View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Longitudinal Change in Adolescent Hope among Recent Immigrant Latinx Adolescents: Links with Adolescent and Parent Cultural Stress, Family Functioning, Emotional Well-Being, and Behavioral Health

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Longitudinal Change in Adolescent Hope among Recent Immigrant Latinx Adolescents: Links with Adolescent and Parent Cultural Stress, Family Functioning, Emotional Well-Being, and Behavioral Health
Language: English
Authors: Lorenzo-Blanco, Elma I. (ORCID 0000-0002-1189-5562), Zhang, Minyu, Cobb, Cory, Meca, Alan (ORCID 0000-0002-3272-7701), Szapocznik, José, Unger, Jennifer B., Cano, Miguel Ángel, Schwartz, Seth J. (ORCID 0000-0003-4238-9520)
Source: Child Development. e87-e102 Jan-Feb 2022 93(1):e87-e102.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2022
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (DHHS/NIH)
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (DHHS/PHS)
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (DHHS/NIH)
Contract Number: DA025694
P2CHD042849
1K01AA02805701A1
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Longitudinal Studies, Adolescents, Psychological Patterns, Immigrants, Minority Groups, Cultural Differences, Parents, Anxiety, Family Relationship, Well Being, Mental Health
Geographic Terms: California (Los Angeles), Florida (Miami)
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13694
ISSN: 0009-3920
Abstract: Adolescent hope can promote the emotional and behavioral well-being of Latinx families. Positive family functioning may foster adolescent hope, whereas cultural stress may compromise adolescent hope and well-being. We examined how adolescent hope changed over time, and whether cultural stress and family functioning predicted emotional and behavioral health via adolescent hope intercept and slope. Recent Latinx immigrant adolescents (M[subscript age] = 14.51) and parents (M[subscript age] = 41.09; N = 302; n = 150 from Los Angeles; n = 152 from Miami) completed measures of above constructs over 3 years (Summer 2010 to Spring 2013). Latent growth curve modeling indicated that adolescent hope increased over time. Higher cultural stress predicted lower initial hope. Higher family functioning predicted higher initial levels of and less steep increase in hope. Increase in hope predicted better emotional and behavioral health. Family functioning predicted better health outcomes by way of hope.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1327101
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHqMXU8Sq6IGuyxqOjU9ob6AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDObL0yyMNeaKdO9QNwIBEICBm7qLiP3SgO7apBE-5lKv6vcOjw8_J-aFgaBUmLP-UURehHn4Zz6HocxloCKH23DTuGZLam7kUB8IejuGjX3KR_TRUXAYD5xQnh7l63srZOA8TBtkHFp_MTba4zHK2nLia3oqd_DPRQXPWsj-7yAy9hoaOfw79IAXGiP06sSbtMhEiMZWEhA2cLYy_VjLZZtxEoaEr10p1Eu0ec7z
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0154716039;cdv01jan.22;2022Jan19.03:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0154716039-1">Longitudinal change in adolescent hope among recent immigrant Latinx adolescents: Links with adolescent and parent cultural stress, family functioning, emotional well‐being, and behavioral health </title> <p>Adolescent hope can promote the emotional and behavioral well‐being of Latinx families. Positive family functioning may foster adolescent hope, whereas cultural stress may compromise adolescent hope and well‐being. We examined how adolescent hope changed over time, and whether cultural stress and family functioning predicted emotional and behavioral health via adolescent hope intercept and slope. Recent Latinx immigrant adolescents (Mage = 14.51) and parents (Mage = 41.09; N = 302; n = 150 from Los Angeles; n = 152 from Miami) completed measures of above constructs over 3 years (Summer 2010 to Spring 2013). Latent growth curve modeling indicated that adolescent hope increased over time. Higher cultural stress predicted lower initial hope. Higher family functioning predicted higher initial levels of and less steep increase in hope. Increase in hope predicted better emotional and behavioral health. Family functioning predicted better health outcomes by way of hope.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Abbreviations</item> <p></p> <item> CES‐D Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale</item> <p></p> <item> CFI comparative fit index</item> <p></p> <item> CIH cultural integration hypothesis</item> <p></p> <item> LGCM latent growth curve modeling</item> <p></p> <item> MLR maximum likelihood with robust errors</item> <p></p> <item> RMSEA root mean square error of approximation</item> </ulist> <p>Improving the emotional and behavioral health of Latinx youth in the United States (US) is an important public health priority. Latinx youth represent a large and growing U.S. population with 25% of children in U.S. K–12 school system being Latinx (US Census Bureau, 2014).</p> <p>The majority of Latinx children are first‐ (11%) or second‐ (52%) generation immigrants, making immigration or related factors salient experiences for many Latinx youth (Bernstein, 2013). Research suggests that Latinx immigrant youth often report better emotional well‐being (e.g., lower depressive symptoms) and behavioral health (e.g., lower substance use) compared to their U.S.‐born counterparts (e.g., Marks et al., 2014). Moreover, the emotional well‐being and behavioral health of Latinx immigrant youth appear to worsen as they spend time in the US, a phenomenon often called the immigrant paradox.</p> <p>One explanation for this Latinx immigrant paradox is that close‐knit, supportive, and cohesive family relationships often observed among Latinx immigrant families foster resilience. This resilience may prepare youth and families to successfully navigate disadvantage, thereby promoting healthy youth development (e.g., Falicov, 2013). Although scholars have postulated that Latinx immigrant families may experience decreases in positive family functioning as a result of experiencing cultural stress and disadvantage in the US, recent longitudinal research with Latinx immigrant families indicates otherwise (Lorenzo‐Blanco, Meca, Unger, Romero, Gonzales‐Backen et al., 2016), suggesting that resilience may be common among Latinx families.</p> <p>Another theoretical explanation for the Latinx immigrant paradox is the cultural integration hypothesis (CIH; Buriel, 2012), which holds that healthier Latinx immigrant families self‐select to immigrate to the US in search of better occupational and educational opportunities, and they arrive in the US with the psychological strengths to overcome challenges. The CIH further holds that youths' psychological strengths may wane over time as youths and parents face cultural stressors caused by having to navigate multiple cultural contexts and belonging to a stigmatized ethnic‐minority group. Also, per the CIH, decreases in adolescent strengths may adversely affect youth and parent emotional and behavioral well‐being (Buriel, 2012).</p> <p>One psychological strength relevant for Latinx immigrant youth that may decrease over time as a result of cultural stressors is <emph>hope</emph>—a motivational cognitive set that involves personal goals, agency (i.e., belief that one has the ability to reach one's goals), and pathways (i.e., belief that one can think of many ways to reach one's goals; e.g., Snyder et al., 1997). According to hope theory (e.g., Snyder et al., 1997), youth with higher hope (compared to youth with lower hope) have goals, believe they can successfully pursue their goals, and are able to think of many ways to reach their goals. Higher hope may enable youth to manage daily demands and obstacles, thereby promoting emotional well‐being and behavioral health (e.g., Edwards et al., 2007; Shorey et al., 2003). According to hope theory (e.g., Shorey et al., 2003; Snyder et al., 1997), adolescent hope develops within the context of close and supportive family relationships in which parents (through their parenting) teach their children how to think (e.g., about one's goals) and relate with others and their environments (to move toward and achieve one's goals). Hope theory holds that youth who grow up in close and supportive families develop positive social‐support perceptions, which bolster capacities to overcome challenges and use adaptive problem‐solving strategies; and thereby, foster increases in hope. The family context might be particularly relevant for the promotion of adolescent hope among Latinx families given the emphasis on cultural values (e.g., familismo, respeto) that foster close family relationships (Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2012; Stein et al., 2014). Per hope theory (Shorey et al., 2003; Snyder et al., 1997), the foundation of hope develops during early childhood and the expression of hope primarily emerges in adolescence.</p> <p>Hope may be especially relevant for recent immigrant Latinx youth and families who often arrive in the US with high hope—they arrive with the goal of improving their future by taking advantage of educational and employment opportunities and with the belief that they can successfully find ways to do so (e.g., Edwards et al., 2007; Falicov, 2013). Per the CIH (Buriel, 2012), Latinx immigrant youth may experience a decrease in hope as they and their families face cultural stress in the form of discrimination (e.g., Lorenzo‐Blanco, Meca, Unger, Romero, Gonzales‐Backen et al., 2016; Stein et al., 2019), acculturative or bicultural stress (e.g., Romero & Piña‐Watson, 2017), and a negative context of reception (Schwartz et al., 2014). Discrimination refers to experiences of unfair or differential treatment such as being teased or ostracized for being (or being perceived as being) an immigrant or having an accent when speaking English (Stein et al., 2019). Acculturative/bicultural stress can include the pressures to learn a new language, maintain one's native language, and balance differing cultural contexts (Romero & Piña‐Watson, 2017). A negative context of reception refers to immigrants not feeling welcomed in their U.S. settlement communities and can include a lack of access to good schools, employment, or health care (Schwartz et al., 2014).</p> <p>The CIH postulates that youth may experience decreases in hope as a result of cultural stress (Buriel, 2012). However, given the importance of the family context for Latinx youth development, it is possible that recent immigrant families continue to foster adolescent hope through their parenting and close family relationships (e.g., Falicov, 2013). In other words, although cultural stress may result in declines of adolescent hope, positive family functioning, in contrast, may continue to promote hope. Consistent with CIH, we examine whether experiences with cultural stress predicts decreases in adolescent hope. Consistent with scholarship on the importance of the family context for positive Latinx youth development, we investigate whether positive family functioning predicts higher adolescent hope.</p> <p>Although hope theory originally posited that the foundation of hope develops in early childhood and remains stable through the adolescent years (e.g., Snyder et al., 1997), these and other authors (e.g., Shorey et al., 2003; Valle et al., 2006) later suggested that hope may be affected as youth and families face stressful life transitions and stressors that they cannot control. Relatedly, scholars have proposed that hope may continue to develop through the adolescent years as a result of ongoing experiences and interactions in youths' social and physical environments (e.g., Callina et al., 2015). Per CIH and hope theory (Buriel, 2012; Snyder et al., 1997), social interactions that may affect adolescent hope among recent immigrant youth include cultural stressors and family functioning.