conducted (see Table 4). Based on the positive and significant correlation between family income and school readiness, family income was controlled in the regression analysis. A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to determine the association between violence exposure and school readiness and whether child routines served as a moderator of the violence-school readiness associations. Prior to data analysis, the predictor variables were centered to prevent the effects of multicollinearity, as recommended by Aiken and West (1991). Variables were centered by subtracting the mean from individual scores to create a variable with a mean of zero. The centered variables were then multiplied by the moderating variable to create interaction terms. Family income was entered on the first step as a control variable. The CRQ:P
307 Table 3
Descriptive statistics for study variables
Study variable
M
SD
CTS2-L VEX-R School readiness CRQ:P factors Discipline Daily living Activities/positive attention Educational/social Religious/hygiene
6.1 4.7 100.8
8.0 4.7 16.4
25.6 25.9 26.2 19.2 14.8
5.0 5.3 4.6 3.8 3.1
CTS2-L Conflict Tactic Scale 2-Lifetime (domestic violence exposure), VEX-R Violence Exposure Scale for Children–Revised (community violence exposure), CRQ:P Child Routines Questionnaire: Preschool
subscale scores, total VEX-R PR score (e.g., community violence exposure), and total CTS2 score (e.g., domestic violence exposure) were entered on the second step and the interactions entered on the third step. The BBCS-R score was the criterion variable. Any significant interactions identified in the regression analysis were examined using simple slope analyses and plots. Post-hoc probing with t-tests of the significant interactions was conducted to determine if the simple slopes for higher and lower levels of the moderator were significantly different from zero. This procedure allows the investigator to determine under which condition of the moderator the interaction is significant. Plots were created by solving the regression equation at specific levels of the moderator variable, particularly one standard deviation above and below the mean (Aiken and West 1991; Holmbeck 2002; Tabachnick and Fidell 2001).
Regression Analyses The final model was significant [F(18,56) = 2.24, p < .05] with 42 % of the variance accounted for (see Table 5). Examination of the variables within the third block revealed two significant interactions: domestic violence exposure (CTS2 score) and the Discipline Routines factor of the CRQ:P [t(74) = −2.26, p < .05], as well as domestic violence exposure (CTS2 score) and the Daily Living Routines factor of the CRQ:P [t(74) = −2.56, p < .05]. Family income also was a significant correlate of school readiness [t(74) = 2.73, p < .01]. Post-hoc power analysis indicated that power for the final model (R2 = 0.42) was >0.80, but power specific to Step 3 (ΔR2 = 0.16) was lower at 0.54. Follow-up simple slope analyses were conducted for the interaction between domestic violence exposure and Discipline Routines (See Fig. 1). Analyses revealed that at higher levels of Discipline Routines, the slope approached
308 Table 4
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314 Correlation matrix of the predictor variables, criterion variable, and control variable
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. Family income 2. School readiness 3. CTS2-L 4. VEX-R CRQ:P factors 5. Discipline 6. Daily living 7. Activities/positive attention 8. Educational/social 9. Religious/hygiene
–
0.30** –
0.01 −0.26* –
−0.06 −0.22* 0.30** –
−0.05 0.27* −0.17 −0.35**
−0.05 0.31** −0.15 −0.27*
0.01 0.22* −0.16 −0.37**
0.07 0.26* −0.18 −0.44**
−0.13 0.09 −0.15 −0.26*
0.70** –
0.81** 0.71** –
0.62** 0.77** 0.66** –
–
0.51** 0.44** 0.59** 0.45** –
CTS2-L Conflict Tactic Scale 2-Lifetime (domestic violence exposure), VEX-R Violence Exposure Scale for Children–Revised (community violence exposure), CRQ:P Child Routines Questionnaire: Preschool *p < .05; **p < .01
being significantly different from zero [t(79) = −1.80, p < .07, β = −0.04]. However, the simple slope was not significantly different from zero at lower levels of Discipline Routines [t(79) = −1.23, p = .22, β = −0.04]. The plot revealed that there was no significant association between violence exposure and school readiness when discipline routine levels were lower, but there was a negative association between domestic violence exposure and school readiness when discipline routines levels were higher. Thus, children whose caregivers endorsed more discipline routines had higher school readiness when domestic violence exposure was low, and lower school readiness scores as their levels of domestic violence exposure increased. However, for children whose caregivers endorsed fewer discipline routines, there was no association between violence exposure and school readiness. These relationships are illustrated in Fig. 1. Visual inspection of Fig. 1 indicated that children with the highest levels of school readiness were children with higher levels of caregiver-reported discipline routines and lower levels of domestic violence exposure. Therefore, those at greatest risk for low school readiness were those children with higher domestic violence exposure and lower levels of caregiver-reported discipline routines. Interestingly, the figure suggested that children with higher levels of violence exposure scored about eight points, on average, better when caregivers reported more discipline routines compared to fewer discipline routines. Follow-up simple slope analyses were conducted for the interaction between domestic violence exposure and Daily Living Routines (See Fig. 2). Analyses revealed that at higher levels of Daily Living Routines, the simple slope was significantly different from zero [t(79) = −2.55, p < .01, β = −0.09]. At lower levels of Daily Living Routines, the simple slope was not significantly different from zero [t(79) = −0.26,
