NLSY79 Child and Young Adult

• PIAT Reading Recognition
• PIAT Reading Comprehension

PIAT Reading Recognition

The Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) Reading Recognition subtest, one of five in the PIAT series, measures word recognition and pronunciation ability, essential components of reading achievement. Children read a word silently, then say it aloud. PIAT Reading Recognition contains 84 items, each with four options, which increase in difficulty from preschool to high school levels. Skills assessed include matching letters, naming names, and reading single words aloud. To quote directly from the PIAT manual, the rationale for the reading recognition subtest is as follows:

"In a technical sense, after the first 18 readiness-type items, the general objective of the reading recognition subtest is to measure skills in translating sequences of printed alphabetic symbols which form words, into speech sounds that can be understood by others as words. This subtest might also be viewed as an oral reading test. While it is recognized that reading aloud is only one aspect of general reading ability, it is a skill useful throughout life in a wide range of everyday situations in or out of school" (Dunn and Markwardt 1970: 19-20). The authors also recognize that "performance on the reading recognition subtest becomes increasingly confounded with the acculturation factors as one moves beyond the early grades."

This assessment was administered, in the Child Supplement (available on the Questionnaires page), to children below young adult age who were five and over.  The scoring decisions and procedures were identical to those described for the PIAT Mathematics assessment. The last survey round to include the PIAT Reading Recognition Assessment was 2014.

Description of PIAT Reading Recognition

A description of the administration process and a list of the words uttered by the interviewer are included in the public user version of the Child Supplement. The only difference in the implementation procedures between the PIAT Mathematics and PIAT Reading Recognition assessments was that the entry point into the Reading Recognition assessment was based on the child's score in the Mathematics assessment, although entering at the correct point is not essential to the scoring.

Through 2008, Child respondents who terminated the PIAT Math prematurely began the PIAT Reading Recognition assessment with the same starting point question as PIAT Math, based on the respondent's grade in school. Beginning in 2010, children who terminated the PIAT Math assessment prematurely began PIAT Reading Recognition at question 19, regardless of grade in school. Children who terminated PIAT Reading Recognition early started the PIAT-Reading Comprehension assessment at question 19 as well.

Scoring the PIAT Reading Recognition

The scoring decisions and procedures were identical to those described for the PIAT Mathematics assessment. 

Norms for PIAT Reading Recognition

The norming sample has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15; these were normed against standards based on a national sample of children in the United States in 1968. As with PIAT Mathematics, it is important to note that the norming sample for Reading Recognition was selected, and the norming carried out, in the late 1960s. This has implications for interpreting the standardized scores of the children in the NLSY79 sample (see also the discussion in the section of the NLSY79 Child/YA User's Guide on the PIAT Mathematics assessment. 

Scoring changes for PIAT Reading

Changes were introduced beginning with the 1990 PIAT norming scheme to improve the utility of these measures and to simplify their use. First, children between the ages of 60 and 62 months (for whom no normed percentile scores had been available in 1986 or 1988) were normed using percentile scores designed for children enrolled in the first third of the kindergarten year, the closest approximation available to ages 60 to 62 months.

Starting in 1994, children with raw scores translating to percentiles below the established minimum were assigned percentile scores of one; children with raw scores translating to percentile scores above the maximum are assigned percentile scores of 99. In prior years, the "out-of-range" children had been arbitrarily assigned scores of 0, which led to some inadvertent misuse of the data. (Through 1994, children more than 217 months of age were assigned normed scores of -4 since they were beyond the maximum ages for which national normed scores are available.)

Completion rates for PIAT Reading Recognition

Table 6 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section contains the completion rate for PIAT Reading Recognition in 2014, the most recent survey round to include the PIAT Reading Recognition assessment.

Most children with invalid Reading Recognition scores (assigned a value of -3) either did not enter the assessment or prematurely terminated the assessment. In some instances, a careful review of the individual responses in conjunction with an examination of the interviewer's actual scoring calculations permitted clarification, and ultimately scoring, of previously invalid cases. This type of data review and rescoring was more prevalent during the years prior to 1994 when the assessments were administered on paper without the benefit of CAPI scoring.

It is important to note, however, that while interviewers were able to record the actual response to each PIAT Math item, the nature of the PIAT Reading Recognition made this infeasible for each individual item. In contrast with the PIAT Mathematics assessment, it was not possible to rectify inadvertent skips for some children on the PIAT Reading Recognition assessment where the "correct-noncorrect" check item inadvertently was left blank. This is one reason why the overall response rate is slightly lower on the PIAT Reading Recognition assessment than the PIAT Math assessment in years prior to 1994. Researchers who plan to use the PIAT Reading Recognition assessment extensively are encouraged to examine the individual response patterns. Where a particular researcher does not require great precision on this particular outcome (e.g., a categorization of scores into a number of discrete categories being sufficient), it is possible to reduce the non-completion rate. In a number of cases, while an exact score may not be determined, an appropriate score determination (e.g., within two or three points, or a score of at least a certain level) may be possible.

Validity and reliability for PIAT Reading Recognition

As is true for the PIAT mathematics assessment, the recognition assessment is considered quite reliable and valid. The NLSY Child Handbook: 1986-1990 includes a comprehensive discussion of these issues, drawing on material from the PIAT Manual as well as a variety of research that has been completed using the NLSY79 Child PIAT reading data. This discussion also includes internal CHRR evaluation of the cross-year correlations with other NLSY79 PIAT scores and the full spectrum of other cognitive assessments. Analyses presented in The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation offer evidence of strong longitudinal independent associations between PIAT reading and a full set of demographic and socio-economic priors. In general, this assessment, like the other Peabody assessments, is widely used and has a well-established record in research. These documents are available on the Research/Technical Reports page.

PIAT Reading Recognition scores in the database

Three scores are reported for the PIAT Reading Recognition assessment in the child data file for each survey round from 1986 through 2014:

• an overall nonnormed raw score
• two normed scores: a percentile score and a standard score

Question names for the PIAT Reading Recognition scores for 2014, the most recent round to include the PIAT Reading Recognition assessment, appear in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.

PIAT Reading Comprehension

The Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) Reading Comprehension subtest measures a child's ability to derive meaning from sentences that are read silently. For each of 66 items of increasing difficulty, the child silently reads a sentence once and then selects one of four pictures that best portrays the meaning of the sentence.

"While understanding the meaning of individual words is important, comprehending passages is more representative of practical reading ability since the context factor is built in, which plays an important role, not only in deciphering the intended meaning of specific words, but of the total passage. Therefore, the format selected for the reading subtest is one of a series of sentences of increasing difficulty. The 66 items in Reading Comprehension are number 19 through 84, with item 19 corresponding in difficulty with item 19 in Reading Recognition." (Dunn and Markwardt, 1970, pp. 21-22). The last survey round to include the PIAT Reading Comprehension assessment was 2014.

Administration of PIAT Reading Comprehension

Children who scored less than 19 on Reading Recognition were assigned their Reading Recognition score as their Reading Comprehension score. If they scored at least 19 on the Reading Recognition assessment, their Reading Recognition score determined the entry point to Reading Comprehension. Entering at the correct location is, however, not essential to the scoring.  

Scoring the PIAT Reading Comprehension

Basals and ceilings on PIAT Reading Comprehension and an overall nonnormed raw score were determined in a manner identical to the other PIAT procedures.  The only difference is that children for whom a basal could not be computed (but who otherwise completed the comprehension assessment) were automatically assigned a basal of 19. Administration instructions can be found in the assessment section of the Child Supplement.