</p> <p>Family systems paradigms (e.g., Cox & Paley, 1997) further propose that youth development is influenced by transactional processes within a larger and dynamic family system in which youths and parents are embedded and influence each other. According to family systems paradigms, larger macro‐level forces (e.g., immigration policies, neighborhood‐community support, etc.) can affect youths' and parents' well‐being through complex transactions between youths and parents. Among recent immigrant Latinx families, adolescent hope may be influenced by youth <emph>and</emph> parent cultural stress (e.g., Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2019); and by youth‐ <emph>and</emph> parent‐reported family functioning (i.e., family cohesion, positive and involved parenting; e.g., Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2019). Most scholarship on adolescent hope has examined how adolescent hope is associated with adolescent emotional and behavioral health (e.g., Edwards et al., 2007; Fite et al., 2014). Yet, per family systems paradigms, adolescent hope may also impact parents' emotional well‐being because youths' and parents' experiences and perceptions can transact and influence one another (e.g., Cox & Paley, 1997). For example, just as parent cultural stress may be negatively associated with emotional and behavioral well‐being among parents and youth (e.g., Lorenzo‐Blanco, Meca, Unger, Romero, Gonzales‐Backen et al., 2016), research indicates that adolescent cultural stress may be negatively associated with parent and youth well‐being (e.g., Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2019). Relatedly, adolescent hope may influence the emotional well‐being and behavioral health of youths <emph>and</emph> parents (Cox & Paley, 1997). Because parents often decide to immigrate to the US (with or without their adolescents' input, e.g., Falicov, 2013), parents may become discouraged when they and their children face cultural stress and youth may appear to lose hope. Feelings of discouragement may then lead to parent depressive symptoms (Nolen‐Hoeksema, 2000).</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-2">Adolescent hope, emotional well‐being, behavioral health, and cultural stress</hd> <p>Extant empirical research on hope among Latinx youth and families is limited and has largely used cross‐sectional designs to examine the associations of adolescent hope with adolescent developmental outcomes (e.g., educational aspirations, suicide risk, etc.; Bahena, 2019; Chang et al., 2013). As such, we know less about how adolescent hope changes as Latinx immigrant families settle into their U.S.‐receiving communities and how cultural stress may impact adolescent hope. Furthermore, because much of the published research has focused on youth and has not attended to ways in which youths and parents can influence one another, we know less about how changes in adolescent hope may impact the emotional well‐being and behavioral health among youths <emph>and</emph> parents. Among Latinx youth, hope has been found to facilitate academic achievement (Bahena, 2019); promote positive affect and life satisfaction (Edwards et al., 2007); protect against suicidality (Chang et al., 2013); and moderate the association between depressive symptoms and alcohol use (Fite et al., 2014). In longitudinal research with recent immigrant Latinx youth who participated in the larger study from which the present data were taken, youth cultural stress at baseline predicted lower youth hope 1 year later (Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2019; Schwartz et al., 2015); and in another related study examining growth in youth cultural stress over time, increases in youth cultural stress over 2 years predicted lower youth hope. This study builds on prior work and employs a latent growth modeling approach to examine how adolescent hope changes as recent immigrant families settle into their U.S.‐receiving contexts and how changes in adolescent hope may relate with youth and parent emotional and behavioral well‐being.</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-3">Cultural stress, emotional well‐being, and behavioral health among Latinx families</hd> <p>Cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies indicate that cultural stress among Latinx youths and parents can negatively impact their emotional well‐being and behavioral health (e.g., Lorenzo‐Blanco, Meca, Unger, Romero, Gonzales‐Backen et al., 2016; Schwartz et al., 2015). In longitudinal research with the same data used in the present study, youth cultural stress at baseline (i.e., cultural stress experienced by youth experienced shortly after arriving in the US) predicted lower youth self‐esteem, higher youth and parent depressive symptoms, more youth aggressive behavior, and more youth substance use one (Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2019) and 3 years (Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2019; Schwartz et al., 2015) later. Moreover, increases in cultural stress over a 2‐year period predicted lower youth self‐esteem, lower youth hope, higher youth aggressive and rule‐breaking behavior (Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2019). In a related study with the same data, the authors employed a latent growth modeling approach to examine how parent cultural stress changed over time as families settled into their receiving communities; and to investigate how parents' cultural stress trajectories predicted youth well‐being. They observed that increases in parent cultural stress over time predicted lower youth self‐esteem, more youth aggression and substance use, and higher youth depressive symptoms (Lorenzo‐Blanco, Meca, Unger, Romero, Gonzales‐Backen et al., 2016). In a follow‐up analysis with the same data, higher parent cultural stress at baseline predicted higher parent depressive symptoms 2 years later and higher parent depressive symptoms predicted lower optimal youth well‐being (Lorenzo‐Blanco, Meca, Unger, Romero, Szapocznik et al., 2016). In line with family systems paradigms (Cox & Paley, 1997), these data suggest that adolescent <emph>and</emph> parent cultural stress may impact the well‐being of youths <emph>and</emph> parents. This study extends this line of work by examining how adolescent hope changes as a functioning of youth <emph>and</emph> parent cultural stress and whether adolescent hope (changes and initial levels) mediates the links of cultural stress with youth <emph>and</emph> parent well‐being.</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-4">Family functioning, emotional well‐being, behavioral health, and adolescent hope</hd> <p>Among Latinx youth and adults, positive family functioning has been linked with lower depressive symptoms (e.g., Cano et al., 2015), higher hope (Edwards et al., 2007), lower risk for suicidality (e.g., Baumann et al., 2010), lower substance use (e.g., Cano et al., 2015), higher self‐esteem (Schwartz et al., 2015), and less aggressive and rule‐breaking behaviors (e.g., Santisteban et al., 2012). Consistent with the notion that positive and supportive family relationships foster youth hope, in cross‐sectional research with Mexican American youth (Edwards et al., 2007), higher family support was correlated with higher youth hope. Also, in cross‐sectional research with ethnically diverse families (Padilla‐Walker et al., 2011), adolescent hope mediated the relation of parent–adolescent connectedness with adolescent prosocial behavior. In the present study, we investigate whether youth‐ <emph>and</emph> parent‐reported family functioning is associated with adolescent hope (changes and initial levels), and whether adolescent hope (changes and initial levels) mediates the relations of family functioning with youth <emph>and</emph> parent well‐being.</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-5">The current study</hd> <p>Guided by the CIH (Buriel, 2012), hope theory (Snyder et al., 1997), and family system paradigms (Cox & Paley, 1997), we propose that adolescent hope may serve as psychological strength that promotes better emotional and behavioral well‐being. We further propose that adolescent hope may erode as families spend time in the US and face cultural stressors, and that these reductions in hope may negatively impact the emotional and behavioral well‐being of youths and parents. Moreover, we propose that positive family functioning may foster higher adolescent hope, thereby promoting favorable well‐being in parents and youths.</p> <p>Consistent with these propositions and informed by the literature reviewed above, we developed the theoretical model depicted in Figure 1, which flows from cultural stress and family functioning to adolescent hope and from adolescent hope to emotional and behavioral health among youths and parents. We test this model with data from a six‐wave longitudinal study with recent immigrant Latinx families to advance theory and research on the immigrant paradox (i.e., the notion that families' health and well‐being may worsen as they spend time in the US) vis‐à‐vis cultural stress, family functioning, adolescent hope, and emotional and behavioral health. First, we examine whether and how adolescent hope changes over time as a function of cultural stress. This analysis allows us to test two tenets of the CIH, namely (a) immigrant youth may experience a decline in hope as they and their families experience cultural stress and navigate U.S. cultural context and (b) this decline in hope may predict lower emotional well‐being and behavioral health. Second, we investigate how family functioning predicts adolescent hope trajectories and how adolescent hope trajectories, in turn, predict emotional and behavioral health outcomes. This model allows us to examine two tenets of hope theory, namely that (a) positive family functioning may promote adolescent hope and (b) higher hope may foster more favorable parent and youth well‐being. Lastly, we investigate how parent <emph>and</emph> adolescent cultural stress as well as parent‐ <emph>and</emph> adolescent‐reported family functioning may predict adolescent hope, and how adolescent hope, in turn, may predict youth <emph>and</emph> parent emotional and behavioral health. This analysis allows us to examine how cultural stress, family functioning, and adolescent hope unfold within the family system to predict youth and parent health and well‐being. We propose the following hypotheses:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Consistent with the CIH and the notion that adolescents may experience reduced hope as Latinx immigrant families navigate U.S. cultural context, we expected that on average, adolescent hope would decrease over time and that decreases in adolescent hope would predict lower youth and parent emotional well‐being; and lower youth behavioral health.</item> <p></p> <item> In line with the CIH and family systems paradigms, we expected parent and adolescent cultural stress to predict (a) lower initial levels of adolescent hope and (b) a steeper decline in adolescent hope over time. We further expected that adolescent hope (i.e., initial levels and decreases) would mediate the relation of parent and youth cultural stress with outcomes in youths and parents.</item> <p></p> <item> Consistent with hope theory and family systems paradigms, we hypothesized that positive adolescent‐ and parent‐reported family functioning would predict higher initial levels of and steeper increases in adolescent hope.</item> <p></p> <item> Moreover, we hypothesized that adolescent hope would mediate the links of family functioning with adolescent emotional well‐being and behavioral health. We further explored (based on family systems paradigms) whether adolescent hope would also mediate the relation of family functioning with parent emotional well‐being.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01jan22/cdev13694-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev13694-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The conceptual model" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154716039-7">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154716039-8">Sample</hd> <p>Data came from a six‐wave, longitudinal study on cultural stress and health among recent immigrant Latinx families (Schwartz et al., 2014). The sample consisted of 302 adolescent–caregiver dyads, who had resided 5 years or less in Los Angeles (<emph>n</emph> = 150) and Miami (<emph>n</emph> = 152). About 47% of adolescents were female (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 14.51 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.88, range = 13–17 years). Each adolescent participated in the study with a primary caregiver, referred to as "parent" in this article. Parents were mothers (74.0%), fathers (22.1%), step‐parents (2.1%), and grandparents/other relatives (1.7%), with a mean age of 41.09 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 7.09). About 72% of parents reported living with a partner, with the partner being husbands (45%), boyfriends (7%), wives (16%), and girlfriends (2%). Approximately 80% of parents reported annual incomes of <$25,000, and about 79% had graduated from high school. Los Angeles families were primarily from Mexico (70%), El Salvador (9%), and Guatemala (6%), whereas Miami families were predominantly from Cuba (61%), the Dominican Republic (8%), Nicaragua (7%), Honduras (6%), and Colombia (6%). The majority of adolescents (98%) and parents (98%) reported Spanish as their "first or usual language."