p = .80, β = −0.09]. The plot revealed that there was no association between domestic violence exposure and school readiness for children whose primary caregivers endorsed fewer daily living routines. There was a negative association between domestic violence exposure and school readiness for children whose primary caregivers endorsed higher levels of daily living routines. Thus, children whose caregivers endorsed more daily living routines had higher school readiness when domestic violence exposure was low, and lower school readiness scores as their levels of domestic violence exposure increased. There was no change in school readiness scores as violence exposure increased for children whose caregivers reported fewer daily living routines. Again, visual inspection of Fig. 2 indicated great differences in school readiness dependent upon caregiver endorsement of daily living routines, when violence exposure was low. Children whose caregivers reported more daily living routines and less domestic violence exposure had the highest levels of school readiness, scoring, on average, one standard deviation higher.
Discussion The purpose of this research study was to examine the association between violence exposure in the home and community and preschool children’s school readiness, and whether familial routines emerge as a potential protective factor for this association. Familial factors, such as the presence of routines in the home, may serve as important protective factors, consistent with the ecological-transactional model. These relations were examined with a largely African American sample; an ethnic group that prior research has indicated is highly vulnerable for violence exposure and poor school readiness
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314 110
Hierarchical regression analysis
Variable
ΔR2
Step one Family income Step two Family income Discipline routines Daily living routines Activities/positive attention routines Educational/social routines Religious/hygiene routines Community violence exposure Domestic violence exposure Step three Family income Discipline routines Daily living routines Activities/positive attention routines Educational/social routines
0.08*
Religious/hygiene routines Community violence exposure Domestic violence exposure Community violence exposure × discipline Community violence exposure × daily living Community violence exposure × activities/ positive attention Community violence exposure × educational/ social Community violence exposure × religious/ hygiene Domestic violence exposure × discipline Domestic violence exposure × daily living Domestic violence exposure × activities/ positive attention Domestic violence exposure × educational/ social Domestic violence exposure × religious/ hygiene
B
β
5.59*
0.28
6.16* 0.85 1.10 −0.88 −0.41 −0.01 −0.30 −0.37
0.31 0.27 0.36 −0.25 −0.10 −0.00 −0.09 −0.18
0.18*
0.16 6.27* 0.32 −0.42 −0.13 0.88 0.28 0.37 0.11 −0.91 −0.21 −0.43 −0.72 −0.71* 0.21 0.11 −0.06
−0.08 −0.21 −0.34 0.45 0.22 −0.11
−0.35
−0.49
−0.00
−0.01
−0.30* −0.79 −0.22* −0.48 0.24 0.58 0.04
0.07
0.17
0.36
*p < .05
BBCS: SRC Standard Score
Table 5
309
105
100
High Discipline Roune
95
Low Discipline Roune 90
85 Low Domesc Violence Exposure - Lifeme
High Domesc Violence Exposure - Lifeme
Fig. 1 Interactions among domestic violence exposure, discipline routines, and school readiness
with greater school readiness. Endorsement of discipline routines indicated that primary caregivers felt that households had more regular household rules, consistency in disciplining child misbehaviors, and known consequences for noncompliance. Primary caregivers who endorsed more daily living routines reported that their families had consistent daily activities relevant to sleeping and eating. Results indicated that when primary caregivers reported having few discipline and daily living routines, there was no association between violence exposure in the home and school readiness. Overall, school readiness scores were lower for children whose primary caregivers reported fewer discipline and daily living routines, regardless of the level of lifetime domestic violence to which children were exposed. However, when primary caregivers endorsed higher rates of daily living and discipline routines, the association between violence exposure, including physical and psychological aggression, and school readiness was significant. As children’s exposure to domestic violence increased, greater primary caregiver endorsement of daily living and discipline routines was associated with reductions in children’s school readiness scores. The presence of discipline and daily living routines can be described as Bprotective but reactive,^ meaning these routines generally confer advantages to families, but less so 115 110 BBCS: SRC Standard Score
