Social Development Substudy

Published

July 2, 2024

Update: SD Victimization Data Error

In this version of the ABCD-SD data, there is an error in some Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire item parent response data. [All JVQ child response data are correct.] In 273 item instances of JVQ parent question presentations, questions were presented out of order and the item data for these instances are incorrect in the dataset. Note that the error occurred only in select instances as noted below. The error occurred after baseline [SD Visit 1] data were collected, so these data are correct. The issue was corrected in December 2023, so data collected after that date are correct. The JVQ parents’ “gating” questions (i.e., answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’) are correct, although the order of presentation may have varied. In instances where the parents endorsed only one of the “gating” questions, the responses and related data for those follow up questions are correct. There are some erroneous parent JVC data in instances when the parent endorsed more than one “gating” question. Since there are multiple follow up questions displayed for each “gating” question, the follow up questions being presented out of order resulted in response variables being out of order in the dataset and potentially making it unclear to parents which events they were answering follow up questions about. We therefore recommend that these data [described below] be excluded from any analyses. While the values in response to the “gating” question are valid, the following “gating” questions have follow-up question variables should be excluded in the instances detailed below: socialdev_pvict_w1_l, socialdev_pvict_w2_l, socialdev_pvict_w3_l, socialdev_pvict_w4_l, socialdev_pvict_w5_l, socialdev_pvict_w6_l, socialdev_pvict_w8_l, socialdev_pvict_w9_l, socialdev_pvict_g1_l, socialdev_pvict_g2_l

Please click here to download document listing the affected PGUIDs and timepoints where the noted follow-up variables should be excluded for analysis of parental victimization data. We recommend contacting ABCD-SD with any questions about this issue or other data analysis suggestions: PI Lia Ahonen ahonenl@upmc.edu

List of Instruments

Name of Instrument	Subdomain	Table Name
Youth Instruments
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire	Parenting	`sd_y_apq`, `sd_p_apq`
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation	Emotion	`sd_y_ders`
Firearms	Firearm Storage	`sd_y_fa`
Peer Behavior	Peers	`sd_y_pb`
Personality Disposition	Temperament/Personality	`sd_y_pd`
Reported delinquency (Youth)	Delinquency	`sd_y_rd`
Victimization	Victimization	`sd_y_vict`
Parent Instruments
Visit Type	Administrative	`sd_p_vt`
Alabama Parenting Questionnaire	Parenting	`sd_p_apq`
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation	Emotion	`sd_p_ders`
Firearms	Firearm Storage	`sd_p_fa`
Perception of Neighborhood	Community	`sd_p_nbh`
Personality Disposition	Temperament/Personality	`sd_p_pd`
Reported Delinquency (Parent)	Delinquency	`sd_p_rd`
Victimization	Victimization	`sd_p_vict`

General Information

An overview of the ABCD Study® can be found at abcdstudy.org and detailed descriptions of the assessment protocols are available at ABCD Protocols. This page describes the contents of various instruments available for download. To understand the context of this information, refer to the release note Start Page.

Data for the ABCD Social Development Substudy (SD) was collected approximately annually. Participation in baseline data collection was offered to families who had completed either a 1- or 2-year ABCD follow up assessment. Each successive follow up wave was conducted in a window of 12 months ±3 months from the last SD assessment. The timing of the SD data collection in relation to ABCD visits was left up to the research staff and the participating family; sometimes SD was completed in conjunction with ABCD on the same day, and sometimes SD was completed on a separate day from the last ABCD event. Thus, SD data collection dates and waves/timepoints may or may not correspond directly to those of ABCD. The researcher should be mindful of these assessment date differences, if analyzing SD data with ABCD measures.

Below follows a brief description of each of the instruments included in this data release. For each instrument (where available) we provide suggested scales and summary scores. These suggestions are based on previous research and have not been validated for this data set specifically. Psychometric testing is ongoing and updated scales will be included with future data releases if necessary.

Within each participant’s dataset you will find instruments with similar questions asked at baseline and at follow-up visits. For example, the Child Victimization baseline instrument captured data with questions in the format At any time in your life, did anyone use force to take something away from you that you were carrying or wearing?and at 1-year follow-up, Since your last SD visit, did anyone use force to take something away from you that you were carrying or wearing?Due to the different time frame and wording of the baseline and follow-up questions, distinct variables have been used to capture these data. For example, DAIRC has added “_l” to the end of the baseline variable (socialdev_cvict_c1) to create the longitudinal variable (socialdev_cvict_c1_l).

