J. DRUG EDUCATION, Vol. 20(3)191-198, 1990
PEER CLUSTER THEORY AND ADOLESCENT DRUG USE: A REANALYSIS
RON D. HAYS RAND Corporation JOSEPH P. REVElTO Paiton State Hospital, Los Angeles
ABSTRACT
Peer cluster theory hypothesizes that peer drug association has a direct effect on adolescent drug use. In turn, peer drug associations are influenced by familial factors (sanctions and strength) and individual variables (religious identification, school adjustment). Oetting and Beauvais evaluated peer cluster theory in a cross-sectional survey of 415 high school students [l].We hypothesized, evaluated, and found support for an alternative model in which poorer school adjustment was specified as a consequence of drug use, peer drug associations, lack of family sanctions against drug use, low religious identification, and absence of family strength. This reanalysis illustrates that interpretations of structural equation modeling results from cross-sectional data are especially problematic.
Peer cluster theory, as proposed by Oetting and Beauvais hypothesizes that peer drug association has a direct effect on adolescent drug use [l]. In turn, peer drug associations are influenced by familial factors (sanctions and strength) and individual variables (religious identification, school adjustment). Empirical support for the central role of peer drug associations (e.g., number of friends using drugs, offers of drugs by friends) is provided by a plethora of research [2,3]. The importance of the family in adolescent drug use involvement is also well founded. Winfree’s longitudinal analysis of ninety-four students in grades seven through nine showed that drug-related conflicts with parents over a three-year time span were predictive of greater alcohol use [4]. Jones and Moberg reported a 191
0 1990,Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: 10.2190/65RP-7LNE-91LT-7J4L http://baywood.com
192 / HAYSANDREVElTO
significant positive cross-sectional relationship between living in other than a two-parent home and smokeless tobacco use in a sample of 2181 students in grades seven through twelve [5]. Poor academic performance has been shown to be associated positively with alcohol use [6, 7] and smokeless tobacco use [ 5 ] . A moderate, but significant association between religiosity and less drug use has consistently been reported. For example, Perkins found a direct effect of strength of commitment to religious faith on alcohol and other drug use (standardized betas of -.15, -.16) [8]. Amoateng and Bahr noted a negative correlation between religiosity and frequency of alcohol and marijuana use [9]. Jessor and Jessor observed significant negative correlations between their 7-item religiosity measure and marijuana behavior involvement and deviant behavior during the past year in a high school sample [lo]. Sadava found that religiosity correlated significantly with lower probability of adverse consequences of drinking in a sample of 370 factory workers, nurses, and teachers [ll].In an analysis of the effect of various personality and environment variables on drug use among thirteen to eighteen yearolds, Hays, Stacy, Widaman, DiMatteo, and Downey concluded that “religiousness tended to have the greatest and must consistent influence of all the psychological variables on alcohol and other drug use” [12, p. 3671. Thus, the peer cluster theory variables have a strong empirical base. Oetting and Beauvais administered measures of peer cluster theory variables to a sample of 415 students at a high school in a “midsize western community” [l].Using these cross-sectional data, Oetting and Beauvais specified and tested a path model representative of peer cluster theory. The most critical feature of their theory, that only peer drug associations has a direct effect on drug use, was embodied in the specification of their path model. Oetting and Beauvais’ path analysis model fit the data reasonably well and was interpreted as confirming their basic theory [l].The Oetting and Beauvais results are summarized in Figure 1.Although the direct negative effect of school adjustment on drug use is inconsistent with peer cluster theory’s specifications of mediation through peer drug associations, it was not considered a serious discrepancy because of its small magnitude. Oetting and Beauvais’ paper is very informative [l].However, given the crosssectional nature of the study and the problems with interpretation of directional influences [3], consideration of alternative models is necessary to understand the data [13] . In this article, we reanalyze the Oetting and Beauvais’ data [l], providing an evaluation of a plausible alternative model.