(O’Keefe 1994; Ozer and Weinstein 2004; Dibble and Straus 1980; Thompson and Massat 2005). This sample reported moderate rates of domestic and community violence exposure and these rates were consistent with previous research concerning young children (Finkelhor et al. 2007, 2009; Miller et al. 2012; Osofsky 2003; Taylor et al. 1994). Specific to the moderating role of familial routines, hypotheses were partially supported. First, family routines emerged as a moderator in the domestic violence-school readiness association. For children with lower levels of violence exposure, greater primary caregiver endorsement of certain routines, particularly consistent discipline and daily living routines, in the home was associated
105 100
High Daily Living Roune
95
Low Daily Living Roune 90 85 Low Domesc Violence Exposure - Lifeme
High Domesc Violence Exposure - Lifeme
Fig. 2 Interactions among domestic violence exposure, daily living routines, and school readiness
310
when domestic violence exposure were higher (Luthar et al. 2000). Having more consistent discipline and daily living routines in the home was associated with greater school readiness, despite violence exposure status, but the protective impact of discipline and daily living routines was reduced as the level of home violence exposure increased. Discipline and daily living routines may provide the structure necessary for the development of stronger school readiness in preschool-aged children, but the presence of a risk factor within the family level lowers the level of protection. The hypothesis concerning family routines as a moderator in the community violence-school readiness association was not supported. Previous research has revealed that some factors which protect children in the face of one risk factor may not be as effective in promoting positive outcome in the presence of another risk factor (Foster and Brooks-Gunn 2009). In the current study, the establishment of positive discipline and daily living routines appeared to serve a protective, yet reactive, function for children exposed to one risk factor (i.e., home violence exposure), but not another (i.e., community violence exposure). Characteristics particular to community violence exposure may contribute to the ineffectiveness of routines for this particular risk factor. The ecologicaltransactional model posits that as the proximity of risk and protective factors to the child increases, the effects on development also increase (Cicchetti and Lynch 1993). Routines in the home serve a protective, yet reactive, function when children are faced with a risk factor arising within the same level (the home level in this example), but not for a risk factor arising within a different system, such as the community. Regarding community violence exposure, the results of the bivariate correlations indicated that children’s increased exposure to community violence was related to lower school readiness. The findings were consistent with previous research which found domestic and community violence-exposed preschoolers had significantly lower levels of cognitive functioning and poor early academic success (Delaney-Black et al. 2002; Margolin and Gordis 2004; Peek-Asa et al. 2007; Schwartz and Gorman 2003; Thompson and Massat 2005; Ybarra et al. 2007). However, this result was not replicated when the effects of family income and domestic violence exposure were included in the analysis. The lack of a main effect for the relationship between community violence exposure and school readiness was consistent with previous research (e.g., Peek-Asa et al. 2007; Thompson and Massat 2005). For instance, Peek-Asa and colleagues (2007) suggested that very young children, because of their dependence on their primary caregivers, are more greatly impacted by domestic violence than community violence exposure. In support, the present study found that exposure to domestic violence was negatively and significantly associated with school readiness scores, even when the effects of family income and
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314
community violence exposure were controlled, consistent with previous research concerning other deleterious outcomes (Fantuzzo and Mohr 1999; Margolin and Gordis 2004; Osofsky 2003; Taylor and Lopez 2005; Thompson and Massat 2005). Consistent with the ecological-transactional model, violence exposure in the home between caregivers would have a more negative impact on child development than violence happening in the community, a less proximal environment for children (Cicchetti and Lynch 1993). Interestingly, family income emerged as an important correlate of school readiness. Family income was negatively correlated with school readiness, after controlling for routines, community violence exposure, and domestic violence exposure. The study sample had a restricted range for income in that it was predominately low-income with about 45 % of the sample indicating annual income of less than $15,000 and 70 % indicating annual income of less than $30,000. However, there appears to be important variability within low income samples. Previous research has found different outcomes for children depending upon the depth of poverty. For example, children whose family incomes were at the poverty line scored about 1/3 of a standard deviation higher on aptitude tests than children whose family incomes were twice the poverty line, still considered low income (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1999). The mechanisms by which depth of poverty differentially impact school readiness should continue to be explored.