Brislin, S. J., Clark, D. A., Clark, D. B., Durbin, C. E., Parr, A. C., Ahonen, L., Anderson-Carpenter, K. D., Heitzeg, M. M., Luna, B., Sripada, C., Zucker, R. A., & Hicks, B. M. (2023). Differential Item Functioning in Reports of Delinquent Behavior Between Black and White Youth: Evidence of Measurement Bias in Self-Reports of Arrest in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. Assessment, 10731911231164627. Find here

Instrument Descriptions

Youth Instruments

Reported delinquency (Youth)

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_y_rd

Measure Description: ABCD-SD uses a contemporary version of the Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRD) with co-offending added, and substance use, and sexual items removed to avoid duplication with the ABCD measures.

Variables: [crd_01] to [crd_48], valid values (0=never, 1=once or twice, 2=more often).

Scales: vandalism (08, 09, 10, 11, 12); theft (13 through 23); violence (24, 25, 26, 27, 29 through 33); police contact (34, 35).

ABCD Subdomain: Delinquency

Number of Variables: 354

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Modifications since initial administration: At baseline all questions were asked from a lifetime perspective. From Wave 2, all relevant items were modified to reflect the time in between the baseline assessment and the follow-up assessment.

Notes and special considerations: As mentioned in the Mental Health Release Notes, statistical analyses of the Youth 10 Item Delinquency Scale revealed evidence of significant race/culture bias in this measure and thus discontinued use/sharing of this measure. Unlike the main study, the ABCD-SD uses the full Self-Reported Delinquency Scale. We recommend conducting differential item functioning for this measure to determine whether there are race/culture biases before including it in your analyses as was done in Brislin, S. J., Choi, M., Perkins, E. R., Ahonen, L., McCoy, H., Boxer, P., … Hicks, B. M. (2023, May 24). Racial Bias in School Discipline and Police Contact: Evidence from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Social Development (ABCD-SD) Study. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7azqn.

References:

Shaw, D.S., Hyde, L. W., Brennan, L. M. (2012). Early predictors of boys’ antisocial trajectories. Development study Psychopathology, 24, 871-88.

Firearms

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_y_fa

Measure Description: Firearm access, safety, and storage is measured with items from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). YRBSS is an established measure used in national surveys. The youth are asked about carrying a firearm, and how easy or difficult it is for them to get access to, load, and fire a gun.

Variables: [pfire_1] to [pfire_3], [cfire_1] valid values (0=no, 1=yes) missing values (98=don’t know, 99=I’d rather not say); [cfire_2] age in years; [cfire_3] (1=1 day, 2=2 or 3 days, 2=4 or 5 days, 3=6 days or more); [cfire_4] valid (1=very hard, 2=sort of hard, 3=sort of easy, 4=very easy) missing (98=don’t know).

ABCD Subdomain: Firearm Storage

Number of Variables: 7

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Modifications since initial administration: At baseline all question were asked from a lifetime perspective. From Wave 2, all relevant items were modified to reflect the time in between the baseline assessment and the follow-up assessment.

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W.A., Shanklin, S.L., Flint, K.H., et al. (2016). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 2015. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summary, 65, 1-174.

Xu, .F., Mawokomatanda, T., Flegel, D., et al. (2014). Surveillance for certain health behaviors among states and selected local areas--Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 163(9), 1-149.

Victimization

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_y_vict

Measure Description: Victimization is measured using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ). The ABCD-SD version includes the following sub scales: Conventional crime, Peer and sibling victimization, Peer aggression (including social aggression), Witnessing (exposure) and indirect victimization, Gun violence (including exposure), School violence and threat, and Internet victimization. The JVQ includes detailed follow-up questions to determine the circumstances and the context where any victimization occurred.

Variables: valid values (0=no, 1=yes) missing values (98=don’t know, 99=I’d rather not say, 999=not applicable).

