Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T04:57:19.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Young Adolescent Project: A longitudinal study of the effects of maltreatment on adolescent development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2019

Sonya Negriff*
Affiliation:
Department of Research & Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA
Elana B. Gordis
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University at Albany–State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA
Elizabeth J. Susman
Affiliation:
Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Kihyun Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Social Welfare, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
Melissa K. Peckins
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Janet U. Schneiderman
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Ferol E. Mennen
Affiliation:
Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, Unuversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Sonya Negriff, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, 100 S. Los Robles Ave, Pasadena, CA, 91101, USA. E-mail: sonya.x.negriff@kp.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Young Adolescent Project (YAP) is an ongoing longitudinal study investigating the effects of abuse and neglect on adolescent development. It is a multidisciplinary study guided by a developmental, ecological perspective, and designed to consider the physical, social, and psychological effects of childhood maltreatment through the transition from childhood to adolescence. Four waves of data collection have been completed, ranging from early (Mean age = 10.95) to late adolescence (Mean age = 18.24). Members of the maltreated group (n = 303) were selected from new cases that had been opened by the Department of Child and Family Services, whereas the comparison group (n = 151) were not involved with child welfare but lived in the same neighborhoods as the maltreated group. The study assessed a wide variety of domains including physical development (e.g., height, weight, body mass, pubertal development); physiological reactivity (e.g., cortisol); cognitive abilities; mental health (e.g., symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma, and aggression); risk behavior (e.g., sexual activity, delinquency, or substance use); social development (e.g., self-esteem, competence, and social support); family environment; and exposure to community violence. Overall, our findings demonstrated the pervasive and persistent adverse effects of child maltreatment both within and across domains, but they also identified maltreated youth with positive functioning. Our hope is that this work will help move us toward identifying targets for intervention to cultivate resilience and positive adaptation after early maltreatment experiences.

Figure 0

Figure 1. Study design Time 1–Time 4.

Figure 1

Table 1. Sample characteristics for Time 1, 2, 3, and 4

Figure 2

Figure 2. Outline of Time 1 interview procedures.

Figure 3

Table 2. Child self-report measures T1 to T4

Figure 4

Table 3. Parent and teacher report measures T1 to T4

Figure 5

Table 4. Prevalence and co-occurrence of maltreatment types within the maltreated group (n = 303)

Figure 6

Table 5. Results of MANCOVA for Time 1 functioning by placement type

Figure 7

Figure 3. Cascade model from maltreatment to sexual behavior, delinquency, peer deviance, and substance use.

Note: Covariates were T1age, race, sex, pubertal timing; standardized parameter estimates are shown; significant within-time covariances are indicated by grey arrows); nonsignificant paths are not shown; **p<01 *p<.05. (Figure originally published in Negriff, 2018).
Figure 8

Figure 4. BMI percentile trajectories (females) for the comparison group, neglect group, and sexual abuse group (quadratic effect).

Figure 9

Figure 5. Mean differences in cortisol reactivity for maltreated versus comparison groups at Time 1.