</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-9">Procedure</hd> <p>Families were recruited from randomly selected schools (13 schools in Los Angeles and 10 schools in Miami‐Dade Counties) where the student body was at least 75% Latinx. Baseline (T1) data were gathered during the Summer of 2010, followed by data collections at five‐time points: Spring 2011 (T2), Fall 2011 (T3), Spring 2012 (T4), Fall 2012 (T5), and Spring 2013 (T6). Participants completed assessments with an audio computer‐assisted interviewing system (Turner et al., 1998) in English or Spanish, depending on their preferred language. Parents received $40 for completing the assessments at baseline, and this compensation increased by $5 at each subsequent time point. Adolescents received a voucher for a movie ticket at each time point. We retained 85% of the study sample throughout the study. A more detailed description of the study procedures can be found in Schwartz et al. (2014).</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-10">Measures</hd> <p>As described elsewhere (Schwartz et al., 2014), all measures were translated from English to Spanish and back‐translated by two separate groups of translators in Miami and Los Angeles (with each group consisting of two translators) to account for different Spanish dialects among participants (i.e., Mexican Spanish in Los Angeles, Cuban Spanish in Miami). The two groups of translators then cross‐reviewed their translations. Any discrepancies were resolved via phone conferences. When the translator groups could not reach a consensus on the translation discrepancies, both "Los Angeles" and "Miami" expressions were presented to participants.</p> <p> <emph>Adolescent hope</emph> was measured at T1–T5 with the 5‐point (0 = <emph>not at all</emph> to 4 = <emph>all the time</emph>), six‐item Children's Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1997; <emph>α</emph> = .87). Three items tapped into agency (sample item: "I am doing just as well as other kids my age") and three items into pathway (sample item: "I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me") thinking. Consistent with prior work and theory, we combined the agency and pathway items into one hope construct (Bahenas, 2019; Snyder et al., 1997). The hope scale has been translated and validated for use with Mexican American youth (Edwards et al., 2007).</p> <p> <emph>Adolescent and parent cultural stress</emph> were assessed at T1 and treated as two separate latent variables—one for adolescents (Schwartz et al., 2015) and one for parents (Lorenzo‐Blanco, Meca, Unger, Romero, Gonzales‐Backen et al., 2016). For adolescents, cultural stress was measured in terms of <emph>discrimination</emph>, <emph>negative context of reception</emph>, <emph>and bicultural stress</emph>. For parents, cultural stress was assessed in terms of <emph>discrimination</emph>, <emph>negative context of reception</emph>, <emph>and acculturative stress</emph>. Both adolescent and parent <emph>perceived discrimination</emph> were assessed using the 5‐point (0 = <emph>not at all</emph> to 4 = <emph>almost always</emph>) seven‐item Perceived Discrimination Scale (Phinney et al., 1998, <emph>α</emph> = .87) for adolescents and parent. A sample item includes "How often do people you don't know treat you unfairly or negatively because of your ethnic background?" For both adolescents and parents, <emph>negative context of reception</emph> (Schwartz et al., 2014) was measured using a 5‐point (0 = <emph>not at all</emph> to 4 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>) six‐item scale developed using the present dataset (<emph>α</emph> = .83 for adolescents and parents; a sample item: "People in this country often criticize people from my country"). Adolescent <emph>bicultural stress</emph> was measured using a 5‐point (0 = <emph>never happened to me</emph> to 4 = <emph>very stressful</emph>) 20‐item Bicultural Stress Scale (Romero & Roberts, 2003; <emph>α</emph> = .89; two sample items: "I have been treated badly because of my accent," "My parents feel I do not respect older people the way I should"). Parent acculturative stress was measured using the 5‐point (0 = <emph>not at all stressful</emph> to 4 = <emph>extremely stressful</emph>) 24‐item Multidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory (Rodriguez et al., 2002; <emph>α</emph> = .93), which assess stress from both U.S. (a sample item: "I don't speak English or don't speak it well") and Latinx sources (a sample item: "I feel pressure to learn Spanish").</p> <p> <emph>Adolescent and parent family functioning</emph> was assessed at T1 using parent–adolescent (i.e., parental involvement and positive parenting), and whole‐family (i.e., family cohesion) relational processes. In line with our empirical research with the same dataset used in the present study, we conceptualized family functioning as two separate latent constructs (one for adolescents and one for parents) consisting of family cohesion, parental involvement, and positive parenting (Lorenzo‐Blanco et al., 2019). <emph>Parental involvement</emph> and <emph>positive parenting</emph> were assessed using the corresponding 6‐point subscales from the Parenting Practices Scale (Gorman‐Smith et al., 1996). The <emph>parental involvement</emph> subscale has 15 items for adolescents (<emph>α</emph> = .87; a sample item: "When was the last time that you talked with your parents about what you were going to do for the coming day?") and 19 items for parents (<emph>α</emph> = .79; a sample item: "How many of your child's friends do you know?"). The <emph>positive parenting</emph> subscale included nine items for adolescents (<emph>α</emph> = .87; a sample item: "When you have done something that your parents approve of, how often do they say something nice about it?") and 9 for parents (<emph>α</emph> = .70; a sample item: "When your child has done something that you like or approve of, do you mention it to someone else?"). Response options for both scales ranged from 0 = <emph>never</emph> to 5 = <emph>always</emph>. <emph>Family cohesion</emph> was measured using the corresponding four‐item subscale (0 = <emph>not at all</emph> to 3 = <emph>almost always</emph>) from the Family Relations Scale (Tolan et al., 1997; <emph>α</emph> = .87 for adolescents and <emph>α</emph> = .76 for parents; a sample item: "Family members feel very close to each other"). The three measures (parental involvement, positive parenting, and family cohesion) have been used in prior research with Latinx youths and parents (e.g., Pantin et al., 2009).</p> <p> <emph>Adolescent aggressive behavior</emph> was assessed at T1 and T6 using items from the Youth Self‐Report (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2002). Adolescent self‐reported on a 3‐point scale (0 = <emph>not true</emph> to 2 = <emph>often or very often true</emph>) their aggressive behaviors with 17 items (<emph>α</emph> = .93; a sample item: "I am mean to others") within the past 6 months.</p> <p> <emph>Adolescent self</emph>‐<emph>esteem</emph> was measured at T1 and T6 with 10 items (<emph>α</emph> = .74; a sample item: "I take a positive attitude toward myself") from the Rosenberg Self‐Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). This measure has been used widely with Spanish‐speaking populations (Schmitt & Allik, 2005). Adolescents rated on a scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>) the degree to which they agree with each statement.</p> <p> <emph>Adolescent and parent depressive symptoms</emph> were assessed at T1 and T6 using an adapted version of Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D; Radloff, 1977). The CES‐D consists of 20 items (sample item: "I felt like crying this week"). Adolescents and parents rated their past‐week symptoms of depression on a scale ranging from 0 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 4 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). The CES‐D has been translated into Spanish and widely used with Latinx populations (Todorova et al., 2010), and it provided good reliability with the current sample (<emph>α</emph> = .93 for adolescents and <emph>α</emph> = .93 for parents).</p> <p> <emph>Adolescent substance use</emph> was assessed in terms of cigarette and alcohol use with a modified version of Monitoring the Future survey (Johnston et al., 2019). Adolescents responded to questions regarding the frequency of their substance use in the 90 days prior to the assessment. Due to the low base rates (cigarette smoking: 5.0%, <emph>N</emph> = 12; alcohol use: 9.0%, <emph>N</emph> = 28), we dichotomized the responses to create binary variables (0 = <emph>non</emph>‐<emph>use</emph> vs. 1 = <emph>use</emph>) at T1 and T6.</p> <p> <emph>Covariates</emph> include youth age, gender (0 = female; 1 = male), and years spent in the US.</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-11">Analytic approach</hd> <p>Analyses were conducted in Mplus version 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). We used maximum likelihood with robust errors (MLR) because it is robust to non‐normal and non‐independent observations with nested data (Kauermann & Carroll, 2001). MLR standard errors are computed using a sandwich covariance estimator, which adjusts the standard errors of model parameters to account for nesting of participants within schools. For all model comparisons, we used the Satorra–Bentler Scaled chi‐square test because it adjusts for non‐normality when used with MLR estimation. We evaluated model fit using the chi‐square index (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Little, 2013). Adequate model fit was defined as CFI >.90 and RMSEA <.08. We included cases with missing data in all analyses using full information likelihood estimation. Because this method assumes that data are missing at random (Dong & Peng, 2013), we performed Little's Missing Completely at Random Test (Little, 1988), which indicated that data were missing completely at random, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib339" id="ref1">339</reflink>) = 371.405, <emph>p</emph> = .109. The remaining analyses proceeded in five steps: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>) conducting descriptive analyses; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>) examining the longitudinal invariance of adolescent hope (Little, 2013); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>) estimating a growth curve model for adolescent hope (T1–T5); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>) investigating the degree to which T1 cultural stress (adolescent and parent) and family functioning (adolescent and parent) predicted adolescent hope (intercept and slope) and to which adolescent hope predicts T6 parent and adolescent outcomes while controlling for adolescent age, gender, years spent in the US, and T1 continuous baseline scores; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>) testing if adolescent hope (intercept and slope) mediated the effects of T1 cultural stress and family functioning on T6 parent and adolescent outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-12">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154716039-13">Step 1: Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among study variables. Overall youth reported high mean levels of hope (ranging from <emph>M</emph> = 21.85, <emph>SD</emph> = 5.42 at T1 to <emph>M</emph> = 23.71, <emph>SD</emph> = 5.72 at T5), with hope increasing at each time point. Youth also reported low mean levels of aggression (<emph>M</emph> = 4.58, <emph>SD</emph> = 6.30 at T1 and <emph>M</emph> = 4.89, <emph>SD</emph> = 6.30 at T6) and depressive symptoms (<emph>M</emph> = 29.25, <emph>SD</emph> = 14.86 at T1 and <emph>M</emph> = 29.77, <emph>SD</emph> = 15.94 at T6). Similar to youths, parents also reported low levels of mean depressive symptoms (<emph>M</emph> = 27.61, <emph>SD</emph> = 11.18 at T1 and <emph>M</emph> = 26.21, <emph>SD</emph> = 11.29 at T6). In terms of youth alcohol and tobacco use at T6, 11.6% of youth reported using alcohol in the past 90 days and 5% of youth reported smoking cigarettes in the past 90 days. The only significant bivariate correlate of adolescent hope was years spent in the US—the more time youth had spent in the US, the lower hope they reported at T1 (<emph>r</emph> = −.12, <emph>p</emph> < .05), T2 (<emph>r</emph> = −.16, <emph>p</emph> = .05), and T5 (<emph>r</emph> = −.14, <emph>p</emph> = .05). Years spent in the US was also correlated with the youth hope intercept (<emph>r</emph> = −.13, <emph>p</emph> = .05) but not the slope (<emph>r</emph> = −.05, <emph>p</emph> = ns). Furthermore, youth hope at T1 was strongly correlated with T1 youth self‐esteem (<emph>r</emph> = .60, <emph>p</emph> = .001) and hope at subsequent time points was moderately correlated with T1 youth self‐esteem (<emph>r</emph> = .36, <emph>p</emph> = .001 at T2; <emph>r</emph> = .37, <emph>p</emph> = .001 at T3; <emph>r</emph> = .35, <emph>p</emph> = .001 at T4; <emph>r</emph> = .36, <emph>p</emph> = .36 at T5).