Scales: conventional crime (c1 through c9); peer physical (p1, p2, p3, p4, p6); peer social (p5, p7, p8); witnessing indirect (w1 through w6, w8, w9); gun (g1, g2); school threats (sc1, sc2); internet (int1, int2).

There are additional variables for details on these endorsements.

ABCD Subdomain: Victimization

Number of Variables: 1646

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, K., Turner, H.A., & Hambly, S.L. (2005). Measuring poly-victimization using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 1297-1312.

Personality Disposition

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_y_pd

Measure Description: Personality disposition includes measures of psychopathy, fearlessness, prosociality, and aggression.

Psychopathy is measured using the Youth Psychopathy Inventory (YPI). YPI measures a key personality construct strongly associated with antisocial behavior and criminality, including interpersonal, affective, and behavioral domains. The YPI has demonstrated excellent validity in children and adolescents and in community and clinical samples. YPI has three main factors and generates ten subscales.

Variables: [cpd_001 through cpd_050] valid values (0=does not apply at all, 1=does not apply well, 2=applies fairly well, 3=applies very well) INVERSE RECODE callousness items (cdp_023, cpd_035, cpd_049) for scoring.

Scales: thrill seeking (1, 4, 22, 29, 42); impulsiveness (3, 9, 18, 26, 32); irresponsibility (5, 13, 16, 34, 40); unemotionality (2, 25, 36, 39, 45); remorselessness (8, 21, 28, 44, 48); callousness (12, 17, 23, 35, 49); dishonest charm (6, 14, 27, 33, 38); lying (7, 24, 43, 47, 50); grandiosity (10, 19, 30, 37, 41); manipulation (11, 15, 20, 31, 46).

Dimensions: impulsive irresponsible (thrill seeking, impulsiveness, irresponsibility); callous unemotional (unemotionality, remorselessness, callousness); grandiose manipulative (dishonest charm, lying, grandiosity, manipulation).

Fearlessness is measured using the Trait Fear Questionnaire (TFQ-20). Fear-proneness is an inhibitory propensity that restricts antisocial behavior through sensitivity to punishment and conscience development. Low fear proneness (fearlessness) has been implicated in psychopathy, antisocial behavior, and substance use. Trait fear has been studied extensively in children as behavioral inhibition and psychometric studies of fear proneness in adults converge on a very similar set of phenotypic expressions suggesting strong developmental continuity. Fear is also strongly associated with amygdala activation, providing a neural target to link brain and behavioral measures. The domains of fear that are consistently identified in children and adults are: experiential fear or general distress (e.g., having a lot of fear, being easily frightened), social fears (e.g., shyness, discomfort with strangers, dislike of crowds), physical caution fears (dislike of potentially dangerous activities), and tolerance for uncertainty (exploratory behavior and novelty in uncertain situations).

Variables: [cpd_078 through cpd_097] valid values (0=false, 1=somewhat false, 2=somewhat true, 3=true) INVERSE RECODE items (cdp_078, cpd_079, cpd_084, cpd_085, cpd_086, cpd_089, cpd_096, cpd_097) for scoring.

Prosociality is measured using items from the Prosociality scale of the Child and Adolescent Disposition scale (CADS) and the Inventory of Callous Unemotional Traits (ICU). Prosociality describes attributes such as empathy and altruism that parents and society typically value and try to foster in children. Prosociality is thought to reflect internal control systems that facilitate harmonious relationships, compliant behavior, and good social adjustment.

Variables: [cpd_051] through [cpd_077] child, [ppd_01] through [ppd_27] parent, valid values (0=not at all true, 1=somewhat true, 2=very true, 3=definitely true) REVERSE CODE icu items (cpd_062, 64, 65, 66, 73, 74, 75, ppd_11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 26). Special note: if you are attempting to match parent and child items, these are mostly, but NOT EXACTLY in the same order. The orders listed in the scales below do match, however.

Scales: pro-sociality [CADS] (cpd_051, 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 69, 71, 72) for child, (ppd_01, 02, 03, 04, 08, 09, 10, 12, 18, 22, 20, 21) for parent; callous unemotional [ICU] (cpd_055, 56, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77) for child, (ppd_17, 06, 07, 05, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 25, 27) for parent.

Aggression is measured by the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPAQ). Distinguishing proactive and reactive aggression dimensions is important for understanding neurobiological foundations.