METHODS Oetting and Beauvais measured drug use (level of involvement with alcohol and ten other drugs),peer drug associations (number of friends using drugs, offers
PEER CLUSTER THEORY / 193
R.llglous IdonHtlc~tion
.as
w
auo AuocloIlons
School AdJuslaonI
Chl-square (6, N = 415 ) = 11.08, p > .05 delta = 0.98
m o = 0.98
Figure 1. Oetting and Beauvais path analysis model of peer cluster theory and adolescent drug use. Only statistically significant @ < .05) parameter estimates (standardized) are shown.
of drugs by friends, how strongly the individual would attempt to keep friends from using drugs, how strongly friends would try to stop hisher own use of drugs), school aa'jusmtent (success in school, liking for school), family sanctions (against alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, other drugs), religious identification (how religious the youth is, how much he/she participates in religious activities), and famiry strength (family intactness, whether the youth feels the family cares) in a sample of 415 high school students (50.1% female) [l].For further information about the measures, we refer the reader to the original publication 111.
RESULTS Replication Oetting and Beauvais indicated that their model adequately fit the data [l],but they did not specify the estimation procedure (e.g., generalized least squares) they used. Using the correlation matrix provided in Table 1 of the original study, we reanalyzed the data using the EQS computer program 1141. Maximum likelihood estimation was performed and hypothesized models were evaluated using the chi-square statistic and measures of practical fit [15]. First, the Oetting and Beauvais model was specified. This model, Model 1, fit the data well (x' (6, N = 415) = 1 1 . 0 8 , ~> .05; delta = 0.98; rho = 0.98). However, Lagrange multiplier tests indicated that a direct effect of family sanctions on drug
94 / HAYSANDREVETTO
Idonlltlcatlon
Aoooa1allono
Chi-square (4, N = 415) = 2.83, p > -05 delta = 1.00
mo = 1.00
Figure 2. Modified Oetting and Beawais path analysis model of peer cluster theory and adolescent drug use. Ony statistically significant (p c .05) parameter estimates (standardized) are shown.
use and a correlation between the residuals of family sanctions and religious identification were statistically justified [16]. Model 2, presented in Figure 2, was specified with these two additional estimates. Model 2 fit the data significantly better than did Model 1 (x’ (2, N = 415) = 8.25,p < .05). The direct effect of family sanctions on drug use in Model 2 introduces a second exception to the hypotheses implied by peer cluster theory (the direct effect of school adjustment on drug use in both Model 1 and Model 2 is the other exception). This second exception is especially noteworthy given Oetting and Beauvais’ conclusion, based on Model 1, that “the influence of the family is not direct . . treatment of drug use by family therapy might not be successful” [l,p. 2101.
.
Alternative Model The importance of adolescent drug use as an independent variable as well as an outcome variable is increasingly recognized [17]. For example, Newcomb and Bentler recently devoted an entire book to the consequences of adolescent drug use [18]. A potentially very important short-term consequence of adolescent drug use is academic performance and attitude toward school (i.e., school adjustment). Indeed, Oetting and Beauvais remark that “the current zeitgeis would say that drugs cause school-adjustment problems,” [l, p. 2111. We hypothesized that
PEER CLUSTER THEORY / 195
Chi-square (3, N = 415) = 3.85, p > .05 d e b = 0.99 rtI0 = 0.99
Figure 3. Hays and Revetto path analysis model of peer cluster theory and adolescent drug use. Only statistically significant (p < .05) parameter estimates (standardized) are shown.
school adjustment may be affected by drug use, peer drug associations, family sanctions, religious identification, and family strength. As an alternative to the model proposed by Oetting and Beauvais [l], we evaluated the model summarized in Figure 3. This model, Model 3, could not be rejected statistically (r2(3, N = 415) = 3.85,p > .05) and fit the data on practical grounds as well (delta = 0.99; rho = 0.99). Model 3 supports peer cluster theory’s hypothesized direct effect of peer drug associations and indirect effect of family strength on adolescent drug use. The relationships of family sanctions and religious identification with drug use were modeled as “correlated causes.” The correlations between drug use and these variables were modeled by correlated residuals with peer drug associations (which, in turn, directly affected drug use). School adjustment was found to be directly influenced by family sanctions, peer drug associations, family strength, religious identification, and drug use. These direct effects on school adjustment were of similar strength (ranging from 0.13 to 0.27 in absolute magnitude), with the direct effect of peer drug associations being somewhat larger than the others.