Strengths of Current Investigation There are several strengths of the current investigation. First, this was the only known research study which examined the influence of child routines for violence-exposed preschool age children, which expands the current literature examining protective factors. Second, this research contributed to the growing research in the area of violence-exposed preschoolers. Previous research found preschoolers more vulnerable to the impact of violence exposure than school-aged children (Levendosky et al. 2003), and this study confirmed the association between violence exposure in the home and negative child outcome. Third, there is a paucity of research with a focus on preschoolers’ readiness for kindergarten as an outcome for violence-exposed children. Fourth, the present study included both psychological and physical aggression in the measurement of domestic violence exposure. Traditionally, literature has focused upon physical aggression in family with domestic violence and has ignored psychological aggression. Lastly, previous research has focused on either domestic or community violence exposure or the cumulative effects of both. The present study extended the literature by examining both domestic and community violence exposure concurrently.
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314
Study Limitations Key limitations, particularly concerning measurement, should be considered when evaluating the findings of the present study. First, all reports of violence exposure were completed by a primary caregiver. Although this methodology was selected due to inconsistencies in literature concerning the reliability and validity of self-reports of very young children (Shahinfar et al. 2000); this is problematic. Parents may underreport incidents of domestic violence (NICHD 2002) and they may be less aware of their child’s exposure to community violence (Stover and Berkowitz 2005). Secondly, utilizing a lifetime composite score for domestic violence exposure is problematic. This methodology was selected to lessen reliance on memory and, thus, provide more accurate reporting. Using frequency counts (e.g., once, twice, 3–5 times, etc.) requires memory for specific violent acts, which could result in distorted recall and inaccurate reporting (Yoshihama et al. 2002). Nonetheless, utilization of a lifetime composite score resulted in a loss of specificity concerning the frequency and timing of exposure. Another limitation of the present study was the exclusion of direct victimization, such as child abuse, and violence exposure in the daycare or school setting. Although research has found that violence exposure is associated with child outcomes independent of direct victimization (Mitchell et al. 2009), violence exposed children may have been exposed to other forms of child maltreatment that impact school readiness. Moreover, the smaller sample size did not allow for greater examination of the differential association of routines and school readiness for children of different demographic groups or the power to detect small effects. The low power could also contribute to the null findings for community violence exposure-routines interaction. Lastly, the Religious/ Hygiene Factor of the CRQ:P was found to have poor internal consistency (α = 0.45).
311
exposure, routines and other potentially protective factors are warranted. Finally, intervention research needs to examine whether a routine-related intervention can promote familylevel and child-level positive outcome, once domestic violence is eliminated or reduced within the family. Implications for Practice It is estimated that millions of children are exposed to violence yearly (Cole et al. 2005; Howell 2011). Consistent with previous research (e.g., Linares and Morin 2006; Miller et al. 2012), the current study found that more than 50 % of preschool-aged children living in an impoverished, high crime area had been exposed to either domestic or community violence within their lifetime. These high rates of violence exposure for very young children are alarming because of the relation between violence exposure and negative outcomes (Fantuzzo and Mohr 1999; Kaufman et al. 2011; Linares and Morin 2006; Oravecz et al. 2008; Ybarra et al. 2007; Zhang and Eamon 2011). Accordingly, it is imperative that psychologists are aware of the challenges and difficulties for children who are at-risk due to violence exposure. The current research findings suggest promotion of daily positive discipline and daily living routines as a practical intervention for children, irrelevant of whether there is violence occurring in the home. Strengthening routines may also benefit the school behavior of young children. For instance, previous research has shown that children whose primary caregivers provided routines in the home environment had lower levels of teacher-reported behavior problems (Lanza and Drabick 2011). Practitioners can consult with teachers to identify effective strategies for increasing awareness of the importance of routines, as well as strategies for implementing and maintaining routines in the classroom environment (Walker 2007). Future research should investigate routines as a preventive strategy for behavior problems in at-risk children.
