Prospective Predictors of Adolescent Pregnancy in Low-Income Urban Settings
Nicole J. Holmberg, Christine R. Keeports, & Laura D. Pittman
Northern Illinois University
T-Test Results
Background


In 2009, national rates of adolescent pregnancy declined to its lowest
point in nearly 70 years (39.1 births per 1,000 15-19 year olds) but
rates remain quite high among African American (59 births per 1,000
15-19 year olds) and Hispanic American adolescents (70.1 births per
1,000 15-19 year olds; Hamilton et al., 2010).
Several individual, family, and neighborhood factors have been
suggested to influence female adolescents becoming pregnant (Coley &
Chase-Lansdale, 1998).

Yet, little research has considered factors involved in male adolescents
impregnating their sexual partners.

This study seeks to extend the adolescent pregnancy literature by
prospectively examining the influence of multiple factors on adolescent
pregnancy among a sample of low-income male and female
adolescents.
Participants
Data came from three waves of the Welfare, Children and Families: A
Three-City Study, a sample of 2,402 families living in low-income
urban areas (45% African American, 46% Hispanic American; 9%
Caucasian or other ethnicities).

Analyses focused on girls (n = 485) and boys (n = 415) aged 10-14
years at Wave 1 and who participated at Wave 2 and 3 (Wave 3
occurred about 5 years later; 79.7% retention rate).

Measures

Mothers of adolescents reported on:
• Parenting style (Raising Children Checklist, Shumow et al., 1998;
higher values indicate more positive parenting)
• Cognitive stimulation (Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment-Short Form, Caldwell & Bradley, 1984)
• Family routines (Boyce et al., 1983)
• Neighborhood problems and collective efficacy (based on Sampson,
1997)
• Children’s internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors (Child
Behavior Checklist, Achenbach, 1991)
• Children’s social competence (scale developed for the New Chance
Study, Quint et al., 1997)
•