DISCUSSION Because there are a number of alternative models that can be specified for most data sets, and one or more of these alternative models can fit the data as well as or better than models originally considered, it is important to consider a series of
196 I HAYSANDREVETTO
alternative models [13]. Adherence to this recommendation is particularly important when one is analyzing cross-sectional data. In this study, we reanalyzed data presented by Oetting and Beauvais [l]to evaluate a model not considered in the original publication. Oetting and Beauvais focused on drug use as the ultimate outcome variable and specified their model accordingly. In contrast, we examined a model with school adjustment as the ultimate outcome and drug use as a intermediate outcome variable. Because of the cross-sectional design of the study, it is not possible to determine which model is “correct”; both models are theoretically plausible and statistically acceptable. Examining the alternative model we propose along with the Oetting and Beauvais model allows for a more complete understanding of the processes underlying the data than does an examination of only one model or the other. The results of evaluating our model provide strong support for the influence of the family, peer drug associations, religious identification, and recreational drug use on school adjustment. These results are consistent with previous research linking use of cigarettes and hard drugs to dropping out of high school [19, 201. The substantial effects of these factors on adolescents’ functioning at school is particularly noteworthy given the fundamental significance of this life domain for young adolescents. The high school years are critical for the transition into adulthood and laying the foundation for adulthood; educational aspirations at this time are very strongly related to subsequent educational achievement [21]. Peer cluster theory and the alternative model examined here both suggest a key role of the family in minimizing adolescent drug use by its impact on peer drug associations. There is also some indication that religious identification may reduce drug use through peer drug associations (modeled as an indirect effect in peer cluster theory and as a correlated cause in the present analysis). Drug use and school adjustment may have mutual effects on one another, with drug use impairing performance (as modeled here) and poor adjustment leading to drug use (as observed in the Oetting and Beauvais model). Thus, drug use education efforts need to be multifaceted, considering the adolescent, the family, and peer associations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS An earlier version of this article was presented at the Second Iowa Conference
on Personal Relationships, Iowa City, Iowa, May 1989. REFERENCES 1. E. R. Oetting and F. Beauvais, Peer Cluster Theory, Socialization Characteristics,and Adolescent Drug Use: A Path Analysis, Journol of Counseling Psychology, 34, pp. 205213,1987.
PEER CLUSTER THEORY / 197
2. G. J. Huba, I. A. Wingard, and P. M. Bentler, Beginning Adolescent Drug Use and Peer and Adult Interaction Patterns, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, pp. 265-276,1979. 3. R. Jessor and S. L Jessor, Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A LongitudinalStudy of Youth,Academic Press, New York, 1977. 4. L. T. Winfree, Peers. Parents, and Adolescent Drug Use in a Rural Community: A Two-Wave Panel Study, Journal of Youth andddolescence, 14, pp. 499412,1985. 5. R. B. Jones and D. P. Moberg, Correlates of Smokeless Tobacco Use in a Male Adolescent Population,American Journal of Public Health, 78, pp. 6163,1988. 6. L. Chassin, L M. Mann, and K. J. Sher, Self-Awareness Theory, Family History of Alcoholism, and Adolescent Alcohol Involvement,Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, pp. 206-217,1988. 7. T. A. Wills, Stress and Coping in Adolescence: Relationships to Substance Use in Urban School Samples, Health Psychology, 5, pp. 503-530.1986. 8. H. W. Perkins, Religious Traditions, Parents, and Peers as Determinants of Alcohol and Drug Use among College Students, Review of Religious Research, 27, pp. 15-31,
