INTRODUCTION

1. Effortful Control: Linkages with Attention and Conduct Problems Tracy A. Dennis & Laurie Miller BrotmanNew York University Child Study Center NIMH R01 MH55188 (Miller & Klein) INTRODUCTION Effortful control (EC) is the active, voluntary inhibition of behavior. This study was designed to address gaps in theoretical and methodological research in effortful control. Theoretical issues.EC is central to the development of conscience, and deficits in EC are linked to the development of conduct problems (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000). Neurological and psychological research suggests that two aspects of attention, the ability to inhibit a dominant response and the ability to sustain attention, might be associated with both EC and conduct problems (e.g., Posner & Rothbart, 1994). Poor inhibition of attention is characterized by impulsivity, which in turn might compromise EC and create risk for conduct problems. In contrast, poor sustained attention is more often associated with problems such as ADD and learning disabilities. Few studies have examined associations among EC, these two aspects of attention, and conduct problems. Methodological issues.Kochanska and colleagues have reliably measured EC as a single construct among middle-class children, but describe three subcomponents: motor control, inhibition in response to a signal, and delay (Kochanska et al., 2000). More research is needed about the performance of the EC measure in children exposed to multiple risk factors, and the internal consistency of the EC subcomponents. The present study addressed these theoretical and methodological issues by examining EC, attention, and conduct problems in children exposed to multiple risk factors as part of an ongoing preventive intervention trial with African-American and Latino siblings of adjudicated youths from low-income, urban neighborhoods. (Prediction 3) Subsequent regression analyses showed that only the Inhibition subscale of EC predicted aggression t-scores. RESULTS A G G R E S S I O N Descriptive Statistics for Attention and Aggression Scores Younger Older Variables Total Males Females (4-5) (6-7) # errors of omission 16.6 (14.9) 22.0 (17.6) 10.9 ( 8.5) 16.0 (18.8) 17.2 (10.4) % errors of omission* 12.6 (10.2) 16.8 (11.9) 8.2 ( 5.6) 13.0 (12.8) 12.3 ( 7.3) # errors of commission 20.4 (10.5) 20.3 (10.7) 20.6 (10.7) 21.4 (11.8) 19.5 ( 9.4) % errors of commission 48.1 (24.5) 47.1 (23.6) 49.3 (26.1) 56.2 (28.4) 40.5 (17.7) CBCL Aggression raw score 8.1 ( 5.4) 8.2 ( 5.2) 7.9 ( 5.8) 8.4 ( 6.0) 7.7 ( 4.9) CBCL Aggression T-score 54.1 ( 6.2) 53.5 ( 5.6) 55.8 ( 7.0) 54.6 ( 6.7) 54.7 ( 5.8) Note. Values are means and standard deviations, in parentheses * = differed between males and females, t(35) = 2.77, p < .05 Inhibition: r2 = .14, Fch = 5.64*, β = -.37 Impulsivity: NS DISCUSSION Summary of Findings (1) There was strong internal consistency for the Motor Control and Inhibition subscales of EC, though internal consistency was modest for the Delay subscale. (2) The Inhibition and Motor Control subscales of EC were negatively correlated with attentional impulsivity. (3) Greater EC-Inhibition was significantly associated with less aggression. The Construct of EC In our sample, EC showed good internal consistency, though there was modest internal consistency for the Delay subscale. This might reflect less consolidation of this capacity in early school age. Negative associations between EC (Inhibition and Motor Control) and attentional impulsivity provided converging evidence for the construct of EC from two distinct assessment methodologies. Furthermore, inattention, while probably a risk factor for ADD-spectrum problems, appears to show few linkages with EC and conduct problems. Mechanisms in the Development of Conduct Problems and Implications for Intervention Despite associations between EC and attentional impulsivity, only EC – Inhibition accounted for significant variance in CBCL aggression t-scores. This suggests that children who tend to act out aggressively show deficits specifically in the ability to inhibit behavior rather than in their ability to attend effectively to their environment. Thus, prevention and intervention programs targeting conduct problems might increase effectiveness by focusing on the promotion of inhibitory skills. Conclusions Though limited by a small sample size, this unique study of children exposed to multiple risk factors provides suggestive findings concerning the multifaceted nature of EC and its distinct associations with attention and conduct problems. (Prediction 1)EC showed internal consistency in this high-risk sample, but there was greatest coherence for the Motor Control and Inhibition subscales (overall α = .77) We predicted that: (1) There would be a high level of internal consistency among all items in the EC measure, though internal consistency might vary across subscales – Motor Control, Inhibition, and Delay. (2) Deficits in the inhibitory aspect of attention (impulsivity) would be correlated with EC, whereas deficits in the sustained attention aspect (inattention) would not. (3) Conduct problems would be negatively associated with EC and might be positively associated with attentional impulsivity. Subscale α or rTasks From the EC Battery Motor Control r = .65 Walking a line slowly Tracing stars and circles slowly Inhibition α = .78 Simon Says Whispering on demand Taking turns while building a block tower Matching game with distracters Delay α = .38 Delay eating food Delay touching a toy Delay touching a wrapped present METHOD Participants Participants were 37 preschool-aged siblings of adolescents adjudicated through the New York City Family Court, and participating in a preventive intervention trial. There were 19 males and 18 females, M age in months = 71.8, SD = 8.9. Of the children, 27 were African-American and 10 Latino. Measures EC The Effortful Control Battery (Kochanska & Murray, unpublished manual) consists of a series of 9 tasks requiring the child to control, inhibit, and delay responses (See Results, Prediction 1 Table, for examples). Scores were standardized and averaged across tasks. The battery yieldsseveral subscales of EC: (1) Motor control (2) Inhibition of response following signal (3) Delay Attention The Continuous Performance Test – Kiddie Version (K-CPT; Connors, 2001)requires children to inhibit a prepotent response (pressing a space bar only at the appearance of a target picture). Children received approximately 200 trials over 7 minutes, though some children received fewer trials due to child refusal. Patterns of errors reflect inattention and impulsivity. Two scores were calculated: (1) % errors of omission – inattention (2)% errors ofcommission - impulsivity Conduct Problems Aggression subscale t-scores of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991) were calculatedbased on maternal report of aggressive symptoms (e.g., fights, argues, teases, bullies, moodiness). (Predictions 2 & 3) Zero-order correlations showed: (a) Both the Inhibition and Motor Control subscales of EC were were negatively correlated with impulsivitybut unrelated to inattention. (b) Inhibition alone was significantly negativelycorrelated with aggression • 1 2 3 4 5 6 • Motor __ .35* .04 .11 -.41*** .05 • Inhibition __ .28 -.09 -.52*** -.37* • Delay __ -.16 -.14 -.01 • % Omissions (inattention) __ -.20 .08 • % Commissions (impulsivity) __ .25 • Aggression t-scores __ REFERENCES Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist /4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Conners, C.K., & MHS Staff (2001). Conners’ K-CPT Manual. North Towanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Kochanska, G., Murray, K.T., & Harlan, E.T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220-232. Kochanska, G., & Murray, K.T. (unpublished manual). The Effortful Control Battery. University of Iowa. Note. * p <.05; ** p <.01; ***p < .001.