</p> <p>1 TABLEBivariate correlations and summary statistics for all study variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th><th align="left">9</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Predictors (T1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. T1 cultural stress [FS, A]</td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. T1 cultural stress [FS, P]</td><td align="left">.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. T1 family functioning [FS, A]</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. T1 family functioning [FS, P]</td><td align="left">−.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Adolescent‐reported hope (T1–T5)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. T1 hope [A]</td><td align="left">−.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. T2 hope [A]</td><td align="left">−.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.51<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. T3 hope [A]</td><td align="left">−.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.12</td><td align="left">.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.51<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. T4 hope [A]</td><td align="left">−.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.51<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. T5 hope [A]</td><td align="left">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.54<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Hope intercept @ T2 [FS]</td><td align="left">−.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">.80<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.80<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.76<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.74<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.70<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">11. Hope slope [FS]</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.70<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Outcomes (T6)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12. T6 aggressive behaviors [A]</td><td align="left">.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">−.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">13. T6 self‐esteems [A]</td><td align="left">−.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.38<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">14. T6 depressive symptoms [A]</td><td align="left">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">−.15*</td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">15. T6 depressive symptoms [P]</td><td align="left">.12</td><td align="left">.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">−.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.09</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">−.09</td><td align="left">−.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">16. T6 past 90 days alcohol use [A]</td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">−.13*</td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">−.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">17. T6 past 90 days smoking [A]</td><td align="left">.12</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">−.15*</td><td align="left">−.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">−.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Covariates (T1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 aggressive behaviors [A]</td><td align="left">.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 self‐esteem [A]</td><td align="left">−.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.60<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 depressive symptoms [A]</td><td align="left">.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">−.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 depressive symptoms [P]</td><td align="left">.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">−.00</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">−.00</td><td align="left">−.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 age [A]</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.010</td><td align="left">.11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 gender [A]</td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">−.09</td><td align="left">−.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 years spent in the U.S. [A]</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 TABLEBivariate correlations and summary statistics for all study variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">10</th><th align="left">11</th><th align="left">12</th><th align="left">13</th><th align="left">14</th><th align="left">15</th><th align="left">16</th><th align="left">17</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>) or <italic>N</italic> (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Predictors (T1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. T1 cultural stress [FS, A]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">0.00</td><td align="left">0.82</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. T1 cultural stress [FS, P]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">0.00</td><td align="left">0.87</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. T1 family functioning [FS, A]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">0.00</td><td align="left">9.69</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. T1 family functioning [FS, P]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">0.00</td><td align="left">7.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adolescent‐reported hope (T1–T5)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. T1 hope [A]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">21.85</td><td align="left">5.42</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6. T2 hope [A]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">22.82</td><td align="left">5.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7. T3 hope [A]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">22.86</td><td align="left">5.48</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8. T4 hope [A]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">23.61</td><td align="left">5.68</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9. T5 hope [A]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">23.71</td><td align="left">5.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Hope intercept @ T2 [FS]</td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">22.52</td><td align="left">3.25</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11. Hope slope [FS]</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">0.44</td><td align="left">0.47</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Outcomes (T6)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12. T6 aggressive behaviors [A]</td><td align="left">−.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">4.58</td><td align="left">6.30</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13. T6 self‐esteems [A]</td><td align="left">.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.38<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">29.78</td><td align="left">6.89</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14. T6 depressive symptoms [A]</td><td align="left">−.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">.49<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.52<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">29.25</td><td align="left">14.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15. T6 depressive symptoms [P]</td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">−.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.13</td><td align="left">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">27.61</td><td align="left">11.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16. T6 alcohol use [A]</td><td align="left">−.09</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">28</td><td align="left">11.60</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17. T6 smoking [A]</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">−.00</td><td align="left">.10</td><td align="left">−.12</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">5.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Covariates (T1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 aggressive behaviors [A]</td><td align="left">−.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">4.89</td><td align="left">5.30</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 self‐esteems [A]</td><td align="left">.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">−.08</td><td align="left">.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">28.62</td><td align="left">5.26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 depressive symptoms [A]</td><td align="left">−.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">−.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">.11</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">29.77</td><td align="left">15.94</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 depressive symptoms [P]</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">26.21</td><td align="left">11.29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 age [A]</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">14.51</td><td align="left">0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 gender (male vs. female) [A]</td><td align="left">−.10</td><td align="left">−.05</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">161 (53.3)</td><td align="left">141 (46.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 years spent in the U.S. [A]</td><td align="left">−.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">−.11</td><td align="left">.08</td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">−.00</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">2.10</td><td align="left">1.881</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note</p> <ulist> <item>3 Categorical variables include gender, past 90 days alcohol use, and past 90 days alcohol use. <emph>N</emph>s range from 235 to 302. For categorical variables, counts and percentage within each category were presented.</item> <item>4 Abbreviations: A, adolescent self‐reported;FS, factor scores; P, parent self‐reported.</item> <item>5 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>6 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>7 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0154716039-14">Step 2: Longitudinal invariance of adolescent hope</hd> <p>A prerequisite for latent growth curve modeling (LGCM) is structural invariance of the same latent construct across time points (Little, 2013). A such, we evaluated whether adolescent hope was structurally equivalent across the first five time points by comparing the fit of three models: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>) a configural model with all factor loadings and item intercepts free to vary across time points; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>) a metric invariance model with factor loadings (but not item intercepts) constrained equal across time points; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>) a scalar invariance model with both factor loadings and item intercepts constrained equal across time points (Dimitrov, 2010). As recommended by Little (2013), we tested the metric invariance by comparing models (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>), and we examined scalar invariance by comparing models (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>). Adolescent hope would be considered longitudinally invariant, if these comparisons met at least two out of three criteria: Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> not significant (<emph>p</emph> > .05), ΔCFI < .01, and ΔRMSEA < .01. Model 1 (the configural model) for adolescent hope yielded good fit, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib391" id="ref14">391</reflink>) = 774.866, <emph>p</emph> < .001; CFI = .911; RMSEA = .057 (90% CI = .051–.063). Both metric (Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>) = 17.245, <emph>p</emph> = .637; ΔCFI < .001; ΔRMSEA = .001) and scalar invariance (Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>) = 61.024, <emph>p</emph> < .001; ΔCFI = .009; ΔRMSEA < .001) were supported, indicating that the structure of adolescent hope was invariant over time.