1985. 9. A. Y. Amoateng and S. J. Bahr, Religion, Family, and Adolescent Drug Use, Sociological Perspectives, 29, pp. 53-76.1986. 10. R.Jessor and S. L. Jessor, Theory Testing in Longitudinal Research on Marijuana Use, in Longitudinal Research on Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological Issues, D. B. Kandel (ed.). Hemisphere, Washington, D.C., pp. 41-71,1978. 11. S. W.Sadava, Problem Behavior Theory and Consumption and Consequences of Alcohol Use, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, pp. 392-397.1985. 12. R. D. Hays, A. W. Stacy, K.F. Widaman, M. R. DiMatteo, and R. Downey, Multistage Path Models of Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Use: A Reanalysis, Journal of Drug Issues, 16, pp. 357-369,1986. 13. R. D. Hays and K. White, The Importance of Considering Alternative Structural Equation Models in Evaluation Research, Evaluation and the Health Professions, 10, pp. 90-100,1987. 14. P. M. Bentler, Theory and Implementation of EQS: A Structural Equations Program, BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles, 1985. 15. P. M. Bentler and D. G. Bonnet, Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88, pp. 588606,1980. 16. P. M.Bentler and C. P. Chou, Statistics for Parameter Expansion and Construction in Structural Models, paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1986. 17. M. D. Newcomb and P. M. Bentler, Substance Use and Abuse among Children and Teenagers,American Psychologis4 44, pp. 242-248,1989. 18. M. D. Newcomb and P. M. Bentler, ConsequencesOfAdolescentDrug Use: Impact on the Lives of YoungAdults, Sage, Newbury Park, 1988. 19. B. S.Mensch and D. B. Kandel, Dropping Out of High School and Drug Involvement, Sociology ofEducation, 61, pp. 95-113.1988. 20. M. D. Newcomb and P. M. Bentler, Drug Use, Educational Aspirations, and Workforce Involvement: The Transition from Adolescence to Young Adulthood, American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, pp. 303-321,1986.
198
/ HAYSANDREVETTO
21. D. B. Kandel, M. Davies, D. Karus, and K. Yarnaguchi, The Consequences in Young Adulthood of Adolescent Drug Involvement, Archives of Cenerul Psychium, 43, pp. 7464'54,1986.
Direct reprint requests to:
Ron D. Hays, PbD. The RAND Corporation 1700 Main Street P. 0. Box 2138 Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138
PEER CLUSTER THEORY AND ADOLESCENT DRUG USE: A REANALYSIS
RON D. HAYS RAND Corporation JOSEPH P. REVElTO Paiton State Hospital, Los Angeles
ABSTRACT
Peer cluster theory hypothesizes that peer drug association has a direct effect on adolescent drug use. In turn, peer drug associations are influenced by familial factors (sanctions and strength) and individual variables (religious identification, school adjustment). Oetting and Beauvais evaluated peer cluster theory in a cross-sectional survey of 415 high school students [l].We hypothesized, evaluated, and found support for an alternative model in which poorer school adjustment was specified as a consequence of drug use, peer drug associations, lack of family sanctions against drug use, low religious identification, and absence of family strength. This reanalysis illustrates that interpretations of structural equation modeling results from cross-sectional data are especially problematic.
