Search

AbstractComplex contexts of adversity such as family poverty and homelessness have been linked to multiple adverse, yet heterogenous risk profiles. Traditionally, high-risk environments have been examined through the framework of cumulative risk, which has been useful in exploring associations between risk factors and child and family outcomes. Methodologically, however, this approach lacks sensitivity to disentangle nuanced relationships between proximal experiences of various aspects of adversity and distal developmental and functional outcomes. These limitations underscore insufficiencies in currently existing typologies and risk assessment tools, translating to practical barriers to serving these underprivileged communities. The current dissertation seeks to explore alternative theoretical frameworks concerned with dimensional conceptualization of adversity. More specifically, Studies I and II draw on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCW) longitudinal data to test empirically a) the feasibility of dimensional decomposition of high-risk contexts of adversity; b) the effects of early life dimensional adversity on subsequent child development; and c) comparison of the ecological fit and predictive performance of cumulative risk and dimensional adversity models. Study I presents a case for integration of the two well-established dimensional frameworks into a three-dimensional parsimonious model of threat, deprivation, and unpredictability, modeled on the total sample of FFCW (N = 3253). Study I findings were consistent with theory, as children exposed to threat at three years of age showed more aggressive behaviors at age five; whereas exposure to deprivation at age three related to physical health problems and cognitive deficits at age five, and exposure to unpredictability at age three predicted risky behaviors and sexual risk-taking at age 15. Study II expands on Study I by applying the three-dimensional framework to a subset of FFCW multigenerational and doubled-up families (N = 2422), based on the literature review, which identified this precariously housed population as the most heterogenous subgroup in terms of child and family outcomes and participation in services. Furthermore, dimensional modeling of adversity based on indicators of precarious housing was compared to the cumulative risk modeling, with the focus on the ecological fit and predictive performance the competing models. Results indicated that the three-dimensional model yielded a considerably better fit to the data than did the cumulative-risk model. In terms of developmental predictions, the two competing models showed similar effects magnitude and directionality, whereas dimensional approach also showed promise in terms of predictive specificity. In line with Study I findings, Study II demonstrated robust associations between early exposure to threat and prospective aggressive behavior; early experiences of deprivation and unpredictability and downstream cognitive deficits, and to some degree, a link between exposure to unpredictability in early childhood and risky behavior and sexual risk-taking in adolescence. Taken together, these findings lend credibility to the utility of the three-dimensional integrative framework of adversity in application to complex developmental contexts, such as family poverty and precarious housing, with implications relevant to the field of developmental science and public health.