Variables: [cpd_099] through [cpd_121] child, [ppd_29] through [ppd_51] parent, valid values (0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often) Special note: if you are attempting to match parent and child items, these are all in the same order.

Scales: proactive aggression (cpd_099 through cpd_110) for child, (ppd_29 through ppd_40) for parent; reactive aggression (cpd_111 through cpd_121) for child, (ppd_41 through ppd_51) for parent.

ABCD Subdomain: Temperament/Personality

Number of Variables: 240

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: Initial test of a new assessment tool. In E. Blaauw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current international perspectives (pp.131-158). The Hague, the Netherlands:Elsevier.

Kramer, M. D., Patrick, C. J., Kreuger, R. F., & Gasperi, M. (2011). Delineating physiologic defensive reactivity in the domain of self-report: phenotypic and etiologic structure of dispositional fear. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1305-1320.

Lahey, B.B., Rathouz, P.J., Applegate, B., Tackett, J.L., & Waldman I.D. (2010). Psychometrics of a self-report version of the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 351-361.

Kimonis, E.R., Frick, P.J., Munoz, L.C., & Aucoin K.J. (2008). Callous-unemotional traits and the emotional processing of distress cues in detained boys: testing the moderating role of aggression, exposure to community violence, and histories of abuse. Developmental Psychopathology, 20, 569-589.

Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., Liu, J. (2006). The Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential Correlates of Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Adolescent Boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(2), 159–171.

Peer Behavior

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_y_pb

Measure Description: The Peer Delinquent Behavior items from the Rochester Youth Study will provide the basis for the examination of the influence of variations in peer characteristics on early adolescence in relation to the development of delinquency and victimization.

Variables: [cpb_01 through cpb_17] valid values (0=none, 1=a few, 2=most, 3=all) INVERSE RECODE items (cpb_01, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16) for scoring.

ABCD Subdomain: Peers

Number of Variables: 34

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn. M.D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1994). Delinquent Peers, Beliefs, and Delinquent Behavior: A Longitudinal Test of Interactional Theory. Criminology, 32(1), 47–83.

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_y_ders

Measure Description: Emotion regulation is related to juvenile arrest, aggression, and conduct problems. Emotional awareness and insight advance during early adolescence and are measurable in this developmental period (Vasilev et al., 2009). The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) has good psychometric properties and has been tested in children as young as 11 years old. The DERS consists of 6 subscales: Lack of emotional awareness, Lack of emotional clarity, Difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed, Difficulties in goal-directed behaviors when distressed, Non-acceptance of negative emotional responses, and Limited access to ER strategies.

Variables: [cders_01] through [cders_36] and [pders_01] through [pders_36] valid values (0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=about half the time, 3=most of the time, 4=almost always) INVERSE RECODE items (01, 02, 06, 07, 08, 10, 17, 20, 22, 24, 34) for scoring.

Scales: lack of emotional clarity (1, 4, 5, 7, 9); lack of emotional awareness (2, 6, 8, 10, 17, 34); impulse control difficulties (3, 14, 19, 24, 27, 32); non-acceptance of emotional response (11, 12, 21, 23, 25, 29); difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior (13, 18, 20, 26, 33); limited access to emotion regulating strategies (15, 16, 22, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36).

ABCD Subdomain: Emotion

Number of Variables: 72

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41-54.

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_y_apq

Measure Description: Parenting strategies are measured by the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ). APQ assesses five constructs: Positive involvement with children, Supervision and monitoring, Use of positive discipline techniques, Consistency in the use of such discipline, and Use of corporal punishment. Parenting practices have been consistently associated with behavioral outcomes, including delinquency.

Variables: [capq_01] through [capq_42] and [papq_01] through [papq_42] valid values (0=never, 1=almost never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=always) Additionally, child items (1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 20, and 26) are followed by a “how about your [other caregiver]?” supplemental question when the child has two caregivers.

Scales: parental involvement (1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 20, 23, 26); positive parenting (2, 5, 13, 16, 18, 27); poor monitoring/supervision (6, 10, 17, 19, 21, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32); inconsistent discipline (3, 8, 12, 22, 25, 31); corporal punishment (33, 35, 38); items not in any scale (34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42).