Age eligibility for PIAT Reading Comprehension

In 1994 through 2014, the PIAT Reading Comprehension assessment was administered to all children below young adult age whose age was five years and over and who scored at least 19 on the Reading Recognition assessment. (From 1986 through 1992, PIAT Reading Comprehension was actually administered to all children who scored 15 or higher on Reading Recognition. This lowered threshold was used to maximize our ability to score the Reading Comprehension assessment for those cases where interviewers made minor addition errors in totaling the Reading Recognition test, computing actual scores of 19 or more as only being 15 through 18.)

Norms for PIAT Reading Comprehension

As with the other PIAT tests, norming was accomplished in the late 1960s with all of its attendant potential analytical problems. These are noted in more detail in the discussion above about the PIAT Mathematics subtest. For a precise statement of the scoring decisions and the norm derivations, the user should consult Dunn and Dunn (1981) and Dunn and Markwardt (1970).

Scoring Changes for PIAT Reading Comprehension

Changes were introduced beginning with the 1990 PIAT norming scheme to improve the utility of these measures and to simplify their use. First, children between the ages of 60 and 62 months (for whom no normed percentile scores had been available previously) were normed using percentile scores designed for children enrolled in the first third of the kindergarten year, the closest approximation available to ages 60 to 62 months.

As of the 1994 round, children with raw scores translating to percentiles below the established minimum were assigned percentile scores of one; children with raw scores translating to percentile scores above the maximum are assigned percentile scores of 99. In prior years, the "out-of-range" children had been assigned scores of 0, which led to some inadvertent misuse of the data. (Prior to 1994, children more than 217 months of age are assigned normed scores of -4 since they are beyond the maximum ages for which normed scores are available.)

Completion Rates for PIAT Reading Comprehension

Table 6 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section contains the completion rate for PIAT Reading Recognition in 2014, the most recent survey round to include the PIAT Reading Comprehension assessment.

Reading Comprehension completion rates have typically been lower than many of the other assessments. In the earlier (particularly non-CAPI) survey period, several reasons may account for lower comprehension completion rates (as low as 86% in 1992). In some instances, the assessment was simply skipped over with no reason given. In other instances, a valid Reading Recognition score was available, but the interviewer neglected to assess the child on Reading Comprehension. More typically, the Reading Comprehension assessment was attempted, but the interviewer did not attempt a sufficient number of items to attain a basal or ceiling. An apparently common problem was where an interviewer entered Reading Comprehension at a fairly low level, apparently tested a child, but did not record all of the responses. As with all of the assessments, the researcher is encouraged to examine the scoring patterns for the invalid responses. Depending on one's research objectives, some flexibility in rescoring may be possible.

Validity and Reliability for PIAT Reading Comprehension 

As with the other PIAT assessments, Reading Comprehension is generally considered to be a highly reliable and valid assessment that has been extensively used for research purposes. This version was normed in the late 1960s and thus is subject to the same analytical constraints as the other PIAT assessments.

Readers interested in additional detail regarding specific research based on this NLSY79 assessment, should examine the PIAT discussion in the NLSY Child Handbook: 1986-1990 and review the most recent articles based on the NLSY79 Child reading assessment data by accessing the NLS online bibliography.  Additional information documenting the association between PIAT Comprehension and a full range of socio-economic and demographic maternal and family antecedents can be found in The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation. Distributions of the PIAT Reading Comprehension scores are summarized in the Table series 9 in the Selected Assessment Tables reports (Table series 8 in 2004). All of these documents are available on the Research/Technical Reports page.

PIAT Reading Comprehension Scores in the Database

The NLSY79 Child dataset provides the following PIAT Reading Comprehension scores in each survey round from 1986 through 2014: an overall nonnormed raw score that can range from 0 to 84, a normed percentile score, and a normed standard score. Question names for the PIAT reading comprehension scores for 2014, the most recent round to include PIAT Reading Comprehension, are listed in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section. It should be noted that many younger children (aged seven years and below) who receive low raw scores cannot be given normed scores because their scores are out of the range of the national PIAT sample used in the norming procedure. These children have been assigned "-4" codes on the percentile and standard score variables. Researchers wishing to keep these children in their analyses will need to consider special decision rules. The way to identify these children is to cross-classify children by their raw score and standard score. These cases will have a raw score of zero or greater but a standard and percentile score of -4.

If one is using the PIAT Reading Comprehension assessment for analyzing five- and six-year-olds, the proportion of children without a standard score is a major constraint that cannot be ignored. A large proportion of five- and six-years-olds with a valid raw score on Reading Comprehension could not be given a normed score. All of these children had raw scores below 19 and thus, had their Reading Recognition score imputed as the Comprehension score; one solution for the youngest children (those with ages under 7) is to limit analyses to Reading Recognition. Another possible strategy is to use the raw score and to include an age control in one's equations.

By applying procedures parallel to those used with PIAT Mathematics, it was sometimes possible to clarify the score of a previously "unscorable" child by carefully examining the individual response patterns, particularly where the actual response for the "correct-incorrect" item had not been completed. This was more relevant in the 1986 to 1992 "pre-CAPI" administration survey rounds. In this way, we were able to retrieve a number of cases not previously scorable.  Depending on a researcher's individual inclination or need for precision, it may be possible to score, in an approximate manner, a number of additional children.  In order to accomplish this, the researcher will need to examine the individual PIAT comprehension items. Researchers who plan to use this outcome extensively are encouraged to examine the individual item responses.

The Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) is a wide-range measure of academic achievement for children aged five and over. It is among the most widely used brief assessment of academic achievement with high test-retest reliability and concurrent validity. The NLSY79 Child Supplement includes three subtests from the full PIAT battery: the Mathematics, Reading Recognition, and Reading Comprehension assessments. Many of the comments made here about the PIAT math subtest are equally appropriate for the other PIAT (as well as PPVT) assessments. The last survey round to include the PIAT Mathematics was 2014.

Description of the PIAT Math

The PIAT Mathematics assessment protocol used in the field is described in the documentation for the Child Supplement (available on the Questionnaires page). This subscale measures a child's attainment in mathematics as taught in mainstream education. It consists of 84 multiple-choice items of increasing difficulty. It begins with such early skills as recognizing numerals and progresses to measuring advanced concepts in geometry and trigonometry. The child looks at each problem on an easel page and then chooses an answer by pointing to or naming one of four answer options.

Administration of the PIAT Math

Administration of this assessment was relatively straightforward. Children entered the assessment at an age-appropriate item (although this is not essential to the scoring) and established a "basal" by attaining five consecutive correct responses. If no basal was achieved then a basal of "1" was assigned (see PPVT). In 1986 and from 1996 to 2014, a "ceiling" was reached when five of seven items are answered incorrectly. From 1988 to 1994, a "ceiling" was reached when five items in a row were incorrectly answered. The non-normalized raw score is equivalent to the ceiling item minus the number of incorrect responses between the basal and the ceiling scores.

Age eligibility for the PIAT Math

The PIAT Mathematics assessment was administered to all children below young adult age whose age was five years and above in every survey round from 1986 to 2014.  

Norms for the PIAT Math

For a precise statement of the norm derivations, the user should consult the PIAT Manual (Dunn and Markwardt, 1970, pp. 81-91, 95). In interpreting the normed scores, the researcher should note that the PIAT assessments used in the NLSY79 Child were normed about 30 years ago. Social changes affecting the mathematics and reading knowledge of small children in recent years undoubtedly have altered the mean and dispersion of the reading distribution over this time period. In this regard, a revised version of the PIAT ("PIAT-R") was released in 1986, but this release occurred too late to incorporate as a 1986 child assessment. We opted to maintain internal continuity within the NLSY79 by continuing to use the 1968 version of the PIAT.