Children’s grades (single item; 1= mostly failing to 8 = mostly As)
Adolescents were interviewed about:
• Relationships with their parents (Anger & Alienation subscale and
Trust & Communication subscale; Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment, Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)
• Maternal Harsh Punishment (McLoyd et al., 1994).
• Maternal home-based school involvement (child supplement
interviews from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Hofferth et
al., 1999)
• Parental Knowledge & Curfew (Behavior Control scale, Lamborn et
al., 1991; higher scores indicate greater knowledge of child
activities and a later curfew)
• Educational aspirations (single item, 1 = not finish high school to 7
= go to a professional school after college)
• Internalizing Symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory-18, Derogatis.
2000)
• Involvement in delinquent activities (modified items from the
National Longitudinal Study of Youth, Borus et al., 1982; Youth
Deviance Scale, Gold, 1970)
All measures had adequate to strong psychometric properties.
Never Pregnant
GIRLS
Pregnant
WAVE 1 PREDICTORS
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Child’s age (years)M
12.17 (1.43)
13.27 (1.21)
t-value
-8.80***
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
12.12 (1.38)
13.12 (1.42)
t-value
Constant
-5.66***
Maternal home-based
school involvementA
3.82 (1.15)
3.48 (1.17)
3.00**
3.91 (1.01)
3.64 (1.15)
Maternal Harsh
PunishmentA
1.79 (0.69)
1.98 (0.76)
-2.74**
1.83 (0.65)
1.84 (0.69)
Mother/Child Anger &
AlienationA
3.52 (0.86)
3.38 (0.81)
1.62
3.61 (0.78)
3.47 (0.75)
1.43
Mother/Child Trust &
CommunicationA
Parental KnowledgeA
4.27 (0.76)
4.05 (0.85)
2.89**
4.21 (0.65)
4.10 (0.66)
1.25
0.89 (0.12)
0.86 (0.14)
2.66**
0.87 (0.13)
0.82 (0.16)
2.58*
2.09*
-0.10
B
-9.20
GIRLS
SE
2.20
Exp.B B
-5.20
BOYS
SE
2.73
Exp.B
Child’s age (years)
0.57*** 0.11
1.76
0.41**
0.13
1.50
MATERNAL PARENTING
Maternal Home-Based
School Involvement
0.12
0.13
1.13
0.19
0.17
1.21
Maternal Harsh
Punishment
0.13
0.19
1.14
-0.03
0.27
0.97
Mother/Child Trust &
Communication
0.22
0.21
1.25
0.09
0.31
1.10
Parental Knowledge
1.18
1.29
3.26
-1.60
1.33
0.20
CurfewA
0.67 (0.20)
0.62 (0.22)
2.13*
0.66 (0.19)
0.57 (0.16)
3.87***
Parenting StyleM
3.43 (0.32)
3.40 (0.38)
0.79
3.45 (0.34)
3.37 (0.32)
1.87+
Curfew
0.65
0.65
1.91
-2.00*
0.92
0.14
Family RoutinesM
2.82 (0.67)
2.65 (0.72)
2.56*
2.82 (0.66)
2.53 (0.71)
3.30**
Family Routines
0.08
0.21
1.09
-0.10
0.27
0.90
85.03 (25.56)
79.23 (27.21)
2.26*
82.94 (26.55)
76.80 (23.70)
Cognitive Stimulation
-0.01
0.01
0.99
-0.01
0.01
0.99
-1.89+
PATERNAL PARENTING
Father/Child Trust &
Communication
-0.17+
0.10
0.84
-0.11
0.14
0.89
0.02
1.00
-0.03
0.03
0.97
0.01
0.02
1.01
0.02
0.03
1.02
-0.09
0.22
0.91
0.15
0.25
1.16
Cognitive StimulationM
1.82+
PATERNAL PARENTING PREDICTORS
Father/Child Anger &
AlienationA
2.48 (0.92)
2.68 (1.03)
Father/Child Trust &
CommunicationA
3.47 (1.26)
2.98 (1.41)
Father InvolvementA
-0.22 (0.87)
3.34**
-0.27 (0.83)
0.56
2.37 (0.87)
2.15 (0.86)
1.76+
3.62 (1.17)
3.36 (1.33)
1.57
-0.13 (0.86)
-0.27 (0.94)
1.14
8.88 (8.08)
8.91 (7.80)
-0.02
10.84 (9.40)
12.41 (9.79)
-1.28
CHILD BEHAVIOR & ATTITUDE PREDICTORS
Internalizing ProblemsA
(CBCL)
Externalizing ProblemsA
(CBCL)
8.78 (7.47)
10.75 (8.20)
-2.60**
9.48 (8.45)
12.76 (9.93)
-3.74***
Social CompetenceM
4.10 (0.74)
3.92 (0.74)
2.49*
4.00 (0.73)
3.86 (0.78)
1.40
Internalizing SymptomsA
(BSI-18)
6.74 (9.55)
10.74 (11.59)
-3.72***
6.36 (8.69)
6.05 (8.35)
0.27
-0.16 (0.30)
0.04 (0.43)
-5.27***
-0.08 (0.33)
0.07 (0.40)
-2.95**
GradesM
5.90 (1.59)
5.22 (1.94)
3.80***
5.25 (1.81)
4.47 (1.92)
-2.97**
Educational aspirationsA
5.56 (1.66)
5.14 (1.63)
2.64**
5.29 (1.63)
5.27 (1.53)
Delinquent ActivitiesA
0.07
NEIGHBORHOOD PREDICTORS
Neighborhood problemsM
20.02 (6.03)
20.57 (6.17)
-0.94
20.21 (5.81)
20.30 (6.38)
-0.11
Collective EfficacyM
27.35 (9.49)
26.01 (9.25)
1.46
26.43 (9.54)
26.73 (10.09)
-0.24
+ p < .10, *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; A = adolescent report, M = maternal report

T-test results indicate that both girls who had been pregnant and boys who had gotten someone pregnant, compared to those who had
not, had an earlier curfew, were involved in more delinquent activities based on self reports, had worse grades based on parent reports
and had mothers who were less involved with school work at home and knew less about what they were doing.