</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-15">Step 3: Estimation of change in adolescent hope</hd> <p>We used LGCM (Bollen & Curran, 2006) to examine change in adolescent hope from T1 to T5. We began with an intercept‐only model, followed by a linear model, and then a quadratic model. We compared the three growth models in two pairs (i.e., intercept‐only with linear, linear with quadratic). We centered the hope intercept at T2 (Figure 2) to be able to examine longitudinal mediation (step 4) and the predictive effect of cultural stress and family functioning on hope (step 3). Although the intercept‐only (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>) = 39.018, <emph>p</emph> < .001; CFI = .889; RMSEA = .081 [90% CI = .053–.111]), the linear (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>) = 9.689, <emph>p</emph> = .468; CFI = 1.000; RMSEA = .000 [90% CI = .000–.061]), and the quadratic (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>) = 7.780, <emph>p</emph> = .255; CFI = .992; RMSEA = .031 [90% CI = .000–.085]) models fit the data adequately, results of the Satorra–Bentler Scaled chi‐square difference test indicated that the linear (Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>) = 20.142, <emph>p</emph> < .001) and quadratic models (Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>) = 28.134, <emph>p</emph> < .001) fit the data significantly better than the intercept‐only model. However, the quadratic model did not fit the data significantly better than the linear model (Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>) = 2.076, <emph>p</emph> = .722). As such, we retained the more parsimonious linear model. Moreover, results indicated a significant linear slope ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev13694:cdev13694-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mover><mi>x</mi><mo>¯</mo></mover><mtext>Slope</mtext></msub></math> </ephtml>  = 0.444 [.096], <emph>p</emph> < .001), indicating that at each time point there was an average increase of.444 in adolescent hope. We also observed significant variability around the slope (<emph>s</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.723 [0.166], <emph>p</emph> < .001), indicating that hope increased for some but not all youth. The mean hope intercept was also significant ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev13694:cdev13694-math-0002" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mover><mi>x</mi><mo>¯</mo></mover><mtext>Intercept</mtext></msub></math> </ephtml>  = 22.519 (.362), <emph>p</emph> < .001) with significant variability around it (<emph>s</emph><sups>2</sups> = 13.667 (1.969), <emph>p</emph> < .001).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01jan22/cdev13694-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev13694-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Unconditional growth model of adolescent hope (T1–T5): intercept (T2 hope) and slope. ***p < .001" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154716039-17">Step 4: Cultural stress and family functioning predicting adolescent hope and adolescent hope...</hd> <p>Next, we tested the theoretical model depicted in Figure 1. We simultaneously examined three sets of effects: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>) the effects of T1 adolescent and parent cultural stress on adolescent hope (i.e., intercept and slope) and T6 outcomes (parent and adolescent); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>) the effects of T1 adolescent and parent family functioning on adolescent hope (i.e., intercept and slope) and T6 outcomes (parent and adolescent); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>) the effects of adolescent hope (i.e., intercept and slope) on T6 adolescent and parent outcomes. We first evaluated model fit without the categorical outcomes because modeling categorical outcomes with MLR estimation does not produce fit indices (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). We added the categorical outcomes after we established good model fit. We controlled for adolescent age, gender, years in the US, and baseline levels of continuous outcomes. We did not control for prior levels of categorical outcomes because scores on dichotomous variables can remain the same over time even though developmental change has occurred (Agresti, 2007). Also, controlling for prior levels of categorical variables may, in some cases, result in inflated standard errors for model parameters, potentially rendering baseline‐adjusted results unstable or invalid (Glymour et al., 2005).</p> <p>Our structural model without the categorical outcomes (i.e., past‐90‐day alcohol; tobacco use) yielded good fit: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref26">101</reflink>) = 169.608, <emph>p</emph> < .001; RMSEA = .047, 90% CI [.035,.060]; CFI = .943. As shown in Table 2 and Figure 3, higher adolescent cultural stress at T1 was associated with lower T2 (i.e., intercept) adolescent hope (<emph>β</emph> = −.265, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [−.398, −.132]). Higher adolescent family functioning at T1 was associated with higher T2 adolescent hope (i.e., intercept; <emph>β</emph> = .503, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [.415,.591]), and less steep increase in adolescent hope (i.e., slope; <emph>β</emph> = −.276, <emph>p</emph> = .018, 95% CI [−.504, −.048]). Higher T2 adolescent hope (i.e., intercept) predicted higher T6 self‐esteem (<emph>β</emph> = .300, <emph>p</emph> = .035, 95% CI [.021,.579]). Greater increases in adolescent hope (i.e., slope) predicted lower T6 adolescent aggressive behaviors (<emph>β</emph> = −.391, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [−.560, −.223]), higher T6 adolescent self‐esteem (<emph>β</emph> = .505, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [.316,.693]), and lower T6 adolescent depressive symptoms (<emph>β</emph> = −.192, <emph>p</emph> = .011, 95% CI [−.340, −.045]). Also, greater increases in adolescent hope predicted lower T6 parent depressive symptoms (<emph>β</emph> = −.236, <emph>p</emph> = .002, 95% CI [−.385, −.088]).</p> <p>2 TABLEAdolescent and parent cultural stress and family functioning predicting adolescent hope intercept and slope, and adolescent and parent outcomes (standardized coefficients)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Cultural stress (T1)</th><th align="left">Family functioning (T1)</th><th align="left">Adolescent hope trajectory (T1–T5)</th><th align="left">Covariates (T1)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">A</th><th align="left">P</th><th align="left">A</th><th align="left">P</th><th align="left">Hope@T2 intercept</th><th align="left">Hope slope</th><th align="left">Gender (A)</th><th align="left">Age (A)</th><th align="left">Years in U.S. (A)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">T1 cultural stress (A)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">0.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 cultural stress (P)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 family functioning (A)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">T1 family functioning (P)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hope intercepts @T2 (A)</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hope slope (A)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Binary outcomes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T6 alcohol use (A)</td><td align="char" char=".">1.29</td><td align="char" char=".">1.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.99</td><td align="char" char=".">0.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.68</td><td align="char" char=".">1.07</td><td align="char" char=".">1.36</td><td align="char" char=".">0.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T6 Smoking (A)</td><td align="char" char=".">1.35</td><td align="char" char=".">1.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.99</td><td align="char" char=".">0.92<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.90</td><td align="char" char=".">0.49</td><td align="char" char=".">3.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.90</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Continuous outcomes (T6)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T6 aggressive behavior (A)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.38<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T6 self‐esteem (A)</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.51<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T6 depressive symptoms (A)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">T6 depressive symptoms (P)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Note</item> <item>8 The table shows standardized path coefficients for continuous variables and odds ratios for categorical outcome variables. Covariates included adolescent age, gender, years spent in the US, and T1continuous outcomes. We also accounted for the cluster effect of school in the analyses.</item> <item>9 Abbreviations: A, adolescent‐reported; P, parent‐reported.</item> <item>10 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>11 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>12 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01jan22/cdev13694-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev13694-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Parent/adolescent cultural stress and family functioning predicting adolescent hope intercept and slope. Adolescent hope intercept and slope predicting adolescent/parent outcomes (standardized coefficients). We controlled for adolescent age, gender, years spent in the U.S. in the links from cultural stress to hope and from hope to outcomes. We controlled for T1 outcomes in the links from hope to continuous outcomes. We also accounted for the cluster effect of school in the analyses. Significant results are presented. A, adolescent‐reported; [B], binary outcomes; [F], factor score; P, parent‐reported. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154716039-19">Step 5: Adolescent hope intercept and slope as mediators</hd> <p>We examined whether the adolescent hope intercept and slope mediated the effects of cultural stress and family functioning on outcomes. We calculated 95% indirect confidence intervals and coefficients using the RMediation package, which is based on the asymmetric distribution of products test (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011). As shown in Table 3, we observed six mediated pathways. Higher T1 adolescent family functioning (<emph>b</emph> = .107, <emph>SE</emph> = .050, 95% CI [.013,.208]) and lower T1 adolescent cultural stress (<emph>b</emph> = −.665, <emph>SE</emph> = .356, 95% CI [−1.455, −.070]) predicted higher T2 adolescent hope (i.e., intercept), which, in turn, predicted higher T6 adolescent self‐esteem. Higher T1 adolescent family functioning predicted a less steep increase in adolescent hope (i.e., slope), which, in turn, predicted higher T6 adolescent aggressive behavior (<emph>b</emph> = .069, <emph>SE</emph> = .034, 95% CI [.007,.154]); lower T6 adolescent self‐esteem (<emph>b</emph> = −.098, <emph>SE</emph> = .051, 95% CI [−.211, −.011]); higher T6 adolescent (<emph>b</emph> = .080, <emph>SE</emph> = .053, 90% CI [.001,.202]) and parent (<emph>b</emph> = .074, <emph>SE</emph> = .042, 95% CI [.007,.170]) depressive symptoms.</p> <p>3 TABLESignificant indirect effects of parent and adolescent cultural stress and family functioning on adolescent and parent outcomes via adolescent hope intercept or slope</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Predictor</th><th align="left">Mediator</th><th align="left">Outcome</th><th align="left">Estimate (<italic>SE</italic>)</th><th align="left">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Adolescent cultural stress T1</td><td align="left">Adolescent hope @ T2 intercept</td><td align="left">Adolescent self‐esteem T6</td><td align="char" char=".">−.665 (.356)</td><td align="left">[−1.455, −.070]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adolescent family functioning T1</td><td align="left">Adolescent hope @ T2 intercept</td><td align="left">Adolescent self‐esteem T6</td><td align="char" char=".">.107 (.050)</td><td align="left">[.013,.208]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adolescent family functioning T1</td><td align="left">Adolescent hope slope (T1–T5)</td><td align="left">Adolescent aggressive behavior T6</td><td align="char" char=".">.069 (.034)</td><td align="left">[.007,.154]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adolescent family functioning T1</td><td align="left">Adolescent hope slope (T1–T5)</td><td align="left">Adolescent self‐esteem T6</td><td align="char" char=".">−.098 (.051)</td><td align="left">[−.211, −.011]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adolescent family functioning T1</td><td align="left">Adolescent hope slope (T1–T5)</td><td align="left">Adolescent depressive symptoms T6</td><td align="char" char=".">.080 (.053)</td><td align="left">[.001,.202]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adolescent family functioning T1</td><td align="left">Adolescent hope slope (T1–T5)</td><td align="left">Parent depressive symptoms T6</td><td align="char" char=".">.074 (.042)</td><td align="left">[.007,.170]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0154716039-20">Additional exploratory analyses</hd> <p>We conducted additional analyses to explore whether our theoretical model differed across site (Los Angeles vs. Miami) by comparing two models: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>) an unconstrained model, with all paths freely estimated regardless of sites; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>) a constrained model, with each path constrained to be equal across site. Results indicated no significant difference between the unconstrained and constrained model, Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref29">44</reflink>) = 56.624, <emph>p</emph> = .096, suggesting that there were no site differences (see Table S1 for more information on across site differences).