1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«This study tested whether each of four putative intervening pathways (i.e. antisociality, school engagement, parental supervision, peer deviancy) contributes to explaining, either directly or indirectly, the impact of MLES [Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Study] on the presence of a criminal record in young adulthood.» (p. 752)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«To see which of the Socialization or the Personal Dispositions Models would be supported, the following question was addressed: Does each of the four intervening variables (i.e. antisociality, school engagement, parental supervision, peer deviancy) throughout adolescence contribute to explaining, either directly or indirectly, the impact of an early intervention on criminal records or is the personal disposition/antisociality explanatory pathway sufficient?» (p. 749)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«Behaviour ratings of male students (mean age 6.1 years; SD =.32) were obtained from 87% of the kindergarten teachers from 53 schools in lower socioeconomic areas in Montréal, Canada at the end of the 1984 school year. A total of 1,161 boys were rated. That number was reduced to 895 after eliminating subjects who did not meet additional selection criteria». (p. 750)

Instruments :
- Social Behaviour Questionnaire
- Self-Reported Antisociality Questionnaire (SRAQ)

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«Despite using a stringent ITT [intent-to-treat] approach to data analysis, the direct impact of the preventive intervention was nearly significant with a p-value equal to .055. […] The lack of a direct effect of the prevention program on parents’ supervision during the 10–13 years period deserves a comment. It is possible that the prevention program emphasized more other aspects such as parent-child bonding and behaviour management techniques than parental supervision. Another possible explanation is that low SES parents with disruptive children did not acquire or did not maintain newly acquired supervision skills with their children, perhaps because of cultural norms or personal problems. In either case, it is important to note that the preventive intervention nevertheless affected crime involvement without influencing parental supervision. The intervention reduced participants’ antisocial behaviour as well as their engagement towards school and their propensity to affiliate with deviant peers. Nevertheless, only a reduction in antisocial behaviour operated as a mediator in the final pathway linking program participation to reduced criminal records.» (p. 753)