Directions for Future Research Future research should examine factors related to young children’s successful and accurate reporting of violence exposure and the association between primary caregiver and child report. Since this study utilized self-report measures only, future studies should include an observational measure of routines that could provide more specific information for intervention development. Future research should examine both direct victimization and exposure to violence, allowing for a more thorough examination of the unique pathways different forms of violence may have to school readiness. Moreover, research is needed to examine the inclusion of Religious/Hygiene Factor as a component of the CRQ:P, as well as more study of the psychometric properties of this measure. Additionally, longitudinal studies examining the relations between violence
References Aiken L. S., & West S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage. Alvord M., & Grados J. (2005). Enhancing resilience in children: a proactive approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 238–245. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.3.238. Bauer N. S., Herrenkohl T. I., Lozano P., Rivara F. P., Hill K. G., & Hawkins J. D. (2006). Childhood bullying involvement and exposure to intimate partner violence. Pediatrics, 118, 35–42. doi:10. 1542/peds.2005-2509. Bracken B. A. (1998). Bracken basic concept scale. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation. Brody G. H., & Flor D. L. (1997). Maternal psychological functioning, family processes, and child adjustment in rural, single-parent,
312 African American families. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1000– 1011. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.1000. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Britto, P. (1999). Are socioeconomic gradients for children similar to those for adults?: Achievement and health of children in the United States. In D. P. Keating, C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 94–124). New York: Guilford Press. Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of community violence and child maltreatment: consequences for children’s development. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 58, 96–116. http://guilfordjournals.com/loi/ psyc. Cole S. E., O’Brien J. G., Gada M. G., Ristuccia J., Wallace D. L., & Gregory M. (2005). Helping traumatized children learn: A report and policy agenda. Boston: Massachusetts Advocates for Children. Delaney-Black V., Covington C., Ondersma S. J., Nordstrom-Klee B., Templin T., Ager J., Janisse J., & Sokol R. J. (2002). Violence exposure, trauma, and IQ and/or reading deficits among urban children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 280– 285. doi:10.1001/archpedi.156.3.280. Denham S. A., Blair K. A., DeMulder E. E., Levitas J. J., Sawyer K. K., Auerbach-Major S. S., & Queenan P. P. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74, 238–256. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00533. Dibble U., & Straus M. A. (1980). Some social structure determinants of inconsistency between attitudes and behavior: the case of family violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 71–80. doi:10. 2307/351935. Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A., & ... Murphy, B. (2004). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s resiliency and adjustment. Child Development, 75, 25–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004. 00652.x. Fantuzzo J. W., & Mohr W. K. (1999). Prevalence and effects of child exposure to domestic violence. Domestic Violence and Children, 9, 21–32. doi:10.2307/1602779. Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P. A., McWayne, C., Frye, D., & Perlman, S. (2007). Investigation of dimensions of social-emotional classroom behavior and school readiness for lowincome urban preschool children. School Psychology Review, 36, 44–62. http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/index-list.aspx. Fiese B. H. (1992). Dimensions of family rituals across two generations: relation to adolescent identity. Family Process, 31, 151–162. doi:10. 1111/j.1545-5300.1992.00151.x. Fiese B. H., Tomcho T. J., Douglas M., Josephs K., Poltrock S., & Baker T. (2002). A review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: cause for celebration? Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 381–390. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.16.4.381. Finkelhor D., Ormrod R., & Turner H. (2007). Re-victimization patterns in a national longitudinal sample of children and youth. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 479–502. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.03.012. Finkelhor D., Turner H., Ormrod R., & Hamby S. L. (2009). Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics, 124, 1411–1423. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0467. Foster H., & Brooks-Gunn J. (2009). Toward a stress process model of children’s exposure to physical family and community violence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12, 71–94. doi:10. 1007/s10567-009-0049-0. Fox N. A., & Leavitt L. A. (1996). Violence exposure scale for childrenrevised. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania. Fuligni A., Howes C., Huang Y., Hong S., & Lara-Cinisomo S. (2012). Activity settings and daily routines in preschool classrooms: diverse experiences in early learning settings for low-income children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 198–209. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq. 2011.10.001.
