ABSTRACT
This study sought to explore potential mechanisms through which uncontrollable, chronic stressors may lead to hopelessness in low-income, urban adolescents. In particular, the roles of specific coping strategies as moderators and/or mediators of the association between stressors and hopelessness were examined. Results suggest that chronic, uncontrollable stressors were significantly and positively related to hopelessness in this sample. Active coping, distraction coping, and social-support-seeking coping emerged as moderators for males, such that uncontrollable stressors were more highly associated with hopelessness for those boys who reported using more active, distraction, and social-support-seeking coping strategies. An analogous moderating effect was found for ruminative coping for girls. Ruminative coping also emerged as a mediator of the relation between uncontrollable stressors and hopelessness for girls.
Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Motivation , Stress, Psychological/complications , Urban Population , Adolescent , Child , Cultural Diversity , Defense Mechanisms , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Internal-External Control , Male , Personality Inventory , Poverty/psychology , Problem Solving , Risk Factors , Sex Factors , Social Environment , Social SupportABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore whether socioeconomic status (SES) variables moderate treatment response of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to medication management (MedMgt), behavioral treatment (Beh), combined intervention (Comb), and routine community care (CC). METHOD: The MTA Cooperative Group's intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses were repeated, covarying for composite Hollingshead SES, education, occupation, income, and marital status. RESULTS: Individual SES variables were more informative than the composite Hollingshead Index. Treatment response of children from less educated households paralleled ITT outcomes: no significant difference was found between Comb and MedMgt (both better than Beh and CC) for core ADHD symptoms. However, children from more educated families showed superior reduction of ADHD symptoms with Comb. For oppositional-aggressive symptoms, children from blue-collar, lower SES households benefited most from Comb, whereas those from white-collar, higher SES homes generally showed no differential treatment response. Household income and marital status failed to influence outcomes. Controlling for treatment attendance attenuated the moderating effects of the SES variables only for MedMgt. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators are encouraged to use independent SES variables for maximal explanation of SES effects. Clinicians should prioritize target symptoms and consider the mediating role of treatment adherence when determining an ADHD patient's optimal intervention plan.