Normalized percentile and standard scores were derived on an age-specific basis from the child's raw score. The norming sample has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The norming procedures essentially were a two-step process with the percentile scores being derived from the raw scores and the standard scores from the percentile scores. The question names for the raw and normed PIAT Math scores for 2014 (the last round the PIAT Math was administered) are listed in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.

The overall (weighted) standard score means for NLSY79 children completing the PIAT Mathematics have been higher compared to what one might expect from a full national cross-section. It is likely that this pattern at least partly reflects changes that have occurred in American society over the last 30 years. For example, it is very possible that factors such as child educational television viewing patterns or involvement in pre-school programs have improved younger children's readiness for mathematics and reading, if not their advanced capability.

Changes in PIAT norming scheme

Beginning with 1990, changes were introduced into the PIAT norming scheme to improve the utility of these measures and to simplify their use. First, children between the ages of 60 and 62 months (for whom no normed percentile scores had been available previously) were normed using percentile scores designed for children enrolled in the first third of the kindergarten year, the closest approximation available to ages 60 to 62 months.

Starting in 1994, children with raw scores translating to percentiles that were below the established minimum were assigned percentile scores of "1"; children with raw scores translating to percentile scores above the maximum were assigned percentile scores of 99. In prior years, the "out-of-range" children had been assigned arbitrarily scores of 0, which led to some inadvertent misuse of the data. (Prior to the 1994 period, children who were more than 217 months of age were assigned normed scores of -4, since they were beyond the maximum ages for which nationals normed scores are available.)

Completion rates for the PIAT Math

Between 1986 and 1992 when the survey was administered by paper and pencil, most invalidly skipped items in the PIATs fell into two categories. First, some children were inadvertently skipped over even though they were of an appropriate age. Second, a number of children could not be scored because the scoring decision rules were incorrectly followed so either a basal or ceiling could not be obtained. The introduction of computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) technology in the 1994 child data collection prevented incorrect skips from occurring and also took the decision making regarding basal and ceiling procedures out of the hands of the interviewer. In the pre-CAPI survey years (1986-1992), when the child assessments were administered on paper, some cases had items with the "correct-incorrect" designation left blank by the interviewer. Since the actual responses to each item were recorded, scoring of these items was frequently possible.

Table 6 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section contains the completion rate for the PIAT Math in 2014, the last survey round to include the PIAT Math.

Validity and reliability for the PIAT Math

In general, the PIAT Math is a highly reliable and valid assessment.  As detailed in the NLSY Child Handbook: 1986-1990 and The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation, both available on the Research/Technical Reports page, the PIAT Math is correlated closely with a variety of other cognitive measures.  It is both predicted by and predicts scores on a variety of the other NLSY Child assessments. A particularly strong analytical advantage derived from all of the PIAT assessments is the fact that they have now been asked repeatedly of children aged five and over. Many children in the sample completed these assessments more than three times and most of the children in the Young Adult sample have multiple PIAT administrations in their NLSY79 history (see Tables 7-8 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section). This pattern of repeat assessment permits the careful examination of their developmental profiles in relation to school and early-career development. A more detailed discussion of repeat assessment can be found under Repeat Assessments in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.

PIAT Math scores in the database

Three types of scores are provided in each survey year from 1986 through 2014 for each assessed, age-eligible child: a raw score, a standard score, and a percentile score. Documentation for the PIAT Math scores for 2014, the most recent round to include the PIAT Math, is included in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.

The Memory for Digit Span assessment, a component of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-Revised (WISC-R), is a measure of short-term memory for children aged seven and over (Wechsler 1974). The WISC-R is one of the best normed and most highly respected measures of child intelligence (although it should be noted that the Digit Span component is one of the two parts of the Wechsler scale not used in establishing IQ tables). The last survey round to include Memory for Digit Span was 2014.

Description of the Memory for Digit Span

There are two parts to the Memory for Digit Span assessment: Digits Forward and Digits Backward. Each tap distinct but interdependent cognitive functions. Digits Forward primarily taps short-term auditory memory while Digits Backward measures the child's ability to manipulate verbal information while in temporary storage. In Digits Forward, the child listens to and repeats a sequence of numbers spoken aloud by the interviewer. In Digits Backward, the child listens to a sequence of numbers and repeats them in reverse order. In both parts, the length of each sequence of numbers increases as the child responds correctly. The precise instructions and items used in this assessment can be found in the Memory for Digit Span section of the NLSY79 Child Supplement, available on the Questionnaires page.

Administration of the Memory for Digit Span

The child was instructed to repeat a series of numbers (with increasing numbers of digits) forward and a different series of digits in reverse order. Each correct response was worth one point; with a maximum of 14 points for each subscore series and hence 28 for the total score. The forward digit sequence was completed prior to beginning the backward digit sequence. However, entry into the reverse sequence was not contingent on successful entry or completion of the forward sequence. Prior to 2002, where appropriate, this assessment was administered in Spanish.

Age eligibility for the Memory for Digit Span

Starting in 1996 through 2014, this assessment was administered to all children age seven through 11 years. In prior rounds, it was administered to children ages seven and over who had not previously received the assessment, and to all ten and eleven year olds (see Table 4 in the Child Assessments—Introduction).

Norms for the Memory for Digit Span

Whereas the normed scores for the other assessments are based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, the Digit Span assessment was normed against a distribution that has a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. Norms are only available for the total score. The norms are published in the WISC manual (Wechsler 1974: 118-150). 

Completion rates for the Memory for Digit Span

The overall completion rate for Digit Span in the most recent survey rounds is between 79 and 86 percent, a slight drop from previous rounds. This overall level of completion generally held across all three race/ethnicity categories in 2014, the last survey round to include the Digit Span (see Table 6 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section).

Validity and reliability for the Memory for Digit Span

In multivariate analyses carried out with the 1992 data that controlled for a wide range of demographic and socio-economic antecedents, the scores of black and Hispanic children were not below those of non-Hispanic, non-black children on either the forward or backward assessment (The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation). In the same analyses, it was also found that the two 1986 Digit Span subscores, in particular the reverse order "digit backwards" assessment, were useful independent predictors of all of the PIAT scores for older children in 1992. Users who want more detailed information about the reliability and validity of these assessments and a brief discussion of other literature about studies that have used these assessments should consult the NLSY Child Handbook: 1986-1990 and The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation, available on the Research/Technical Reports page.

Digit Span scores in the database

Three "raw" scores (one for each of the two subscales and one for the total score) are provided in each survey year from 1986 through 2014, along with one overall age-appropriate normed (standard) score. The complete listing of question names for assessment scores for 2014, the most recent survey round to include the Digit Span, can be found in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.

The Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) is a self-report magnitude estimation scale that measures a school-age child's sense of general self-worth and self-competence in the domain of academic skills (Harter 1982, 1985). The Self Perception Profile for Children, as developed by Susan Harter, has five subscales to assess perceived domain-specific competence in scholastics, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, and behavioral conduct and one scale to assess overall self-worth (global self-worth). The twelve items selected from the original scale for use in the NLSY79 Child assessment translate into two subscores: a global self-worth score and a scholastic competence score. There is no overall self-perception score. These two scales represent two of six subscales developed by Susan Harter. A full description of all the subscales appears in the SPPC Manual (Harter 1985). The NLSY79 protocol for this assessment is also explained and illustrated in the user version of the Child Supplement (available on the Questionnaires page).