For girls only, t-test results also indicated that those who were ever pregnant had mothers who used harsher punishments, had poorer
relationships with their mothers and fathers, had more externalizing symptoms based on maternal reports and internalizing symptoms
based on both self and maternal reports. They also had lower social competence based on maternal reports and lower educational
aspirations based on self-reports.

CHILD BEHAVIOR & ATTITUDE
Internalizing Problems
0.00
(CBCL)
Externalizing Problems
(CBCL)
Social Competence
Internalizing Symptoms
(BSI-18)
0.04**
0.01
1.04
-0.03
0.02
0.97
Delinquent Activities
0.83*
0.41
2.30
0.61
0.48
1.85
Grades (maternal report)
-0.06
0.08
0.94
-0.18*
0.09
0.83
Educational aspirations
-0.18*
0.09
0.83
0.07
0.13
1.07
x2
82.55***
47.84***
+ p < .10, *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; Exp.B = exponentiated B.

Results from regression analyses reveal that significant predictors of
adolescent pregnancy are different for girls and boys.

Several child behavior and attitude predictors were significant for girls
but not boys; more severe adolescent-reported internalizing symptoms
(BSI-18), more involvement in delinquent activities, and lower
educational aspirations were associated with becoming pregnant.

Poorer relationships with their fathers significantly predicted adolescent
pregnancy for girls at a trend level, but no maternal parenting predictors
were significant for girls.

For boys, only having later curfews and poorer grades significantly
predicted that they would impregnate someone.

Generalizability of these findings is limited to low-income urban
populations. Additional studies with other populations are needed to
consider whether these factors universally predict adolescent
pregnancy.

In general, parents may also want to become more involved in their
children’s lives, such as by knowing more about their children’s
activities or providing structure for their adolescents by enforcing
curfews. These parenting behaviors may help curb adolescent behaviors
that have been shown to predict adolescent pregnancy.

Please contact Nicole J. Holmberg with comments, questions, or
feedback about this poster at nicole.j.holmberg@niu.edu or Psychology
Department, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL 60115.
No significant differences were found between groups based on the neighborhood environment or the level of father involvement.
Discussion

A dichotomous variable was created based on adolescents’ reports at
each Wave indicating whether they had ever been pregnant (32% of
females) or gotten someone pregnant (18% of males).

When examining each predictor individually, multiple factors were
significant in predicting adolescent pregnancy. However, when
considered simultaneously, fewer significant factors emerged.

Analyses were run separately by gender.


T-tests examined whether those who had ever been pregnant/gotten
someone pregnant differed on multiple variables at Wave 1 from those
who had never been pregnant/gotten someone pregnant.
Specifically, unique significant predictors for girls were behavioral
and attitudinal in nature (i.e., more self-reported internalizing
symptoms, more involvement in delinquent activities, and lower
educational aspirations), but parenting did not make a difference.
Variables yielding significant t-test differences were entered into a
logistic regression simultaneously to determine which factors contributed
uniquely to the pregnancy outcome.
Never Pregnant
BOYS
Pregnant
MATERNAL PARENTING PREDICTORS
Analyses

Logistic Regression Results




However, unique significant predictors for boys included both
parental factors (i.e., later curfews) and behavioral and attitudinal
factors (i.e., poorer grades).
Surprisingly, neighborhood factors were not significant, even when
considered individually. Perhaps these factors are more likely to
be associated with delinquency more broadly, but not with
adolescent pregnancy.

In addition, for girls their psychological functioning as indicated by their
internalizing symptoms and delinquent behaviors were predictive of
becoming pregnant, but this was not true for boys. This suggests girls
may become sexually active and/or want to become pregnant when they
have lower self-esteem and more negative self-perceptions.
These findings suggest that adolescents’ behaviors (e.g., grades) and
attitudes (e.g., educational aspirations) regarding school may influence
non-academic behaviors, such as sexual activity. These findings suggest
that in order to help prevent adolescent pregnancy, parents of adolescents
living in low-income urban areas may want to cultivate their children’s
interest and in school and monitor their academic performance.
This study has several strengths including longitudinal data which allows
for prospective predictor identification and dual sources of data (i.e.,
adolescents and mothers).