Peer cluster theory, as proposed by Oetting and Beauvais hypothesizes that peer drug association has a direct effect on adolescent drug use [l]. In turn, peer drug associations are influenced by familial factors (sanctions and strength) and individual variables (religious identification, school adjustment). Empirical support for the central role of peer drug associations (e.g., number of friends using drugs, offers of drugs by friends) is provided by a plethora of research [2,3]. The importance of the family in adolescent drug use involvement is also well founded. Winfree’s longitudinal analysis of ninety-four students in grades seven through nine showed that drug-related conflicts with parents over a three-year time span were predictive of greater alcohol use [4]. Jones and Moberg reported a 191
0 1990,Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: 10.2190/65RP-7LNE-91LT-7J4L http://baywood.com
192 / HAYSANDREVElTO
significant positive cross-sectional relationship between living in other than a two-parent home and smokeless tobacco use in a sample of 2181 students in grades seven through twelve [5]. Poor academic performance has been shown to be associated positively with alcohol use [6, 7] and smokeless tobacco use [ 5 ] . A moderate, but significant association between religiosity and less drug use has consistently been reported. For example, Perkins found a direct effect of strength of commitment to religious faith on alcohol and other drug use (standardized betas of -.15, -.16) [8]. Amoateng and Bahr noted a negative correlation between religiosity and frequency of alcohol and marijuana use [9]. Jessor and Jessor observed significant negative correlations between their 7-item religiosity measure and marijuana behavior involvement and deviant behavior during the past year in a high school sample [lo]. Sadava found that religiosity correlated significantly with lower probability of adverse consequences of drinking in a sample of 370 factory workers, nurses, and teachers [ll].In an analysis of the effect of various personality and environment variables on drug use among thirteen to eighteen yearolds, Hays, Stacy, Widaman, DiMatteo, and Downey concluded that “religiousness tended to have the greatest and must consistent influence of all the psychological variables on alcohol and other drug use” [12, p. 3671. Thus, the peer cluster theory variables have a strong empirical base. Oetting and Beauvais administered measures of peer cluster theory variables to a sample of 415 students at a high school in a “midsize western community” [l].Using these cross-sectional data, Oetting and Beauvais specified and tested a path model representative of peer cluster theory. The most critical feature of their theory, that only peer drug associations has a direct effect on drug use, was embodied in the specification of their path model. Oetting and Beauvais’ path analysis model fit the data reasonably well and was interpreted as confirming their basic theory [l].The Oetting and Beauvais results are summarized in Figure 1.Although the direct negative effect of school adjustment on drug use is inconsistent with peer cluster theory’s specifications of mediation through peer drug associations, it was not considered a serious discrepancy because of its small magnitude. Oetting and Beauvais’ paper is very informative [l].However, given the crosssectional nature of the study and the problems with interpretation of directional influences [3], consideration of alternative models is necessary to understand the data [13] . In this article, we reanalyze the Oetting and Beauvais’ data [l], providing an evaluation of a plausible alternative model.
METHODS Oetting and Beauvais measured drug use (level of involvement with alcohol and ten other drugs),peer drug associations (number of friends using drugs, offers
PEER CLUSTER THEORY / 193
R.llglous IdonHtlc~tion
.as
w
auo AuocloIlons
School AdJuslaonI
Chl-square (6, N = 415 ) = 11.08, p > .05 delta = 0.98
m o = 0.98
Figure 1. Oetting and Beauvais path analysis model of peer cluster theory and adolescent drug use. Only statistically significant @ < .05) parameter estimates (standardized) are shown.
of drugs by friends, how strongly the individual would attempt to keep friends from using drugs, how strongly friends would try to stop hisher own use of drugs), school aa'jusmtent (success in school, liking for school), family sanctions (against alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, other drugs), religious identification (how religious the youth is, how much he/she participates in religious activities), and famiry strength (family intactness, whether the youth feels the family cares) in a sample of 415 high school students (50.1% female) [l].For further information about the measures, we refer the reader to the original publication 111.
RESULTS Replication Oetting and Beauvais indicated that their model adequately fit the data [l],but they did not specify the estimation procedure (e.g., generalized least squares) they used. Using the correlation matrix provided in Table 1 of the original study, we reanalyzed the data using the EQS computer program 1141. Maximum likelihood estimation was performed and hypothesized models were evaluated using the chi-square statistic and measures of practical fit [15]. First, the Oetting and Beauvais model was specified. This model, Model 1, fit the data well (x' (6, N = 415) = 1 1 . 0 8 , ~> .05; delta = 0.98; rho = 0.98). However, Lagrange multiplier tests indicated that a direct effect of family sanctions on drug
94 / HAYSANDREVETTO
Idonlltlcatlon
Aoooa1allono
Chi-square (4, N = 415) = 2.83, p > -05 delta = 1.00
mo = 1.00
Figure 2. Modified Oetting and Beawais path analysis model of peer cluster theory and adolescent drug use. Ony statistically significant (p c .05) parameter estimates (standardized) are shown.
use and a correlation between the residuals of family sanctions and religious identification were statistically justified [16]. Model 2, presented in Figure 2, was specified with these two additional estimates. Model 2 fit the data significantly better than did Model 1 (x’ (2, N = 415) = 8.25,p < .05). The direct effect of family sanctions on drug use in Model 2 introduces a second exception to the hypotheses implied by peer cluster theory (the direct effect of school adjustment on drug use in both Model 1 and Model 2 is the other exception). This second exception is especially noteworthy given Oetting and Beauvais’ conclusion, based on Model 1, that “the influence of the family is not direct . . treatment of drug use by family therapy might not be successful” [l,p. 2101.