Description of the SPPC

The SPPC has twelve items. Scale items are typically phrased as follows: "Some kids like the kind of person they are BUT other kids often wish they were someone else." Children select which option is most like them and then indicate whether the statement is sort of true or really true for them.

The graphical format and layout of the CAPI screens for SPPC can be found in the documentation for the Child Supplement (available on the Questionnaires page). Sample pages from the SPPC are included as an appendix to the Child CAPI Supplement.

Administering the SPPC

Interviewers administer this instrument directly by reading each statement to the child, then asking "which kind of kid is more like you?" Interviewers then follow up by asking whether or not the particular response is "really true for you" or "sort of true for you." Older children have the option of reading along on printed cards and simply answering whether they are more like the "X" side or the "Y" side of the card. 

Scoring the SPPC 

Each of the two subscales includes six items. Each item has a value of between one and four. The global self-worth score is a summation of the six "even-numbered" items, beginning with the second item. The scholastic competence score is a summation of the odd numbered items, beginning with item one.  Higher total SPPC scores represent greater scholastic competence or greater global self-worth. Documentation for each subscore in the current survey round is found in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.

For a small number of cases, there are some missing items. In these instances, a prorated score is computed, assigning average values to the missing items.  Flag variables that identify the degree to which cases have been prorated are included in each year's data. For example, a value of zero on these flags indicates that all items were completed and no proration performed; a "1" indicates that one item was missing, and so on.

Age eligibility for the SPPC

• 1986-1992: all children ages eight and over
• 1994: all children ages 8-14
• 1996-2014: all children 12-14
• 2016-current: Young Adults ages 12-13

From 1986 to 1992 the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) was administered to children ages 8 and older. With the introduction of the Young Adult survey in 1994, the SPPC was capped at age 14. Beginning with the 1996 survey through 2014, SPPC was administered only to children ages 12-14. Beginning in 2016, the SPPC was administered as part of the Young Adult survey to Young Adults ages 12 and 13.

Norms for the SPPC

Only raw scores, which are a simple summation of the six individual items in each scale, are provided, as no national norms are available. Note that raw scores were not created in 2020 due to the small number of respondents eligible for this assessment.

Completion rates for the SPPC 

The SPPC assessment has a relatively high completion rate, with modest ethnic or racial variability. The current completion rate is somewhat lower than in recent prior rounds. Table 6 in the Child Assessments--Introduction section contains the completion rate for the SPPC in the 2016 survey round.

Validity and reliability of the SPPC

Readers interested in information about the validity and reliability of the early rounds of the NLSY79 Child data for this assessment may want to examine the discussions of SPPC in the NLSY79 Child Handbook:1986-1990 and The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation, both available on the Research/Technical Reports page. In general, the reported reliabilities for the NLSY79 administration of these two subscales, in the early survey rounds, are somewhat lower than those reported by Harter (1985, 1990). She reports internal reliability of about .8 compared with .67 for the NLSY79 coefficients, which were computed for child samples of relatively younger mothers. This may partly reflect differences between the samples in their racial, ethnic, or socio-economic mix.

Researchers who have used the NLSY79 SPPC measures have relied on the constructed SPPC scores that are provided in the public child file. Using the 6-item global self-worth subscale, Baydar, Hyle, and Brooks-Gunn (1997) report a significant effect of a sibling birth on global self-worth, particularly among children from economically disadvantaged families. Turner (2000) used the scholastic subscale and found that children resistant to overall delinquency, including drug use, reported greater self-perceived scholastic competence than children who report engaging in delinquent behavior and drug use (p.137 and p.160).  Both the NLSY Child Handbook: 1986-1990 and The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation include more extensive evaluations of the reliability and validity of these two subscores; the NLSY Child Handbook reviews other literature on the topic. These documents are available on the Research/Technical Reports page.

As a final note, it appears that there has been some escalation in the scores of the Global Self-Worth assessment over time. The reasons for the decline in the proportion with very low scores remain unclear, but may be related to changes in cultural norms over time, the gradual increase in the socio-economic background, and age of mother of children in this age range in more recent survey rounds.

Age differences on the SPPC

There is some evidence in prior survey rounds that children under ten (who had been administered this assessment in the pre-1996 survey years), may have had greater difficulty in understanding some of the items. For this reason, scores for younger children may have been somewhat less reliable and valid.  In this regard, it is useful to note that within and cross-year correlations between the two SPPC subscales and the various other cognitive assessments are significantly higher for children age ten and over than for eight and nine year olds. The zero-order correlation between the two subscales was about 0.3 for eight- and nine-year-olds compared with 0.4 for children age ten and over (NLSY Child Handbook: 1986-1990). For younger children, there is little association between the two scores and demographic or socioeconomic priors (The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation).

The Verbal Memory subscale of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities was last administered in the NLSY79 Child survey in 1994. This assessment taps a child's short-term memory in response to auditory stimuli. The Verbal Memory subtest selected for use in the NLSY79 Child is only one of six scales that form the complete McCarthy assessment battery. Verbal Memory was administered by first asking the child, age three through six years, to repeat words or sentences said by the interviewer (Parts A and B). Then the child listens to and retells the essential aspects of a short story read aloud by the interviewer (Part C).

Administration of Verbal Memory

From 1986 to 1990, both the word and sentence components as well as the story part of the assessment were administered. In 1992 and 1994, administration was limited to the word/sentence component of the assessment. This means that in 1992 and 1994, only the first two parts (A and B) of Verbal Memory were administered. After 1994, due to cost reasons and concerns about data quality, administration of this assessment was discontinued.

Scoring Verbal Memory

In the first half of the word-sentence component of the assessment (Part A), the score that the child received was contingent on the child repeating a series of words, ideally in the same sequence that they were uttered by the interviewer. In Part B of this first section, the child was scored according to the number of key words that he or she repeated from a sentence read by the interviewer. The combined total score for Parts A and B determined whether the story (Part C) was administered. In Part C, the child was read a story paragraph and then scored on the basis of his or her ability to recall key ideas from that story. National norms are available for this assessment, so children were assigned normed scores based on his or her performance in comparison with a nationally representative sample.

The number of correct responses to the words and sentences on pages 50 and 51 in the 1994 Child Supplement (the last year the assessment was administered) were combined to generate one total raw score. 

As noted in the 1986 through 1990 rounds of data collection, the Verbal Memory assessment included a "Part C" or a "Story" section. Children who received this assessment in 1986-1990 received two scores in each year. Entry into the "Story" was contingent upon receiving a minimum combined score of 8 on Part A plus Part B. The researcher may note that there were a few instances of children entering and receiving a score on Part C who had received an invalid skip score on Part A and Part B. While it may not have been possible to score A and B for various reasons, the available information was sufficient for the scorer to be confident that the A and B score was at least 8. Children who received a valid score of less than 8 on Part A and Part B were automatically assigned a zero on Part C. This explains the considerable heaping at the zero outcome for Part C.

The scoring on Part C is a simple summation of the number of key words/phrases identified correctly from the paragraph on page CS-36 of the 1990 Child Supplement. No proration was attempted for missing responses. The individual items appear on page CS-38 of that supplement. 