</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-21">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Informed by the CIH (Buriel, 2012), hope (Snyder et al., 1997) theory, and family systems paradigms (Cox & Paley, 1997), we examined the longitudinal trajectory of adolescent hope among recent immigrant Latinx families. We also investigated the overtime relations of cultural stress and family functioning (as reported by adolescents and parents) with adolescent hope (i.e., intercept and slope), and we tested whether adolescent hope (i.e., intercept and slope) mediated the relations of adolescent and parent reports of cultural stress and family functioning with youth and parent emotional and behavioral health outcomes.</p> <p>We first investigated whether adolescent hope changed over time. Informed by the CIH, which postulates that adolescent hope may erode as immigrant families settle into their receiving communities and face cultural stress, we hypothesized that adolescent hope would decrease over time. Contrary to expectations, on average, adolescent hope increased over time. One possibility for this unexpected finding might be that recent immigrant youth may have learned quickly to navigate U.S. cultural context and draw from available resources to transition successfully to life in the US (Cobb et al., 2019). These findings might speak to resilience among recent immigrant youth. Future studies could investigate how recent immigrant families successfully transition to life in the US and navigate U.S. cultural contexts. Such information could provide valuable information for developing support structures for recent immigrant families.</p> <p>Another possible explanation for why adolescent hope increased (rather than decreased) might be that not enough time may have passed for youth to experience loss in hope (e.g., Falicov, 2013). At baseline, youths and parents had resided in the US for 5 years or less, and by the end of the study, they had lived in the US for 8 years at most. Given that it can take many years to settle into a new country (which involves learning a new language and new cultural norms and institutions), it is possible that youths and parents in this study were still adapting to their new life in the US and were still feeling hopeful about future possibilities. Future longitudinal studies could survey recent immigrant Latinx youths and their parents for longer time periods to get a more complete understanding of how hope changes over time. Alternatively, increases in adolescent hope might have been driven by adolescent development, as age was positively correlated with the adolescent hope slope. It is, for example, possible that adolescents in this study, due to their age, had not yet developed the cognitive maturity and appraisal about cultural stressors and policies contributing to cultural stress to be aware of cultural stress and the impact cultural stressors may exert on their families. The present study did not allow us to discern whether changes in adolescent hope may have been influenced by youth age, time spent in the US or both. Future longitudinal studies could benefit from disentangling whether changes in hope are driven by adolescents' age or socio‐cultural influences (e.g., years in the US). Relatedly, increases in adolescent hope may be related to youths' increasing ability to express their hope due to growing cognitive abilities. Per hope theory, the expression of hope emerges during adolescence and it is possible that, given normative developmental changes, youth were more able to express their hope (Shorey et al., 2003; Snyder et al., 1997). Although this study was not designed to capture adolescent hope trajectories as a function of age, future studies could benefit from doing so. Also, it is important to note that youths in this study were recruited from schools in well‐established receiving communities and at least 75% of students were Latinx. Families in these schools may feel supported and have positive relationships with teachers, peers, and administrators, which may have contributed to increases in youth hope. This study did not assess families' experiences in schools. Future studies could benefit from doing so.</p> <p>Next, informed by the CIH and family systems paradigms, we investigated the relations of adolescent and parent cultural stress with adolescent hope intercept and slope. Partially supporting our hypothesis that adolescent and parent cultural stress would be associated with lower initial levels of adolescent hope, adolescent (but not parent) cultural stress predicted lower initial adolescent hope. These findings suggest that cultural stress that adolescents face may be more strongly associated with adolescent hope than might cultural stress their parents experience. It is possible that youth are not be aware of their parents' cultural stress experiences, possibly because parents may not share their own cultural stress experiences with their children as a way to protect their youth (Falicov, 2013). As such, youth may not realize how culturally stressed their parents might feel. It may also be possible that youth hope is more strongly associated with their own cultural stress because youth may not have yet learned to cope effectively with cultural stress and because their support systems (e.g., parents) may not yet have been attuned to or able to be responsive to youths' cultural stress experiences. Thus, future studies could explore how youth cope with cultural stress in the early years following immigration and how their responsive their parents are to youth cultural stress. This information could inform prevention programs to provide youths and their parents with effective strategies to manage the youth cultural stress. It could also inform programs that equip youths' families with skills on how to support youth.</p> <p>Contrary to our expectations, cultural stress experienced by adolescents and parents did not predict changes in adolescent hope. However, as discussed above, youth cultural stress predicted lower adolescent hope in the early years after immigration, after which adolescent hope appeared to increase over time. As mentioned above, 3 years may not be sufficient time for cultural stress to be negatively associated with changes in adolescent hope and longer‐term cultural stress exposure may be needed (e.g., Falicov, 2013). It is also possible that growth in hope was more strongly related with adolescents' age than cultural stress, masking the possible relation of cultural stress with adolescent hope. The fact that adolescent hope does not appear to decrease over time as a function of cultural stress may suggest that families continue to actively engage in socialization strategies to infuse their youth with hope that brought families to the US as a way to successfully navigate cultural stress (Cobb et al., 2019). Future studies could ask youths and parents how they cope with cultural stress and whether parents continue to infuse youth with hope. This information would allow researchers to examine the nature of resilience on hope among recent Latinx immigrant families. It could also inform preventive interventions that impart coping skills for immigrant youth and families as a way to foster or maintain hope.</p> <p>Informed by hope (Snyder et al., 1997), theory, and family system paradigms (Cox & Paley, 1997), we examined the predictive effects of adolescent‐ and parent‐reported family functioning on adolescent hope intercept and slope. In line with hope and family systems theories, we expected family functioning to predict higher initial levels of (i.e., intercept) and change in (i.e., slope) adolescent hope. Partially supporting our hypothesis, adolescent‐reported (but not parent‐reported) family functioning predicted higher adolescent hope intercept. However, higher adolescent‐reported (but not parent‐reported) family functioning predicted a less steep increase in adolescent hope over time. The finding that adolescent‐ but not parent‐reported family functioning related with initial levels of and change in adolescent hope may further support the idea that adolescents' experiences (i.e., cultural stress and family functioning) may be more strongly related with adolescents' sense of hope than their parents' experiences. The finding that higher adolescent‐reported family functioning predicted a less steep increase in adolescent hope over time may suggest that there might be less room for adolescent hope to grow among youth with higher family function. It is also possible that youths who reported higher family functioning have less experience coping with stress (as they may rely on their parents and families for support), and as such, it might be more difficult for these youth to develop higher hope when faced with stressful life transitions. Furthermore, youths in the presents study reported high levels of hope, approaching the scale ceiling at later time points. These ceiling effects may not have allowed us to fully detect growth in adolescent hope. Understanding the reasons for why higher family functioning predicted a less steep increase in hope is an important next step in future research on Latinx youth emotional and behavioral well‐being. Our mediation results indicate that higher adolescent family functioning predicted a less steep increase in adolescent hope, and in turn, this less steep increase predicted lower youth and parent well‐being.</p> <p>Lastly, guided by the CIH (Buriel, 2012) and family system paradigms (Cox & Paley, 1997), we investigated the predictive effect of youth hope on emotional and behavioral well‐being among youths and parents. Findings suggest that understanding the factors that influence adolescent hope among recent immigrant Latinx youth may be important in efforts to promote positive emotional and behavioral well‐being among youths and parents. Interventions to foster higher adolescent hope have been developed (e.g., Marques et al., 2011), but these have not been targeted or tailored for the needs of recent immigrant Latinx youth and their families. Yet, our results indicate that such interventions could benefit recent immigrant Latinx youth in the early years of immigration when higher levels of cultural stress seemed to be negatively associated with youth hope. Similarly, Latinx youth high on family functioning may have experienced a less steep increase in hope, which predicted lower youth and parent well‐being. Thus, interventions targeting hope could be beneficial for families characterized by high family functioning.</p> <p>Surprisingly, adolescent hope did not emerge as a mediator in the links of cultural stress with parent and adolescent emotional well‐being and behavioral health outcomes, suggesting that cultural stress may predict youth and parent outcomes through pathways other than adolescent hope. Of note, increases in adolescent hope predicted adolescents' own emotional well‐being (i.e., lower depressive symptoms) <emph>and</emph> the emotional well‐being of their parents. One possibility for this finding is that Latinx immigrant youth often serve as cultural brokers for their parents (Kim et al., 2018). Cultural brokering may foster youths' <emph>and</emph> parents' hope, thereby promoting positive emotional well‐being in youths <emph>and</emph> parents. In this study, we did not assess parents' hope and future studies could benefit from doing so. Also, youth with higher hope may be more positive at home and supportive of their parents, which, in turn, may promote better parent emotional well‐being.