.
Alternative Model The importance of adolescent drug use as an independent variable as well as an outcome variable is increasingly recognized [17]. For example, Newcomb and Bentler recently devoted an entire book to the consequences of adolescent drug use [18]. A potentially very important short-term consequence of adolescent drug use is academic performance and attitude toward school (i.e., school adjustment). Indeed, Oetting and Beauvais remark that “the current zeitgeis would say that drugs cause school-adjustment problems,” [l, p. 2111. We hypothesized that
PEER CLUSTER THEORY / 195
Chi-square (3, N = 415) = 3.85, p > .05 d e b = 0.99 rtI0 = 0.99
Figure 3. Hays and Revetto path analysis model of peer cluster theory and adolescent drug use. Only statistically significant (p < .05) parameter estimates (standardized) are shown.
school adjustment may be affected by drug use, peer drug associations, family sanctions, religious identification, and family strength. As an alternative to the model proposed by Oetting and Beauvais [l], we evaluated the model summarized in Figure 3. This model, Model 3, could not be rejected statistically (r2(3, N = 415) = 3.85,p > .05) and fit the data on practical grounds as well (delta = 0.99; rho = 0.99). Model 3 supports peer cluster theory’s hypothesized direct effect of peer drug associations and indirect effect of family strength on adolescent drug use. The relationships of family sanctions and religious identification with drug use were modeled as “correlated causes.” The correlations between drug use and these variables were modeled by correlated residuals with peer drug associations (which, in turn, directly affected drug use). School adjustment was found to be directly influenced by family sanctions, peer drug associations, family strength, religious identification, and drug use. These direct effects on school adjustment were of similar strength (ranging from 0.13 to 0.27 in absolute magnitude), with the direct effect of peer drug associations being somewhat larger than the others.
DISCUSSION Because there are a number of alternative models that can be specified for most data sets, and one or more of these alternative models can fit the data as well as or better than models originally considered, it is important to consider a series of
196 I HAYSANDREVETTO
alternative models [13]. Adherence to this recommendation is particularly important when one is analyzing cross-sectional data. In this study, we reanalyzed data presented by Oetting and Beauvais [l]to evaluate a model not considered in the original publication. Oetting and Beauvais focused on drug use as the ultimate outcome variable and specified their model accordingly. In contrast, we examined a model with school adjustment as the ultimate outcome and drug use as a intermediate outcome variable. Because of the cross-sectional design of the study, it is not possible to determine which model is “correct”; both models are theoretically plausible and statistically acceptable. Examining the alternative model we propose along with the Oetting and Beauvais model allows for a more complete understanding of the processes underlying the data than does an examination of only one model or the other. The results of evaluating our model provide strong support for the influence of the family, peer drug associations, religious identification, and recreational drug use on school adjustment. These results are consistent with previous research linking use of cigarettes and hard drugs to dropping out of high school [19, 201. The substantial effects of these factors on adolescents’ functioning at school is particularly noteworthy given the fundamental significance of this life domain for young adolescents. The high school years are critical for the transition into adulthood and laying the foundation for adulthood; educational aspirations at this time are very strongly related to subsequent educational achievement [21]. Peer cluster theory and the alternative model examined here both suggest a key role of the family in minimizing adolescent drug use by its impact on peer drug associations. There is also some indication that religious identification may reduce drug use through peer drug associations (modeled as an indirect effect in peer cluster theory and as a correlated cause in the present analysis). Drug use and school adjustment may have mutual effects on one another, with drug use impairing performance (as modeled here) and poor adjustment leading to drug use (as observed in the Oetting and Beauvais model). Thus, drug use education efforts need to be multifaceted, considering the adolescent, the family, and peer associations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS An earlier version of this article was presented at the Second Iowa Conference
on Personal Relationships, Iowa City, Iowa, May 1989. REFERENCES 1. E. R. Oetting and F. Beauvais, Peer Cluster Theory, Socialization Characteristics,and Adolescent Drug Use: A Path Analysis, Journol of Counseling Psychology, 34, pp. 205213,1987.