Age eligibility for Verbal Memory

Verbal Memory has typically been completed by children between the ages of three and six, although in 1990, administration was limited to ages four to six. In all child survey years it was only administered to age-eligible children who had not previously (in a prior round) completed the assessment. The precise administration pattern by year is noted in Table 4 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section. 

Norms for Verbal Memory

Appropriate national norms are available in the McCarthy manual (McCarthy, 1972: 205). Thus, percentile and standard scores are available for linking with the raw scores. A total raw score and two normed scores were generated for Part C in 1986 through 1990. From an analytical perspective, the prospective user may note that the distributions of the percentile and standard scores for Part C are somewhat uneven, reflecting the fact that the Part C outcome allowed for only 12 possible responses (0 and 1 through 11) with a major heaping as noted, at the zero category. The fact that the percentile/standard scores assigned to the various raw scores vary by the age of the child helps to smooth the normed pattern somewhat. However, the user is encouraged to examine the pattern of normed responses before proceeding with his or her research. As with all of the assessments in the Child Supplement, the Child Supplement age variable (CSAGE) should be used when stratifying the sample by age of child.

Completion rates for Verbal Memory 

The 1994 completion rate for Parts A and B was only about 82 percent, below the completion rate for all of the other child-administered assessments. Hispanic children had a completion rate of only 77 percent, substantially below that for other children. Thus, as with some of the other assessments, there is surface evidence that language constraints come into play when evaluating the reliability and potential validity of this assessment. With regard to this assessment, it is important to note that a Spanish translation was not utilized. Since this test measures English language verbal retention, a language bias is likely for at least some children. Hispanic children and children of less educated mothers are heavily over-represented among those who could not be scored in the "invalid response" subset.

Validity of Verbal Memory

While this subscale has a high face validity regarding what it purports to measure, the user should be sensitive to the fact that the scoring of Part C, the story section, undoubtedly includes an element of subjectivity. Interviewers can, in some instances, disagree regarding whether or not a child's specific response was indeed a "correct" or "incorrect" interpretation of an aspect of the story. Also, to some extent, the verbatim verbal responses recorded by the interviewer could, in some instances, be coded in different manners by different interviewers. In order to test this latter premise, NORC had the 1986 verbatim responses for about 400 children independently coded by two coders. There was complete agreement between coders for 92 percent of the respondents.

At a different level, there is also some possibility that the Part A response patterns reflect a lack of precision in the instruction, an ambiguity that also exists in the McCarthy manual. The instructions (for Part A) only ask the child to repeat the words that the interviewer reads to him or her, but do not specify that the words should be repeated in the same sequence. However, in the scoring, the respondent loses a point if the words are repeated out of sequence. Thus, the extent to which the words were repeated in or out of sequence may have been a function of how the instructions were understood, an artifact that could attenuate the reliability of the Part A score.

Additional information about Verbal Memory

Verbal Memory has been one of the most difficult of the assessments to administer because of the ambiguity involved in determining whether a child does not know an answer or is just shy (see Baker and Mott, 1995 for a discussion of this issue and its impact on the assessment). This is primarily an issue with younger children who had not previously been tested or had not been in a formal school environment. With the introduction of the CAPI administration procedures in 1994, one additional problem became apparent. The number of cases scored "zero" increased substantially, but interviewer comments suggest that many of these cases really should have been "non-completions." This is discussed in detail in Baker and Mott (1995). For the reasons noted above, this assessment should be used cautiously. Additional discussion relating to the reliability and validity of this assessment, as well as how it has been used by other researchers, can be found in the NLSY Child Handbook: 1986-1990 and in The NLSY Children, 1992:Description and Evaluation, both available on the Research/Technical Reports page.

The Memory for Locations assessment was completed by age-eligible NLSY79 children in 1986 and 1988 only. It was developed as a measure of a child's short-term memory and has been extensively used by Jerome Kagan of Harvard University (Kagan 1981). The child, aged eight months through three years, watches as a figure is placed under one of two to six cups. The cups are screened from a child's view for one to fifteen seconds; the child is then asked to find the location of the figure. Items increase in difficulty as the number of cups and/or the length of time during which the cups are hidden from view increases. A child's score is based on his or her ability to select the cup hiding the figure. The Memory for Locations assessment is found in Section 4 of the 1986 Child Supplement and the 1988 Child Supplement, available on the Questionnaires page.

Scoring Memory for Locations

The number of individual items that a child can potentially answer in this assessment is contingent on the age of the child. Children between the ages of 8 and 23 months start with item 1, the easiest question; children who are at least two years of age begin with item 4, and children age three start with item 7. A child's score is based on the highest (most difficult) question answered. A child who cannot answer the entry item receives a raw score of zero regardless of where he or she enters. Otherwise, if Q.1 is the highest item answered correctly, the child receives a score of 1. The maximum score is 10, if the tenth or final item is correctly answered. A child under two years of age is eligible to receive a score between zero and ten; a child age three, by virtue of the fact that he or she enters at item seven, can only receive a raw score of 0, 7, 8, 9, 10. Because external norms were not available, internally normed standard and percentile scores were developed. The user is still advised to use the normed scores cautiously because of the unusual distribution of raw scores described above.

Because of the complexity of the administration procedures for the Memory for Locations assessment, a number of responses were not coded precisely according to the decision rules. On the advice of the assessment developer, children who followed a sequence that might have led to "extra learning" (as part of the assessment administration process) were still scored. For example, if a child was asked Q.1B after having correctly answered Q.1A, the child was scored and not given an "invalid skip" code, even though, theoretically, the child was supposed to proceed directly from Q.1A to Q.2A. In addition, a careful examination of the individual responses suggests that there were a number of children who began the assessment at an improper entry point but who ended up at a level where they would, in all likelihood, have wound up anyway. In these instances, a score was provided for the children and these cases were "flagged" with a code of "2" on the Memory for Location flag variable (C07977.00 for 1988 and C05782.00 for 1986). A code of "1" on this flag includes all scored cases except those defined as 2s. Researchers who plan to use this assessment extensively should carefully examine the actual response patterns to individual items. Individual researchers may choose to impose scoring criteria that are more or less stringent than those used in computing the raw scores provided in this data file.

Age eligibility for Memory for Locations

In the 1986 and 1988 Child surveys, children aged 8 months to 3 years were eligible to complete Memory for Locations.

Additional information about Memory for Locations

The Body Parts and Memory for Locations assessments were no longer used in the NLSY79 Child surveys following the 1988 Child data collection effort, partly because of funding constraints and partly because of the greater difficulty in administering them to children in a home setting. Interviewers found it difficult to make an unambiguous determination as to whether a child was unable to respond or whether he or she was just shy. It was sometimes difficult to be definitive regarding the direction in which a child was pointing, either toward a cup or toward a body part.

This assessment displays a clear tendency to "top out" for the oldest children in the sample. That is, a very large proportion (63 percent in 1986) of all three-year-olds and 32 percent of two year olds received the maximum raw score of ten on the assessment. A relatively normal distribution may be in evidence only for children below the age of two.

Finally, evaluation of these two assessments in 1986 showed little in the way of significant linkages between a wide range of socio-economic antecedents and these two outcomes. However, more recent research suggests that these two assessments may be useful independent predictors of cognitive development (Mott, et al., 1995) since Body Parts and Memory for Location scores in 1986 are highly significant predictors of Peabody assessments in 1992. It appears that, in standard multivariate analyses, these early child cognitive measures may indeed be useful predictors of aptitude and achievement measures six years later.

