Path Analysis Models for Caseworker Report of Problematic Use of Substances A spreadsheet of the completed path analyses is available in Appendix 4 and can be used as a A spreadsheet of the completed path analyses is available in Appendix 4 and can be used as a

Aim 2: Examine direct and indirect pathways from self-reported levels of problematic substance use by a caregiver to indicators of child harm (safety, permanency, well-being) at baseline and at

C. Path Analysis Models for Caseworker Report of Problematic Use of Substances A spreadsheet of the completed path analyses is available in Appendix 4 and can be used as a A spreadsheet of the completed path analyses is available in Appendix 4 and can be used as a

reference when examining the final models.

Referrals for Services at Wave 1

First, direct pathways from each type of caseworker reported problematic substance use (alcohol and drug) to a service referral at wave 1 were tested. Controlling for child age, child gender, and household poverty, there were significant direct relationships from both problematic alcohol use (µ = 0.13, p < .01) and problematic drug use (µ = 0.25, p < .001) to increases in baseline service referral.

Single mediator models examined indirect pathways through the four hypothesized mediators (emotional maltreatment, harsh discipline, parental monitoring, and exposure to violence) for both problematic alcohol use and problematic drug use to a service referral at baseline.

Emotional maltreatment, parental monitoring, and exposure to violence did not mediate the relationship from caregiver problematic alcohol use or caregiver problematic drug use to baseline service referral. Harsh discipline partially mediated the relationship from problematic drug use to baseline service referral with a direct relationship also remaining from problematic drug use to baseline service referral (Figure 7). Harsh discipline did not mediate the relationship from problematic alcohol use to baseline service referral. See Appendix 5 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics. The final model for problematic alcohol use to a service referral at baseline is a direct model (Figure 6). The model indicates that caseworker report of problematic alcohol use is directly associated with CPS services at baseline. The direct model was just identified. Therefore, fit indices are not produced. The final model for problematic drug use to a service referral at baseline is a partial mediation model through harsh discipline (Figure 7). The model indicates that caseworker report of problematic drug use is directly associated with CPS

services at baseline.

However, caseworker report of problematic drug use was

Figure 6

negatively associated with harsh discipline. Higher reports of harsh discipline were in turn negatively associated with receiving services at baseline. The final model, the strongest one produced in these analyses, has adequate fit with the RMSEA and WRMR fit indices but poor fit with the χ² test of model fit, CFI, and TLI.

Figure 7

Referrals for Services at Wave 2

To examine the direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic substance use to each type of service referral at wave 2, direct models were run that regressed each type of service referral (any services, services to caregiver, services to child, concrete services, or child welfare services) on each type of problematic substance use (alcohol or drug) while controlling for child age, child gender, household poverty, and presence of prior reports on family. There were significant direct relationships from problematic alcohol use to an increase in the likelihood of any services (µ = 0.15, p < .001), services to child (µ = 0.07, p < .05), services to caregiver (µ = 0.15, p < .001), concrete services (µ = 0.13, p < .01), and child welfare services (µ = 0.12, p <

.01). There were also significant direct relationships from problematic drug use to increase in the likelihood of any services (µ = 0.21, p < .001), services to child (µ = 0.12, p < .01), services to

caregiver (µ = 0.19, p < .001), concrete services (µ = 0.21, p < .001), and child welfare services (µ = 0.16, p < .001).

Single mediator models were run with each of the hypothesized mediators (emotional maltreatment, harsh discipline, parental monitoring, and exposure to violence) for all

combinations of problematic substance use by type of service referral at wave 2. None of the hypothesized mediators were significant mediators in the relationship from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to any of the service referral variables at wave 2. See

Appendices 6-10 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics. The final models for both problematic alcohol use and problematic drug use to any services, caregiver services, child services, concrete services, and child welfare services at wave 2 were direct models (Figure 8-17). In each of these models, caseworker report of problematic alcohol or drug use is directly associated with services at wave 2. The direct models were just identified. Therefore, fit indices are not produced for these models.

Figure 8

77 Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

78 Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

79 Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

80 Subsequent CPS Reports by Wave 2

After including the control variables in the model, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to subsequent CPS reports.

Single mediator models indicated that none of the hypothesized mediators were significant mediators from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to subsequent CPS reports.

See Appendix 11 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics. There are no final models reported because there were no direct or indirect relationships from the independent to dependent variable.

Case Outcomes at Wave 1

There were significant direct relationships from problematic alcohol use (µ = 0.15, p < .001) and problematic drug use (µ = 0.31, p < .001) to higher harm/evidence in the case outcome at wave 1.

Single mediator models were run with each of the hypothesized mediators (emotional maltreatment, harsh discipline, parental monitoring, and exposure to violence) for problematic alcohol and drug use to case outcomes at wave 1. None of the hypothesized mediators were significant mediators in the relationship. See Appendix 12 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics. The final models for both problematic alcohol use and problematic drug use to case outcomes at wave 1 were direct models (Figure 18-19). In both models, caseworker report of problematic alcohol or drug use is directly associated with a case outcome of higher harm/evidence (i.e., case was coded as substantiated, indicated, high risk, or medium risk by the caseworker) at wave 1. The direct models were just identified. Therefore, fit indices are not produced for these models.