PEER CLUSTER THEORY / 197
2. G. J. Huba, I. A. Wingard, and P. M. Bentler, Beginning Adolescent Drug Use and Peer and Adult Interaction Patterns, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, pp. 265-276,1979. 3. R. Jessor and S. L Jessor, Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A LongitudinalStudy of Youth,Academic Press, New York, 1977. 4. L. T. Winfree, Peers. Parents, and Adolescent Drug Use in a Rural Community: A Two-Wave Panel Study, Journal of Youth andddolescence, 14, pp. 499412,1985. 5. R. B. Jones and D. P. Moberg, Correlates of Smokeless Tobacco Use in a Male Adolescent Population,American Journal of Public Health, 78, pp. 6163,1988. 6. L. Chassin, L M. Mann, and K. J. Sher, Self-Awareness Theory, Family History of Alcoholism, and Adolescent Alcohol Involvement,Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, pp. 206-217,1988. 7. T. A. Wills, Stress and Coping in Adolescence: Relationships to Substance Use in Urban School Samples, Health Psychology, 5, pp. 503-530.1986. 8. H. W. Perkins, Religious Traditions, Parents, and Peers as Determinants of Alcohol and Drug Use among College Students, Review of Religious Research, 27, pp. 15-31,
1985. 9. A. Y. Amoateng and S. J. Bahr, Religion, Family, and Adolescent Drug Use, Sociological Perspectives, 29, pp. 53-76.1986. 10. R.Jessor and S. L. Jessor, Theory Testing in Longitudinal Research on Marijuana Use, in Longitudinal Research on Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological Issues, D. B. Kandel (ed.). Hemisphere, Washington, D.C., pp. 41-71,1978. 11. S. W.Sadava, Problem Behavior Theory and Consumption and Consequences of Alcohol Use, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, pp. 392-397.1985. 12. R. D. Hays, A. W. Stacy, K.F. Widaman, M. R. DiMatteo, and R. Downey, Multistage Path Models of Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Use: A Reanalysis, Journal of Drug Issues, 16, pp. 357-369,1986. 13. R. D. Hays and K. White, The Importance of Considering Alternative Structural Equation Models in Evaluation Research, Evaluation and the Health Professions, 10, pp. 90-100,1987. 14. P. M. Bentler, Theory and Implementation of EQS: A Structural Equations Program, BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles, 1985. 15. P. M. Bentler and D. G. Bonnet, Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88, pp. 588606,1980. 16. P. M.Bentler and C. P. Chou, Statistics for Parameter Expansion and Construction in Structural Models, paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1986. 17. M. D. Newcomb and P. M. Bentler, Substance Use and Abuse among Children and Teenagers,American Psychologis4 44, pp. 242-248,1989. 18. M. D. Newcomb and P. M. Bentler, ConsequencesOfAdolescentDrug Use: Impact on the Lives of YoungAdults, Sage, Newbury Park, 1988. 19. B. S.Mensch and D. B. Kandel, Dropping Out of High School and Drug Involvement, Sociology ofEducation, 61, pp. 95-113.1988. 20. M. D. Newcomb and P. M. Bentler, Drug Use, Educational Aspirations, and Workforce Involvement: The Transition from Adolescence to Young Adulthood, American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, pp. 303-321,1986.
198
/ HAYSANDREVETTO
21. D. B. Kandel, M. Davies, D. Karus, and K. Yarnaguchi, The Consequences in Young Adulthood of Adolescent Drug Involvement, Archives of Cenerul Psychium, 43, pp. 7464'54,1986.
Direct reprint requests to:
Ron D. Hays, PbD. The RAND Corporation 1700 Main Street P. 0. Box 2138 Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138