The Parts of the Body assessment was completed by age-eligible NLSY79 children in 1986 and 1988 only.  Developed by Jerome Kagan of Harvard University, Parts of the Body attempts to measure a one- or two-year-old child's receptive vocabulary knowledge of orally presented words as a means of estimating verbal intellectual development.  The interviewer names each of ten body parts and asks the child to point to that part of his or her body.

Scoring Parts of the Body

The child's score is computed by summing the items that a child correctly identifies (C07972. for 1988 and C05799. for 1986). Thus, a minimum score is 0 and a maximum score is 10.  No proration was attempted since the later items in the sequence are more difficult than the earlier items. A Spanish version of this assessment was available for use with young Hispanic children. A complete protocol for the Body Parts assessment can be found in Section 3 of the 1986 Child Supplement and the 1988 Child Supplement, available on the Questionnaires page.

Because of inconsistency in the way some interviewers interpreted the instructions, the Body Parts assessment was scored in 1988 using three alternate criteria.  First, a child had to answer each of the ten items either (1) correctly or (2) incorrectly on at least one of the two attempts (see page CS-18 in the 1988 Child Supplement). If scoring was completed according to this criteria, then the case was coded a "1" on the Body Parts scoring criteria flag (C07973.00). A second, less restrictive criterion, allowed some of the individual items to be coded "3" (no answer) on some of the attempts. For this subset of children, a code of "3" was treated as an incorrect response and the overall assessment was accordingly scored. These cases can be identified by a value of "2" on the Body Parts criteria flag. Children for whom virtually all the responses were coded "3" (and translated into incorrect responses) received a value of "3" on the Body Parts criteria flag.  Thus, users may restrict analyses to the more constrained sample or opt to include only children who had been scored according to the less conservative definitions. As with all the assessments, users who plan to use a particular assessment are strongly urged to evaluate the scoring schema and data quality according to their own criteria. While we have made every effort to create scores that are faithful to the intentions of the assessment designers, there are instances where researchers could reasonably disagree about what precise scoring procedures should be utilized. The Body Parts assessment was given to very young children for whom there could be considerable ambiguity in differentiating between "incorrect" and "nonresponses."

Age eligibility for Parts of the Body

In the 1986 and 1988 Child surveys, Parts of the Body was administered to children between the ages of 1 and 2 years.

Norms for Parts of the Body

As no appropriate national norms are available for scoring this assessment, CHRR provided (for 1988) internally normed standard and percentile scores. No normed results are provided for 1986. As the raw score on this assessment is extremely sensitive to the age of the child, users of the raw scores are encouraged to apply appropriate techniques that permit analytical comparisons of children across different ages. When controlling for age, the user should select the appropriate Child Supplement age variable that specifies the child's age (in months) as of the Child Supplement interview date.

Completion, validity, and reliability for Parts of the Body

Notwithstanding the availability of a Spanish version of this assessment in the NLSY79, the user should proceed cautiously when interpreting its reliability and validity, particularly with regard to minority and relatively more disadvantaged children. It appears that a child's score may be quite sensitive to the child's English language capabilities as well as rapport with the interviewer. In 1986, the non-completion rate for this assessment was about 17 percent. For about half of the completed assessments, a child is reported to have not responded on at least one question, requiring the alternate assumptions with regard to scoring we describe above to be made. For a more complete discussion of the reliability and internal validity of this assessment and the Memory for Location assessment, please see pages 30-31 in The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation, available on the Research/Technical Reports page.

Description of the Behavior Problems Index (BPI)

The Behavior Problems Index was created by Nicholas Zill and James Peterson to measure the frequency, range, and type of childhood behavior problems for children age four and over (Peterson and Zill 1986). Many items were derived from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist (Achenbach and Edelbrock 1981) and other child behavior scales (Graham and Rutter 1968; Kellam et al., 1975; Rutter, Tizard and Whitmore 1970). In 1981 the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Child Supplement collected data on a nationwide probability sample of 15,416 children 17 years of age and under. Mothers of children 4-17were asked a series of structured questions concerning their child's problem behaviors and use of mental health services (NCHS 1982: 100-102). The specific questions varied somewhat depending on the age of the child. The behavior problem items utilized in the NLSY79 Child surveys were developed from these items.

The NLSY79 Child BPI

The Behavior Problems Index (BPI) used in the NLSY79 Child includes 28 questions administered to mothers in the Mother Supplement: items 1-26, 31, and 32. These questions ask mothers about specific behaviors that their children ages four and over may have exhibited in the previous three months. Three response categories are used: (1) "often true," (2) "sometimes true," and (3) "not true." (Note: Items 27 through 30 are not part of the Behavior Problems scale. They were added by CHRR to tap dimensions that are particularly relevant for older children.)

The BPI items in the NLSY79 Child are used to derive two types of summary "total" scores, as well as a set of distinct clusters of items, representing common syndromes of problem behavior found in children and adolescents. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation was used to verify that the BPI contained separable dimensions similar to those that were hypothesized to occur, and that the groups of items used to compute the subscale scores did hang together as expected (Zill, 1985). The two types of overall "total" BPI scores as well as related subscales are described below.

Scores based on dichotomized items

The NLSY79 Child database provides one overall BPI score and six subscores based on the dichcotomized recoding of the original items. The six subscores are produced by summing across subsets of dichotomized responses to items in the following domains: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) anxiousness/depression, (3) headstrongness, (4) hyperactivity, (5) immature dependency, and (6) peer conflict/social withdrawal. Appendix D in the Codebook Supplement displays the components of these subscales.

In computing scores for the overall Behavior Problems Index, and the set of six subscales defined above, responses to the individual items are first dichotomized and then summed. In this recoding process, each item answered "often" or "sometimes true" is given a value of one. Each item answered "not true" is assigned a value of zero. Higher scores therefore represent a greater level of behavior problems.  Users should note that two of the items (Q.31 Is disobedient at school and Q.32 Has trouble getting along with teachers) are appropriate only for children who have attended school.  Only the overall score and the antisocial subscore use these two items. Thus, for the overall BPI score and antisocial subscore, parallel raw scores are computed for children in school and children not yet in school. For children ages 4-5, not in school, the total dichotomized-based BPI score is comprised of 26 items. For children ages 4-11 in school, the total is based on 28 items and for children ages 12 and older, the BPI total includes 23 items. Available as raw, percentile, and standardized scores, these dichotomized-based scales are identified in the NLSY79 Child database according to the following sets of question names: 

• BPIyyyy
• ANTIyyyy
• ANXyyyy
• DEPyyyy
• HEADyyyy
• HPRyyyy
• PEERyyyy

The composition of each of these scores can be found in Appendix D, Parts 1 and 2.

Scores based on trichotomous item recodes

In addition to the dichotomous-based scales described above, three additional scales have also been created based on trichotomous recodes of the original three answer responses. CHRR has prepared a set of BPI scores that measure overall problems based on trichotomous items, and two scores that measure a child's tendency to internalize problems or externalize behaviors. The overall trichotomous-based BPI score is based on a summation of 26 items for children ages 4-5, 28 items for children age 6-11, and 23 items for children age 12 and older. The internalizing scores for children age 4-11 include 10 items and 6 items for children age 12 and older. The externalizing score is based on 18 items for children age 4-5, 20 items for children age 6-11, and 19 items for children age 12 and older. Available as raw, percentile, and standardized scores, these trichotomous-based scales are assigned the following question names: 

• BPTOTRyyyy
• BPTOTPyyyy
• BPTOTZyyyy
• BPEXTRyyyy
• BPEXTPyyyy
• BPEXTZyyyy
• BPINTRyyyy
• BPINTPyyyy
• BPINTZyyyy

The composition of each of these scores can be found in Appendix D, Parts 1 and 3.