ABCD Subdomain: Parenting

Number of Variables: 112

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Elgar, F. J., Waschbusch, D. A., Dadds, M. R., Sigvaldason, N. (2007). Development and validation of a short form of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. J Child Fam Stud, 16, 243-259.

Parent Instruments

Visit Type

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_p_vt

Measure Description: The visit type table includes information about the date of assessment, and whether the visit is completed in person or remotely. In addition, it shows if the visit was completed on the same day as any ABCD visit, or separately. Can’t schedule = Scheduled but doesn’t show up until out of the assessment window. Declined = Can’t or won’t come this year, but does not withdraw from the SD study. Opted out = Still in ABCD but formally withdraws from the SD study. Ineligible = Withdraws from the main ABCD study, and can no longer participate in the SD study even if they wish to do so.

ABCD Subdomain: Administrative

Number of Variables: 17

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Modifications since initial administration: None

Notes and special considerations: None

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_p_apq

ABCD Subdomain: Parenting

Number of Variables: 84

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Elgar, F. J., Waschbusch, D. A., Dadds, M. R., Sigvaldason, N. (2007). Development and validation of a short form of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. J Child Fam Stud, 16, 243-259.

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_p_ders

ABCD Subdomain: Emotion

Number of Variables: 72

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Firearms

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_p_fa

Measure Description: Firearm access, safety, and storage is measured with items from the Behavioral Risk Behavior Surveillance System (BRFSS). BRFSS is an established measure used in national surveys. The caregiver is asked whether there are firearms in the household, and how they are stored and secured.

ABCD Subdomain: Firearm Storage

Number of Variables: 6

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Perception of Neighborhood

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_p_nbh

Measure Description: Caregiver report on the Collective Efficacy- Social Conscious scale and Perception of Neighborhood Disorder scale about their neighborhood. Neighborhood influences and perceptions have been found to be related to adolescent delinquency. The constructs measured include perceptions of safety, police resources, social cohesion, and cleanliness of the neighborhood. Informant: Caregiver.

Variables: [pneigh_01] through [pneigh_25] valid values (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree) INVERSE RECODE items (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25) for scoring.

Scales: lack of efficacy (1 through 10); disorder (11 through 25).

ABCD Subdomain: Community

Number of Variables: 50

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.

Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1999). Disorder and decay: The concept and measurement of perceived neighborhood disorder. Urban Affairs Review, 34(3), 412-432.

Personality Disposition

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_p_pd

Measure Description: Personality disposition includes measures of prosociality and aggression.

Prosociality is measured using items from the Prosociality scale of the Child and Adolescent Disposition scale (CADS) and the Inventory of Callous Unemotional Traits (ICU). Prosociality describes attributes such as empathy and altruism that parents and society typically value and try to foster in children. Prosociality is thought to reflect internal control systems that facilitate harmonious relationships, compliant behavior, and good social adjustment.

Aggression is measured by the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPAQ). Distinguishing proactive and reactive aggression dimensions is important for understanding neurobiological foundations.

Scales: proactive aggression (cpd_099 through cpd_110) for child, (ppd_29 through ppd_40) for parent; reactive aggression (cpd_111 through cpd_121) for child, (ppd_41 through ppd_51) for parent.

ABCD Subdomain: Temperament/Personality

Number of Variables: 100

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Reported Delinquency (Parent)

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_p_rd

Variables: [crd_01] to [crd_48], valid values (0=never, 1=once or twice, 2=more often).

Scales: vandalism (08, 09, 10, 11, 12); theft (13 through 23); violence (24, 25, 26, 27, 29 through 33); police contact (34, 35).

ABCD Subdomain: Delinquency

Number of Variables: 200

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

References:

Shaw, D.S., Hyde, L. W., Brennan, L. M. (2012). Early predictors of boys’ antisocial trajectories. Development study Psychopathology, 24, 871-88.

Victimization

Release 5.0 Data Table: sd_p_vict

There are additional variables for details on these endorsements.

ABCD Subdomain: Victimization

Number of Variables: 1649

Summary Score(s): No

Measurement Waves Administered: All measures were administered in all waves so far

Notes and special considerations: None

References:

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, K., Turner, H.A., & Hambly, S.L. (2005). Measuring poly-victimization using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 1297-1312