</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-22">Limitations</hd> <p>The present findings should be interpreted in light of some important limitations. First, our results may not generalize to all Latinx families in the US. Data were collected in well‐established receiving communities with ethnic enclaves that may buffer against cultural stress experiences and influence adolescent hope. The results may not generalize to families who move into new settlement communities (e.g., Deep South) with fewer sources of support (Rodríguez, 2012). Second, although, this study included adolescent and parent reports of cultural stress, family functioning, and health outcomes, not all of the adolescent variables (e.g., hope) matched the parent variables. Future studies should aim at replicating the results of this study by using the same variables for adolescents and parents. This would allow for the examination of shared variance in study variables and theoretical models (Burk & Laursen, 2010). Third, although we recruited families from two distinct U.S. locations, the overlap between site and national origin does not allow us to account for differences by national origin. Several researchers have cautioned toward lumping Latinx with different national backgrounds into one large group, as Latinx families can differ in several socio‐cultural domains based on their national origin (Umaña‐Taylor & Fine, 2001). Fourth, due to the composition of the parent sample (i.e., 74% mothers), we could not examine whether our theoretical model varied for mothers and fathers. Research with Mexican‐origin youth indicates that the process by which cultural stressors impact youth can vary by parent gender (e.g., White et al., 2015). Thus, future research on cultural stress, family functioning, adolescent hope, and health could benefit from examining the role of parents' gender (mothers vs. fathers). Fifth, although we included well‐established measures of cultural stress, family functioning, and adolescent hope, and collected data from a relatively large sample of recent immigrant families, future studies could benefit from in‐depth qualitative analysis to understand the complex relations between cultural stress, family functioning, adolescent hope, and health outcomes. Such qualitative data may provide some insights into surprising findings and inform future survey research. Sixth, our results many not generalize to clinical samples or families characterized by low family functioning and high cultural stress. As such, future studies might replicate our findings with families characterized by low family functioning, high cultural stress, and/or low emotional/behavioral well‐being. Moreover, we could not control for baseline substance use outcomes limiting our ability to make causal inferences about hope predicting youth tobacco and alcohol use. Lastly, although families were recruited from 22 different high schools, we did not gather school‐level data (e.g., school climate) to examine how school‐level factors may relate with youth hope and health outcomes.</p> <p>Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our understanding of how adolescent hope may change over time to affect the emotional well‐being and behavioral health of recent immigrant families. Our findings contribute to the cultural stress and family systems literatures by examining the role of adolescent hope (changes and initial levels) in the relations of cultural stress and family functioning with health outcomes. Our study also advances research on the Latinx immigrant paradox by documenting increases in adolescent hope among recent immigrant youth, possibly explaining why recent immigrant youth report more favorable well‐being outcomes compared to their U.S.‐born counterparts. This study indicates that intervention efforts to promote the emotional and behavioral health of youths and parents could foster adolescent hope, reduce cultural stress, and improve family functioning by drawing from families' extant strengths and resources. Such efforts might be especially beneficial in the early years of immigration, when cultural stress may have had the greatest relation with hope and after which adolescent hope appeared to increase over time.</p> <hd id="AN0154716039-23">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Southern California and the University of Miami, as well as by the Research Review Committees for each participating school district.</p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1</p> <ref id="AN0154716039-24"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding information Preparation of this article was supported by Grants DA025694 (National Institute of Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism); P2CHD042849 (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development); and 1K01AA028057‐01A1 (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0154716039-25"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2002). Manual for the ASEBA adult forms and profiles. Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, University of Vermont.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bahena, S. (2019). Hope in the shadows: Testing the immigrant optimism hypothesis among college aspirational Latino students. Child Development, 91, 1423 – 1438. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13331</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baumann, A. A., Kuhlberg, J. A., & Zayas, L. H. (2010). Familism, mother‐daughter mutuality, and suicide attempts of Latinas. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 616 – 624. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bernstein, R. (2013). US Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. US Census Bureau.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective (Vol. 467). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Buriel, R. (2012). Historical origins of the immigrant paradox for Mexican American students: The cultural integration hypothesis. In C. G. Coll & A. K. Marks (Eds.), The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a developmental risk? (pp. 37 – 60). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13094‐002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burk, W. J., & Laursen, B. (2010). Mother and adolescent reports of associations between child behavior problems and mother‐child relationship qualities: Separating shared variance from individual variance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 657 – 667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802‐010‐9396‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Callina, K. S., Mueller, M. K., Buckingham, M. H., & Gutierrez, A. S. (2015). Building hope for positive youth development: Research, practice, and policy. In Promoting positive youth development (pp. 71 – 94). Cham : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cano, M. Á., Schwartz, S. J., Castillo, L. G., Unger, J. B., Huang, S., Zamboanga, B. L., Romero, A. J., Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Córdova, D., Des Rosiers, S. E., Lizzi, K. M., Baezconde‐Garbanati, L., Soto, D. W., Villamar, J. A., Pattarroyo, M., & Szapocznik, J. (2015). Health risk behaviors and depressive symptoms among Hispanic adolescents: Examining acculturation discrepancies and family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 254 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, E. C., Yu, E. A., Kahle, E. R., Jeglic, E. L., & Hirsch, J. K. (2013). Is doubling up on positive future cognitions associated with lower suicidal risk in Latinos?: A look at hope and positive problem orientation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 1285 – 1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608‐013‐9572‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cobb, C. L., Branscombe, N. R., Meca, A., Schwartz, S. J., Xie, D., Zea, M. C., Molina, L. E., & Martinez, C. R. (2019). Toward a positive psychology of immigrants. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 619 – 632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619825848</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243 – 267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175610373459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dong, Y., & Peng, C. Y. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus, 2, 222. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193‐1801‐2‐222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, L. M., Ong, A. D., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Hope measurement in Mexican American youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 225 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986307299692</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Falicov, C. J. (2013). Latino families in therapy. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fite, P. J., Gabrielli, J., Cooley, J. L., Haas, S. M., Frazer, A., Rubens, S. L., & Johnson‐Motoyama, M. (2014). Hope as a moderator of the associations between common risk factors and frequency of substance use among Latino adolescents. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 653 – 662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862‐014‐9426‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glymour, M. M., Weuve, J., Berkman, L. F., Kawachi, I., & Robins, J. M. (2005). When is baseline adjustment useful in analyses of change? An example with education and cognitive change. American Journal of Epidemiology, 162, 267 – 278. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorman‐Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). The relation of family functioning to violence among inner‐city minority youths. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 115 – 129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893‐3200.10.2.115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schlenberg, J. G. (2019). Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings. Ann Arbor, MI : Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kauermann, G., & Carroll, R. J. (2001). A note on the efficiency of sandwich covariance matrix estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 1387 – 1396. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214501753382309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. Y., Schwartz, S. J., Perreira, K. M., & Juang, L. P. (2018). Culture's influence on stressors, parental socialization, and developmental processes in the mental health of children of immigrants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 14, 343 – 370. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐clinpsy‐050817‐084925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198 – 1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Meca, A., Piña‐Watson, B., Zamboanga, B. L., Szapocznik, J., Cano, M. Á., Cordova, D., Unger, J. B., Romero, A., Des Rosiers, S. E., Soto, D. W., Villamar, J. A., Pattarroyo, M., Lizzi, K. M., & Schwartz, S. J. (2019). Longitudinal trajectories of family functioning among recent immigrant adolescents and parents: Links with adolescent and parent cultural stress, emotional well‐being, and behavioral health. Child Development, 90, 506 – 523. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Meca, A., Unger, J. B., Romero, A., Gonzales‐Backen, M., Piña‐Watson, B., Cano, M. Á., Zamboanga, B. L., Des Rosiers, S. E., Soto, D. W., Villamar, J. A., Lizzi, K. M., Pattarroyo, M., & Schwartz, S. J. (2016). Latino parent acculturation stress: Longitudinal effects on family functioning and youth emotional and behavioral health. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 966 – 976. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Meca, A., Unger, J. B., Romero, A., Szapocznik, J., Pina‐Watson, B., Cano, M. Á., Zamboanga, B. L., Baezconde‐Garbanati, L., Des Rosiers, S. E., Soto, D. W., Villamar, J. A., Lizzi, K. M., Pattarroyo, M., & Schwartz, S. J. (2016). Longitudinal effects of Latino parent cultural stress, depressive symptoms, and family functioning on youth emotional well‐being and health risk behaviors. Family Process, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Unger, J. B., Baezconde‐Garbanati, L., Ritt‐Olson, A., & Soto, D. (2012). Acculturation, enculturation, and symptoms of depression in Hispanic youth: The roles of gender, Hispanic cultural values, and family functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1350 – 1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐012‐9774‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks, A. K., Ejesi, K., & Coll, C. G. (2014). Understanding the US immigrant paradox in childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 59 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., & Pais‐Ribeiro, J. L. (2011). "Building hope for the future": A program to foster strengths in middle‐school students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 139 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902‐009‐9180‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user's guide statistical analysis with latent variables (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA : Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nolen‐Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐843X.109.3.504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Padilla‐Walker, L. M., Hardy, S. A., & Christensen, K. J. (2011). Adolescent hope as a mediator between parent‐child connectedness and adolescent outcomes. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 853 – 879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610376249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pantin, H., Prado, G., Lopez, B., Huang, S., Tapia, M. I., Schwartz, S. J., Sabillon, E., Brown, C. H., & Branchini, J. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of Familias Unidas for Hispanic adolescents with behavior problems. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71, 987. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181bb2913</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phinney, J. S., Madden, T., & Santos, L. J. (1998). Psychological variables as predictors of perceived ethnic discrimination among minority and immigrant adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 937 – 953. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.1998.tb01661.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES‐D scale a self‐report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385 – 401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodríguez, N. (2012). New Southern Neighbors: Latino immigration and prospects for intergroup relations between African‐Americans and Latinos in the South. Latino Studies, 10, 18 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1057/lst.2012.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, N., Myers, H. F., Mira, C. B., Flores, T., & Garcia‐Hernandez, L. (2002). Development of the Multidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory for adults of Mexican origin. Psychological Assessment, 14, 451 – 461. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040‐3590.14.4.451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romero, A., & Piña‐Watson, B. (2017). Acculturative stress and bicultural stress: Psychological measurement and mental health. In S. J. Schwartz & J. B. Unger (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of acculturation and health (pp. 119 – 133). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romero, A. J., & Roberts, R. (2003). Stress within a bicultural context for adolescents of Mexican descent. Cultural Minority and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 171 – 184. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099‐9809.9.2.171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self‐image. Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santisteban, D. A., Coatsworth, J. D., Briones, E., Kurtines, W., & Szapocznik, J. (2012). Beyond acculturation: An investigation of the relationship of familism and parenting to behavior problems in Hispanic youth. Family Process, 51, 470 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545‐5300.2012.01414.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg self‐esteem scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture‐specific features of global self‐esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 623 – 642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.89.4.623</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Baezconde‐Garbanati, L., Zamboanga, B. L., Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Des Rosiers, S. E., Romero, A. J., Cano, M. A., Gonzales‐Backen, M. A., Córdova, D., Piña‐Watson, B. M., Huang, S., Villamar, J. A., Soto, D. W., Pattarroyo, M., & Szapocznik, J. (2015). Trajectories of cultural stressors and effects on mental health and substance use among Hispanic immigrant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 433 – 439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Lorenzo‐Blanco, E. I., Des Rosiers, S. E., Villamar, J. A., Soto, D. W., Pattarroyo, M., Baezconde‐Garbanati, L., & Szapocznik, J. (2014). Perceived context of reception among recent Hispanic immigrants: Conceptualization, instrument development, and preliminary validation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shorey, H. S., Snyder, C. R., Yang, X., & Lewin, M. R. (2003). The role of hope as a mediator in recollected parenting, adult attachment, and mental health. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 685 – 715. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.22.6.685.22938</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., Highberger, L., Ribinstein, H., & Stahl, K. J. (1997). The development and validation of the Children's Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, 399 – 421. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/22.3.399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein, G. L., Cavanaugh, A. M., Supple, A. J., Kiang, L., & Gonzalez, L. M. (2019). Typologies of discrimination: Latinx youth's experiences in an emerging immigrant community. Developmental Psychology, 55, 846 – 854. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000638</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein, G. L., Cupito, A. M., Mendez, J. L., Prandoni, J., Huq, N., & Westerberg, D. (2014). Familism through a developmental lens. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 2, 224 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Todorova, I. L., Falcón, L. M., Lincoln, A. K., & Price, L. L. (2010). Perceived discrimination, psychological distress and health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32, 843 – 861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9566.2010.01257.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692 – 700. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐011‐0076‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolan, P. H., Gorman‐Smith, D., Huesmann, L. R., & Zelli, A. (1997). Assessment of family relationship characteristics: A measure to explain risk for antisocial behavior and depression among urban youth. Psychological Assessment, 9, 212 – 223. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040‐3590.9.3.212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. B., Pleck, J. H., & Sonsenstein, L. H. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867 – 873. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5365.867</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., & Fine, M. A. (2001). Methodological implications of grouping Latino adolescents into one collective ethnic group. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23, 347 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986301234001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> US Census Bureau. (2017). Hispanic Heritage Month 2017. Profile America Facts for Features (CB17‐FF.17). Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts‐for‐features/2017/hispanic‐heritage.html">www.census.gov/newsroom/facts‐for‐features/2017/hispanic‐heritage.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valle, M. F., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2006). An analysis of hope as a psychological strength. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 393 – 406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, R., Liu, Y., Nair, R. L., & Tein, J. Y. (2015). Longitudinal and integrative tests of family stress model effects on Mexican origin adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 51, 649 – 662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038933</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Elma I. Lorenzo‐Blanco; Minyu Zhang; Cory Cobb; Alan Meca; José Szapocznik; Jennifer B. Unger; Miguel Ángel Cano and Seth J. Schwartz</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib339" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib391" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref29"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1327101
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Longitudinal Change in Adolescent Hope among Recent Immigrant Latinx Adolescents: Links with Adolescent and Parent Cultural Stress, Family Functioning, Emotional Well-Being, and Behavioral Health
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lorenzo-Blanco%2C+Elma+I%2E%22">Lorenzo-Blanco, Elma I.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1189-5562">0000-0002-1189-5562</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhang%2C+Minyu%22">Zhang, Minyu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cobb%2C+Cory%22">Cobb, Cory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meca%2C+Alan%22">Meca, Alan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3272-7701">0000-0002-3272-7701</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Szapocznik%2C+José%22">Szapocznik, José</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Unger%2C+Jennifer+B%2E%22">Unger, Jennifer B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cano%2C+Miguel+Ángel%22">Cano, Miguel Ángel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schwartz%2C+Seth+J%2E%22">Schwartz, Seth J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-9520">0000-0003-4238-9520</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development%22"><i>Child Development</i></searchLink>. e87-e102 Jan-Feb 2022 93(1):e87-e102.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (DHHS/NIH)<br />National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (DHHS/PHS)<br />Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (DHHS/NIH)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: DA025694<br />P2CHD042849<br />1K01AA02805701A1
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Immigrants%22">Immigrants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Groups%22">Minority Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Differences%22">Cultural Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parents%22">Parents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Relationship%22">Family Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California+%28Los+Angeles%29%22">California (Los Angeles)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Florida+%28Miami%29%22">Florida (Miami)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/cdev.13694
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0009-3920
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Adolescent hope can promote the emotional and behavioral well-being of Latinx families. Positive family functioning may foster adolescent hope, whereas cultural stress may compromise adolescent hope and well-being. We examined how adolescent hope changed over time, and whether cultural stress and family functioning predicted emotional and behavioral health via adolescent hope intercept and slope. Recent Latinx immigrant adolescents (M[subscript age] = 14.51) and parents (M[subscript age] = 41.09; N = 302; n = 150 from Los Angeles; n = 152 from Miami) completed measures of above constructs over 3 years (Summer 2010 to Spring 2013). Latent growth curve modeling indicated that adolescent hope increased over time. Higher cultural stress predicted lower initial hope. Higher family functioning predicted higher initial levels of and less steep increase in hope. Increase in hope predicted better emotional and behavioral health. Family functioning predicted better health outcomes by way of hope.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1327101
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1327101
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/cdev.13694
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: e87
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Immigrants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California (Los Angeles)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Florida (Miami)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Longitudinal Change in Adolescent Hope among Recent Immigrant Latinx Adolescents: Links with Adolescent and Parent Cultural Stress, Family Functioning, Emotional Well-Being, and Behavioral Health
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lorenzo-Blanco, Elma I.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhang, Minyu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cobb, Cory
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Meca, Alan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Szapocznik, José
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Unger, Jennifer B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cano, Miguel Ángel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schwartz, Seth J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0009-3920
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 93
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1