In constructing the trichotomous-based scores that reflect a child's tendency to internalize or externalize behaviors, the individual items are not dichotomized.  Rather, these scores are summed from trichotomous inputs that are first recoded from the original three responses: 1 (Often True), 2 (Sometimes true) and 3 (Not true) into 0 (Not true), 1 (Sometimes true) and 2 (Often true). The composition of these trichotomous-based overall total score and the externalizing and internalizing scales can be found in Appendix D.

Imputation of BPI scores

Since 1992, imputed values have been assigned for the overall dichotomous raw score for all children for whom one item only was missing. Norms are also provided for all those children. Similarly, scores have been imputed for the trichotomous-based overall, internal, and external subscales where only one item is missing. Starting in 2000, the total trichotomous score (BPTOTR) was no longer imputed. Imputation flags (assigned to the ASSESSMENT area of interest) are available that identify those cases that have been prorated (see question names for these variables listed below). 

• BPMISSyyyy. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS INDEX: TOTAL RAW SCORE - PRORATION FLAG
• BPMIS2yyyy. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS INDEX: EXTERNAL RAW SCORE TRICHOTOMOUS ITEMS - PRORATION FLAG
• BPMIS3yyyy. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS INDEX: INTERNAL RAW SCORE TRICHOTOMOUS ITEMS - PRORATION FLAG

Score formats/codebook conventions

The overall dichotomous raw score includes one extra digit, with the final digit representing one implied decimal place. The external and internal raw scores have been rounded to the nearest full digit.

Age eligibility for the BPI

From 1986 through 2014, the Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was administered to NLSY79 mothers for each of her children ages 4-14. In 2016, the BPI was administered to NLSY79 mothers for children ages 4 to 13. The BPI was not administered after 2016.

Norms for the BPI

Single-year age norms were developed from the 1981 National Health Interview Survey administration for all children and for males and females separately. With the exception of the non-dichotomous scores (based on trichotomous items), overall as well as "same-gender" normed scores have been created based on data from the 1981 National Health Interview Survey. Girls are systematically more likely to be reported as exhibiting "better" behavior on most of these scales. Normed scores for the BPI include both percentile and standard scores (with a national mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15) and are based on single year of age data. For children below the age of six, separate norms are created for children in school and out of school.

Nationally normed percentile and standard scores are provided for the three trichotomous scores (total, internal, and external), but normed "same-gender" scores are not available.

As with the other mother-report assessments, a user who wishes to select a sample of children of a particular age should use MSAGEyyyy, the child age variable based on the date the Mother Supplement was administered. Users will find the Behavior Problems scores for the most recent survey year documented in Table 1 in the Child Assessments--Introduction section of the User's Guide. The components of the BPI scores are listed in Appendix D, as are the BPI norming tables.

Completion rates for the BPI

Through 2000, the overall completion rate for the Behavior Problems scale was about 93 percent, with somewhat lower levels of completion by Hispanic children in the sample. With the introduction of CAPI administration of the Mother Supplement in 2002, overall completion rates for the BPI have increased to over 95%.

Validity and reliability of the BPI

The Behavior Problems Index is among the most frequently used of the NLSY79 child assessments, both as an outcome in its own right and as a robust predictor of a wide range of child attitudes and behaviors.

A fully representative sample of children would be expected to have a mean standard BPI score of 100, however mean scores for the NLSY79 child sample in the early survey rounds are one to two points above this level. In more recent survey rounds, scores on the BPI closely approximate the norming. While the age-specific BPI scores vary over time, the evidence suggests that the sample of NLSY79 children may have normed scores not substantially different from the overall 1981 national norming sample.

Researchers continue to frequently use the BPI assessment in studies based on the NLSY79 child data. The overall scale, typically used more often that its subscales, is often seen as an outcome predicted by family circumstances and parental characteristics. The overall index has also been used to test the reliability and validity of other scales, such as the temperament scales (Baydar 1995). Original or modified versions of the internalizing and externalizing subscales have been used as determinants and outcomes in a number of studies (Chase-Lansdale and Gordon 1996; McLeod and Shanahan 1993; McLeod and Edwards 1995; Mott, Kowaleski-Jones, and Menaghan 1997; Guttmannova, Szanyi, and Cali 2007; McCarty, Zimmerman, Diguiseppe, and Christakis 2005).

The six NLSY79 Child behavior problem subscales (antisocial, anxious/depressed, headstrong, hyperactive, dependency, and peer conflict) are often used as child outcomes of interest within a single study. The antisocial and anxious/depressed subscales are also studied separately in some cases. Several researchers have created their own subscales from the items in the BPI child assessment to use as child outcomes. The most frequently studied outcome of this type is oppositional action, a fifteen-item scale that represents "acting out" behaviors (Cooksey, Menaghan and Jekielek 1997).

The NLSY79 Child Handbook: 1986-1990 discusses additional literature on this assessment. The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation includes a discussion of the reliability and validity of the assessment based on the earlier waves of child data. Both of these documents are available on the Research/Technical Reports page. Users are encouraged to review an annotated listing of research in which the BPI scales are used by accessing the NLS online bibliography.

NOTE: Several scales and items related to behavior problems are administered as part of the NLSY79 Young Adult survey once child respondents reach young adult age. For example, the following 6-point Schieman Anger scale is administered to young adults starting with the 2008 survey:

The Motor and Social Development scale (MSD) was developed by the National Center for Health Statistics to measure dimensions of the motor, social, and cognitive development of young children from birth through three years. The items were derived from standard measures of child development (Bayley Scales of Infant Development, the Gesell Scale, Denver Developmental Screening Test), which have high reliability and validity (Poe 1986). The scale was developed for use in the 1981 National Health Interview Survey (a large national health survey that included 2,714 children up to age four) and in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1988-1994). Analyses by Child Trends, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, of the scale in the 1981 Child Health Supplement to the National Health Interview Survey established the age ranges at which each item's developmental milestone is generally reached by U.S. children (Peterson and Moore 1987). The MSD scale has been used in the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Statistics Canada) and by other smaller scale studies of child development such as the Boston Infant Follow-up Program.

Based on the child's age, NLSY79 mothers answer fifteen age-appropriate items out of 48 motor and social development items. These items have been used with a full spectrum of minority children with no apparent difficulty. Prior to 2002, a Spanish version of the scale was available to NLSY79 mothers whose principal language was Spanish.

Description of the MSD

The NLSY79 Motor and Social Development assessment has eight components (parts A through H) that a mother completes contingent on the child's age. Part A is appropriate for infants during the first four months of life (i.e., zero through three months) and the most advanced section, Part H, is addressed to children between the ages of 22 and 47 months. Each section contains 15 yes/no questions about whether the child has ever performed each age-appropriate behavior. For example, the mother of an infant less than 3 months of age is asked questions such as whether her child's eyes have ever followed a moving object from one side to the other, or smiled at someone when that person talked to or smiled at the child. A mother of a child aged 22-47 months is asked questions such as whether their child has ever walked up stairs (one foot on each step), or said his or her first and last name with no help.

Scoring the MSD

All of the MSD items are dichotomous (no=0, yes=1)). The total raw score for children of a particular age is obtained by summing all the "yes" responses in the age-appropriate section. No proration has been undertaken on this assessment since the proportion of missing items is modest and there was some question about the appropriateness of the procedure, given that later items in the assessment tend to be more difficult than earlier items, and hence non-response is not random across items.

