| Title |
The Impact of Collective Efficacy on Risks for Adolescents’ Perpetration of Dating Violence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10964-013-9909-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa P. Schnurr, Brenda J. Lohman |
| Abstract |
Given prevalence rates and negative consequences that adolescents' perpetration of dating violence may have on an individual's well-being and future relationships, it is imperative to explore factors that may increase or reduce its occurrence. Thus, we aimed to identify how multiple contextual risk factors (individual, family, schools, and neighborhoods) were related to adolescents' perpetration of dating violence over a 6 year period. Then, we assessed how neighborhood collective efficacy, an important predictor of urban youths' well-being, buffered the relationship between each of the risk factors and adolescents' perpetration of dating violence. Three waves of data from the Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study were used (N = 765; Ages 16-20 at Wave 3). The sample is 53 % female, 42 % African-American, and 53 % Hispanic. For the total sample, drug and alcohol use, low parental monitoring, academic difficulties, and involvement with antisocial peers were significant early risk factors for perpetration of dating violence in late adolescence. Risk factors also varied by adolescents' race and sex. Finally, perceived neighborhood collective efficacy buffered the relationship between early academic difficulties and later perpetration of dating violence for Hispanic males. These results imply that multiple systems should be addressed in dating violence prevention programs. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 207 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 9% |
| Researcher | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 13% |
| Unknown | 52 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 58 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 46 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Unknown | 66 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2013.
All research outputs
#3,505,282
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#418
of 1,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,902
of 288,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#17
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.