81 Figure 18

Figure 19

Case Outcomes at Wave 2

After including the control variables in the model, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to case outcomes at wave 2.

Single mediator models indicated that none of the hypothesized mediators were significant mediators from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to case outcomes at wave 2.

See Appendix 12 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics. There are no final

models reported because there were no direct or indirect relationships between the independent and dependent variable.

Out-of-Home Placement at Wave 1

There were significant direct relationships from caseworker reported problematic alcohol use (μ=0.11, p < .01) and problematic drug use (μ=0.28, p < .001) to being placed out-of-home (OOH) at wave 1.

Single mediator models indicated that none of the hypothesized mediators were significant mediators from caseworker reported problematic alcohol use to OOH placements at wave 1.

Harsh discipline was a significant partial mediator in the relationship from caseworker reported problematic drug use to OOH placements at wave 1. Partial mediation indicates that there was still a direct relationship present from caseworker reported problematic drug use to OOH placements. Emotional maltreatment, parental monitoring and exposure to violence were not significant mediators in the relationship from problematic drug use to OOH placements. See Appendix 13 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics. The final models for problematic alcohol use and problematic drug use to OOH placement at baseline were direct models (Figure 20-21). In both models, caseworker report of problematic alcohol or drug use is directly associated with a child being placed out of the home at wave 1. The direct models were just identified. Therefore, fit indices are not produced for these models. See Appendix 13 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics.

Out-of-Home Placement at Wave 2

There were significant direct relationships from caseworker reported problematic alcohol use (μ=0.08, p < .05) and problematic drug use (μ=0.12, p < .05) to being placed OOH at wave 2.

83 Figure 20

Figure 21

Single mediator models indicated that none of the hypothesized mediators were significant mediators from caseworker reported problematic alcohol use to OOH placements at wave 2.

Harsh discipline was a significant partial mediator in the relationship from caseworker reported problematic drug use to OOH placements at wave 2. There was still a direct relationship present from caseworker reported problematic drug use to OOH placements. Emotional maltreatment, parental monitoring and exposure to violence were not significant mediators in the relationship from problematic drug use to OOH placements. See Appendix 13 for indirect parameter

estimates and model fit statistics. For problematic alcohol use to OOH placement at wave 2, the final model is a direct model for which fit indices were not produced (Figure 22). The model indicates that caseworker report of problematic alcohol use is directly

Figure 22

associated with a child being placed out of the home at wave 2. The final model for problematic drug use to OOH placement at wave 2 was a single mediator model with harsh discipline

partially mediating the relationship from problematic drug use to OOH placement at baseline (Figure 23). The model indicates that caseworker report of problematic drug use is directly associated with a child being placed out of the home at wave 2. However, caseworker report of problematic drug use was negatively associated with harsh discipline. Higher reports of harsh discipline were in turn negatively associated with receiving services at baseline. The RMSEA and WRMR fit indices indicated that the model fit the data well. However, the χ² test of model fit, CFI, and TLI fit indices did not indicate a strong fit. See Appendix 13 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics.

85 Figure 23

Child Depression at Wave 1

After including the control variables in the model, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child depression at wave 1.

Child Depression at Wave 2

Consistent with models of child depression at wave 1, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child depression at wave 2 when the control variables were included in the model.

Single mediator models with each of the hypothesized mediators indicated that none of the four hypothesized mediators significantly mediated the relationship. See Appendix 14 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics.

Child Trauma at Wave 1

After including the control variables in the model, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child trauma at wave 1.

Child Trauma at Wave 2

Consistent with the wave 1 child trauma models, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child trauma at wave 2.

Single mediator models indicated that none of the hypothesized mediators were significant mediators from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child trauma at wave 2.

See Appendix 15 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics.

Child Internalizing Behaviors at Wave 1

After including the control variables in the model, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child internalizing behaviors at wave 1.

Child Internalizing Behaviors at Wave 2

Consistent with the child internalizing behaviors at wave 1 models, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child internalizing behaviors at wave 2.

Single mediator models indicated that none of the hypothesized mediators were significant mediators from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child internalizing behaviors at wave 2. See Appendix 16 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics.

Child Externalizing Behaviors at Wave 1

When the control variables were included in the model, there were no significant direct pathways from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child externalizing behaviors at wave 1.

mediators was a significant mediator in the relationship. See Appendix 17 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics.

Child Externalizing Behaviors at Wave 2

As seen in the models for child externalizing behaviors at wave 1, there was no significant direct pathway from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child externalizing behaviors at wave 2.

The single mediator models indicated that none of the hypothesized mediators mediate the relationship from caseworker reported problematic alcohol or drug use to child externalizing behaviors at wave 2. See Appendix 17 for indirect parameter estimates and model fit statistics.

D. Path Analysis Models for Caregiver Self-Report of Problematic Use of Substances

In document Pathways from Caregiver Problematic Substance Use to Child Harm: A Secondary Data Analysis of the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being II (Page 93-108)