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314 Holmbeck G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and meditational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 87–96. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/ 27.1.87. Howell K. H. (2011). Resilience and psychopathology in children exposed to family violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 562–569. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.001. Howell K. H., Graham-Bermann S. A., Czyz E., & Lilly M. (2010). Assessing resilience in preschool children exposed to intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims, 25, 150–164. doi:10.1891/08866708.25.2.150. Johnson R. M., Kotch J. B., Catellier D. J., Winsor J. R., Dufort V., Hunter W., & Amaya-Jackson L. (2002). Adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes from child abuse and witnessed violence. Child Maltreatment, 7, 179–186. doi:10.1177/1077559502007003001. Johnson V. K., & Lieberman A. F. (2007). Variations in behavior problems of preschoolers exposed to domestic violence: the role of mothers’ attunement to children’s emotional experiences. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 297–308. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9083-1. Jouriles E. N., Brown A. S., McDonald R., Rosenfield D., Leahy M. M., & Silver C. (2008). Intimate partner violence and preschoolers’ explicit memory functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 420– 428. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.420. Jouriles E. N., Norwood W. D., McDonald R., Vincent J. P., & Mahoney A. (1996). Physical violence and other forms of marital aggression: links with children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 223–234. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.2.223. Kalil A., Tolman R., Rosen D., & Gruber G. (2003). Domestic violence and children’s behavior in low-income families. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 3, 75–101. doi:10.1300/J135v03n01_04. Kaufman J. S., Ortega S., Schewe P. A., & Kracke K. (2011). Characteristics of young children exposed to violence: the safe start demonstration project. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2042– 2072. doi:10.1177/0886260510372942. Keltner B. (1990). Family characteristics of preschool social competence among black children in a Head Start program. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 21, 95–108. doi:10.1007/bf00706118. Kolbo, J. R. (1996). Risk and resilience among children exposed to family violence. Violence & Victims, 11, 113–128. http://www. springerpub.com/product/08866708#.UEVh3XmD_vk. Lanza H., & Drabick D. G. (2011). Family routine moderates the relation between child impulsivity and oppositional defiant disorder symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 83–94. doi:10. 1007/s10802-010-9447-5. Levendosky A. A., Huth-Bocks A. C., Shapiro D. L., & Semel M. A. (2003). The impact of domestic violence on the maternal-child relationship and preschool-age children’s functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 275–287. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.275. Lewis-O’Connor, A., Sharps, P. W., Humphreys, J., Gary, F. A., & Campbell, J. (2006). Children exposed to intimate partner violence. In M. M. Feerick & G. B. Silverman (Eds.), Children exposed to violence. (pp. 3 – 28). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Lieberman A. F., van Horn P., & Ozer E. J. (2005). Preschooler witnesses of marital violence: predictors and mediators of child behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 385–396. doi:10. 1017/s0954579405050182. Linares, L. O., & Morin, N. A. (2006). The impact of community violence on preschoolers’ development. In L. Balter & C. S. TamisLeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues. (pp. 545 – 563). New York: Psychology Press. Loukas A., & Prelow H. M. (2004). Externalizing and internalizing problems in low-income Latino early adolescents: risk, resource, and protective factors. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 250– 273. doi:10.1177/0272431604265675.
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314 Luthar S. S., Cicchetti D., & Becker B. (2000). The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164. Margolin G., & Gordis E. B. (2004). Children’s exposure to violence in the family and community. American Psychological Society, 13, 152–155. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00296.x. Martin S. E., & Clements M. L. (2002). Young children’s responding to interparental conflict: associations with marital aggression and child adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 231–244. doi: 10.1023/a:1015133827129. McCloskey L., & Walker M. (2000). Posttraumatic stress in children exposed to family violence and single-event trauma. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 108–115. doi:10.1097/00004583-200001000-00023. McLoyd V. C., Toyokawa T., & Kaplan R. (2008). Work demands, workfamily conflict, and child adjustment in African American families: the mediating role of family routines. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1247–1267. doi:10.1177/0192513x08320189. McNamara P., & Humphry R. (2008). Developing everyday routines. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 28, 141–154. doi: 10.1080/01942630802031826. Mendez J. L., McDermott P., & Fantuzzo J. (2002). Identifying and promoting social competence with African American preschool children: developmental and contextual considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 111–123. doi:10.1002/pits.10039. Miller L. E., Grabell A., Thomas A., Bermann E., & Graham-Bermann S. A. (2012). The associations between community violence, television violence, intimate partner violence, parent–child aggression, and aggression in sibling relationships of a sample of preschoolers. Psychology of Violence, 2, 165–178. doi:10.1037/a0027254. Mitchell S. J., Lewin A., & Joseph J. G. (2009). Exploring gender differences in the association between young African American mothers’ reports of preschoolers’ violence exposure and problem behavior. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 576–581. doi:10.1080/15374410902976346. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (2002). Children exposed to violence: Current status, gaps, and research priorities. NICHD Workshop on Children Exposed to Violence. 1-64. O’Keefe M. (1994). Adjustment of children from maritally violent homes. Families in Society, 75, 403–415. Oravecz L. M., Koblinsky S. A., & Randolph S. M. (2008). Community violence, interpartner conflict, parenting, and social support as predictors of the social competence of African American preschool children. Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 192–216. doi:10.1177/ 0095798408314142. Osofsky J. D. (2003). Prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence and child maltreatment: implications for prevention and intervention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 161–170. doi:10.1023/A:1024958332093. Overstreet S., & Braun S. (1999). A preliminary examination of the relationship between exposure to community violence and academic functioning. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 380–396. doi:10. 1037/h0089015. Ozer E. J., & Weinstein R. S. (2004). Urban adolescents’ exposure to community violence: the role of support, school safety, and social constraints in a school-based sample of boys and girls. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 463–476. doi:10. 1207/s15374424jccp3303_4. Peek-Asa C., Maxwell L., Stromquist A., Whitten P., Limbos M. A., & Merchant J. (2007). Does parental physical violence reduce children’s standard test score performance? Annuals of Epidemiology, 17, 847–853. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.06.004. Richters J. E., & Martinez P. (1990). Things I have seen and heard: An interview for young children about exposure to violence. Rockville:
313 Child and Adolescent Disorders Research Branch, National Institute of Mental Health. Rossman B. B. R., & Ho J. (2000). Posttraumatic response and children exposed to parental violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 3, 85–106. doi:10.1300/J146v03n01_07. Schwartz D., & Gorman A. H. (2003). Community violence exposure and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 163–173. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.163. Shahinfar, A., Fox, N. A., & Leavitt, L. A. (2000). Preschool children’s exposure to violence: Relation of behavior problems to parent and child reports. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 115 – 125. doi: 10.1037/h0087690 Stover C., & Berkowitz S. (2005). Assessing violence exposure and trauma symptoms in young children: a critical review of measures. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 707–717. doi:10. 1002/jts.20079. Straus M. A. (2007). Conflict tactics scales. Encyclopedia of domestic violence. New York: Routledge. Straus M. A., Hamby S. L., Boney-McCoy S., & Sugarman D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001. Sytsma S. E., Kelley M. L., & Wymer J. H. (2001). Development and initial validation of the child routines inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 241–251. doi: 10.1023/a:1012727419873. Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Taylor L., Zuckerman B., Harik V., & Groves B. (1994). Witnessing violence by young children and their mothers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15, 120–123. doi:10. 1097/00004703-199404000-00010. Taylor R. D., & Lopez E. I. (2005). Family management practice, school achievement, and problem behavior in African American adolescents: mediating processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.10.003. Thompson T., & Massat C. R. (2005). Experiences of violence, posttraumatic stress, academic achievement and behavior problems of urban African-American children. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 22, 367–393. doi:10.1007/s10560-005-0018-5. Turner H. A., Finkelhor D., & Ormrod R. (2010). Poly-victimization in a national sample of children and youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38, 323–330. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11. 012. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) (2008). 2008 HHS poverty guidelines. Federal Register, 73, 3971–3972. Walker C. (2007). School psychologists and violence prevention. NASP Communiqué, 35(5) Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/ publications/cq/mocq355commmatters.aspx. Wildenger L. K., McIntyre L., Fiese B. H., & Eckert T. L. (2008). Children’s daily routines during kindergarten transition. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 69–74. doi:10.1007/s10643008-0255-2. Williams P. (2001). Preschool routines, peer learning and participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 317–339. doi: 10.1080/00313830120096743. Wittig, M. M., Jordan, S. S., Kelley, M. L., & Nguyen, K. (2007). Development and validation of the Child Routines Questionnaire: Preschool. A poster presented at the 41st annual meeting of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, Philadelphia, PA. Ybarra G. J., Wilkens S. L., & Lieberman A. F. (2007). The influence of domestic violence on preschooler behavior and functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 33–42. doi:10. 1007/s10896-006-9054-y.
314 Yoshihama M., Clum K., Crampton A., & Gillespie B. (2002). Measuring the lifetime experience of domestic violence: application of the life history calendar method. Violence and Victims, 17, 297–317. doi:10. 1891/vivi.17.3.297.33663.
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:303–314 Zhang S., & Eamon M. (2011). Parenting practices as mediators of the effect of mothers’ community violence exposure on young children’s aggressive behavior. Families in Society, 92, 336–343. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4130.