Age eligibility for the MSD

In the 1986-2000 surveys, MSD scores were generated for children ages 0-3 years. In 2002 very young children were not administered assessments, which means that MSD scores were not generated for children under age 2 years in 2002. The MSD was not administered in 2004 due to budget constraints. From 2006 to 2016, mothers completed the MSD for children ages 0-3.

Norms for the MSD

Associated with each raw score is a series of norms: (1) an overall age-based percentile and standard score and (2) same-sex by age percentile and standard scores. That is, boys were scored using the male national norms and girls were assigned female national norms, and both sexes received combined sex norm scores. Normed scores are provided in Appendix C in the NLSY79 Child/YA Codebook Supplement.

Normed scores were constructed by CHRR using data from the nationally representative sample in the 1981 Child Health Supplement to the National Health Interview Survey (National Center for Health Statistics 1984). Analyses by Child Trends (a non-profit, non-partisan research organization) of the scale in the 1981 Child Health Supplement to the National Health Interview Survey established the age ranges at which each item's developmental milestone is generally reached by U.S. children (Peterson and Moore 1987).

Completion rates for the MSD

The overall completion rate for the MSD assessment showed a decline through 1998 and then increased to higher levels once the Mother Supplement became a CAPI instrument in 2000. The overall completion rate for the current survey round can be found in Table 6 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section. A substantial proportion of the non-completions in pre-CAPI years resulted from situations where the mother skipped the section in the paper booklet or inadvertently left a number of the items blank.

Validity and reliability of the MSD

Readers interested in information about the validity and reliability of the NLSY79 Child data for this assessment may want to examine the discussions of the MSD in the NLSY79 Child Handbook: 1986-1990 and The NLSY Children, 1992: Description and Evaluation, both available on the Research/Technical Reports page. Analyses based on the NHANES III data indicate that low birth weight status and pre-term delivery are associated independently with small, but measurable, delays in MSD (Hediger et al., 2002).

Age, sex, and racial differences on the MSD

Caution should be exercised when interpreting results for three-year-olds, the oldest group completing this assessment. The Motor and Social Development assessment tends to "top out" for three-year-olds and does not provide a sensitive ceiling for these older children. For this reason, researchers using the assessment should include an age control in any multivariate analyses even when they are using normed scores. In general, the distribution of scores for NLSY79 children on this assessment tends to be more peaked for the youngest and oldest children (e.g., see Table 3.3 in the 2002 version of The NLSY79 Child Assessments: Selected Tables, available on the Research/Technical Reports page).

While not described in these tables, it is also useful to note reported sex differences at the youngest ages. Infant girls score significantly higher than their male counterparts, consistent with other evidence regarding early sex differences in motor and social development. Researchers interested in analyzing boys or girls separately are reminded that discrete sex-specific norms are available.

These items have been used with a full spectrum of minority children with no apparent difficulty.

MSD scores in the database

There are 5 summary scores for the MSD. In addition to the raw score, there are overall and sex-specific standard scores and percentile scores. 

Question names for the raw scores, overall scores, and same-sex normed scores for Motor & Social Development, from the final survey round, are listed in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.

The temperament scales assess aspects of the child's usual behavior, including activity level, affective attributes, attachment styles, compliance, and sociability.  The temperament scales were adapted from Rothbart's Infant Behavior Questionnaire and Kagan's compliance scale. Because the child's temperament is partially a parental perception, the behavioral style of children in the NLSY79 was measured by a set of age-appropriate, maternal-report items and interviewer ratings. Ten distinct scores tap various dimensions of temperament of children between the ages of 0 and 6, although not all dimensions are appropriate for all age groups.

Description of the temperament scales

At the time of the design of the initial NLSY79 Child survey design, no single instrument seemed adequate to use for measuring child temperament, within the context of a large national survey administered by lay personnel. As a result, a temperament scale was developed, based on Rothbart's Infant Behavior Questionnaire, Campos and Kagan's Compliance Scale, and other items from Campos.

The temperament scale is divided into three sections, according to the age of the child. The specific (questionnaire) items for each Temperament score and the age appropriateness of the scores are indicated in Appendix B in the NLSY79 Child/YA Codebook Supplement. The maternal scale "How My Infant Usually Acts" addresses the activity, predictability, fearfulness, positive affect, and friendliness of infants below age one. "How My Toddler Usually Acts" addresses the fearfulness, positive affect, and friendliness of one-year-olds. "How My Child Usually Acts" measures the compliance and attachment of two- and three-year-olds and additionally, the friendliness of children aged four through six. For children ages three through six, the interviewer rates the child's shyness when first introduced, shyness at the end of the session, and the child's cooperation, interest and motivation, energy, persistence, and attitude toward and rapport with the interviewer during the assessment.

Administration of the temperament scales

From 1986-1998, child temperament questions were administered in the Mother Supplement self-report booklet. In 2000, the items about child temperament were administered in the CAPI Child Supplement for children under age 4. In 2002, the temperament items returned to the Mother Supplement.  Starting in 2006, all Mother Supplement assessments, including temperament, were integrated into a section of the mother's own main Youth questionnaire and were administered for each age-eligible child.  Three items from the sociability scale for children aged 4 to 6 were completed by the interviewer as part of the Child Supplement. The final year for administration of any temperament scales was 2016; some scales ended sooner as children aged out of the various sections. Question names and final administration year for each scale are shown in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.

Scoring of the temperament scales

A total of ten distinct scores tap various dimensions of temperament, but not all dimensions are appropriate for all ages.  The specific (questionnaire) items for each Temperament score and the age appropriateness of the scores are indicated in Appendix B.

The behavioral tendencies of the child are rated by the mother on a five-point scale, ranging from Almost Never (value of 1) to Almost Always (value of 5).  The scores of the various scales are computed by summing the individual items in the scale where appropriate.  Some items are recoded in reverse before summing. The question names for reverse-coded items are in bold in Appendix B. If any item component of a subscale was missing, that subscore was not computed. 

An important and necessary change was made beginning with the 1990 Temperament scoring. Because in some survey rounds children under the age of four are not administered any of the Child Supplement items, it is necessary to truncate two scales addressed to younger children. These are the difficulty composite score for children between the ages of 8 months and 23 months and the friendliness scale for children under the age two. For researchers requiring comparability over time, abbreviated and unabbreviated versions of the scores for 1986 and 1988 are included in the public use file.

Norms

Since no appropriate national norms are available for this assessment, only raw scores are provided.

Completion rates for the temperament scales

In general, completion rates for this assessment are quite high, often well above 90 percent, primarily because this mother-report assessment is part of the mother's main Youth interview. Table 6 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section contains the completion rate for the Compliance temperament scale in the current survey round.

Reliability and validity of the temperament scales

An evaluation of the reliability and validity of the temperament scales is included in The NLSY Children 1992 (p. 22-24), available on the Research/Technical Reports page. This document examines, within a multivariate context, the extent to which selected temperament scores are independently linked to a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic antecedents while also predicting other child outcomes in subsequent survey rounds. Confirmatory factor analyses of the infant temperament items provide additional support for the five proposed infant temperament scales (Colder, Mott, & Berman, 2002; Lahey, Van Hulle, Keenan, Rathouz, D'Onofrio, Rodgers & Waldman, 2008).

Temperament scores in the database

The complete listing of reference numbers for the assessment scores for the final survey round can be found in Table 1 in the Child Assessments—Introduction section.