Evaluating Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Quantitative Research Designs 8110j
The selection of a research design is guided by the studys purpose and research questions and hypotheses, and the design then links the research questions and hypotheses to the data that will be collected. You should keep in mind, however, that the research process is interactive, not necessarily proceeding in a linear fashion from one component to the next. Rather, the writing of research questions could, for example, necessitate adjustments to the studys purpose statement. Nevertheless, when presented together, the various components of a research study should align. As you learned last week, alignment means that a research study possesses clear and logical connections among all of its various components.
In addition to considering alignment, when researchers select a research design, they must also consider the ethical implications of their choice, including, for example, what their design selection means for participant recruitment, procedures, and privacy.
For this Discussion, you will evaluate quantitative research questions and hypotheses in assigned journal articles in your discipline and consider the alignment of theory, problem, purpose, research questions and hypotheses, and design. You will also identify the type of quantitative research design the authors used and explain how it was implemented.Quasi-experimental, casual comparative, correlational, pretestposttest,or true experimental are examples of types of research designs used in quantitative research.
With these thoughts in mind, refer to the Journal Articles document for your assigned articles for this Discussion. (See attached file)
Assignment Details:
a critique of the research study in which you:
Evaluate the research questions and hypotheses.
The Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist serves as a guide for your evaluation. Please do not respond to the checklist in a Yes/No format in writing your Discussion post.
Identify the type of quantitative research design used and explain how the researchers implemented the design.
Analyze alignment among the theory, problem, purpose, research questions and hypotheses, and design.
Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the weeks Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.
turn it in required
Required Readings
Babbie, E. (2017). Basics of social research (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Chapter 5, Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2020). Research designs and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chapter 4, Quantitative Research Designs
Research Theory, Design, and Methods
Walden University
Journal Articles
Locate your program below for the assigned journal articles to use for the Discussion assignments in Weeks 3, 4, 5, and 7. Please follow the instructions in the weeks unit and find these articles in the Walden
Library
.
If your program is not listed, your Instructor will post an announcement with your assigned journal articles.
You will focus on one article in each of these weeks for your Main Question Post; however, you are expected to read and familiarize yourself with all of the articles listed to effectively participate in the discussion. Consult the particular weeks Discussion area for instructions on completing the assignment.
For quick access, press CTRL + left-click on your programs link below.
Criminal Justice
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Week 5
If your last name starts with J through R, use Article B
Article B:
Hishinuma, E. S., Chang, J. Y., Goebert, D. A., Helm, S., Else, I. R. N., & Sugimoto-Matsuda, J. (2015). Interpersonal youth violence perpetration and victimization in a diverse Asian American and Pacific Islander adolescent sample.Violence and Victims,30(2), 225-249. doi:0.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00043
2019 Laureate Education, Inc.
Page 19 of 19 Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University
2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 2
Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist
Use the following criteria to evaluate an authors research questions and/or
hypotheses.
Look for indications of the following:
Is the research question(s) a logical extension of the purpose of the
study?
Does the research question(s) reflect the best question to address the
problem?
Does the research question(s) align with the design of the study?
Does the research question(s) align with the method identified for
collecting data?
If the study is qualitative, does the research question(s) do as follows?
Relate the central question to the qualitative approach
Begin with What or How (not Why)
Focus on a single phenomenon
Use exploratory verbs
Use nondirectional language
Use an open-ended format
Specify the participants and research site
If the study is quantitative:
Do the descriptive questions seek to describe responses to major
variables?
Do the inferential questions seek to compare groups or relate variables?
Do the inferential questions follow from a theory?
Are the variables positioned consistently from independent/predictor to
dependent/outcome in the inferential questions?
Is a null and/or alternative hypothesis provided as a predictive statement?
Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University
2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 2
Is the hypothesis consistent with its respective research question?
Does the question(s) and/or hypothesis specify the participants and
research site?
If the study is mixed methods, do the research questions and/or hypotheses do
the following?
Include the characteristics of a good qualitative research question (as
listed above)
Include the characteristics of a good quantitative research and/or
hypothesis (as listed above)
Indicate how the researcher will mix or integrate the two approaches of the
study
Specify the participants and research site
Convey the overall intent of the study that calls for a mixed methods
approach
Research Questions and Hypotheses Checklist 2015 Springer Publishing Company 225
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00043
Violence and Victims, Volume 30, Number 2, 2015
Interpersonal Youth Violence
Perpetration and Victimization in a
Diverse Asian American and Pacific
Islander Adolescent Sample
Earl S. Hishinuma, PhD
Janice Y. Chang, PsyD
Deborah A. Goebert, DrPH
Susana Helm, PhD
Department of Psychiatry, John A. Burns School of Medicine,
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Iwalani R. N. Else, PhD
The College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, Minnesota
Jeanelle J. Sugimoto-Matsuda, DrPH
Department of Psychiatry, John A. Burns School of Medicine,
University of Hawaii at Manoa
This study was the first to examine ethnic, sex, and ethnicity-by-sex differences for under-
researched, Asian American and Pacific Islander, adolescent groups on youth violence
outcomes other than cyberbullying. This effort included the less researched, emotional
violence, and included socioeconomic status (SES) measures as covariates. The sample
size from 2 high schools in spring 2007 was 881, using an epidemiologic survey design.
The pattern of results was higher rates of violence victimization for ethnic groups, with
lower representation in the 2 schools population, and ethnic groups that more recently
moved or immigrated to Hawaii. For emotional victimization, girls of European American
and other ethnicities self-reported higher rates than boys. Several implications (e.g.,
need for ethnically and gender-based approaches) and further research (e.g., ethnocultural
identity) are discussed.
Keywords: interpersonal youth violence; Asian Americans; Pacific Islanders; perpetration;
victimization
Y
outh violence encompasses a wide range of behaviors, from teasing and name-
calling to homicide. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for youth ages
1524 years old in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[CDC], 2009). Yet, homicide represents only a small fraction of youth violence. Based
on CDCs 19992009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), approximately 34% of
226 Hishinuma et al.
high school students reported that they were in a physical fight in the past year, and 13%
reported that they were in a physical fight on school property in the past year (Sugimoto-
Matsuda, Hishinuma, & Chang, 2013). In addition, studies consistently have shown
the strong relationship between violence perpetration and victimization (e.g., Ozer &
McDonald, 2006) as well as the negative long-term effects into adulthood of mere expo-
sure to violence and engagement in violence during childhood (Loeber & Dishion, 1983;
Patterson, Crosby, & Vuchinich, 1992; Tharp-Taylor, Haviland, & DAmico, 2009). The
human toll and financial costs associated with violence in the United States are substantial
(CDC, 2012; Else, Goebert, Bell, Carlton, & Fukuda, 2009; Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema,
1996; Miller, Fisher, & Cohen, 2001; Sieger, Rojas-Vilches, McKinney, & Renk, 2004;
Tharp-Taylor et al., 2009). The human toll includes problems, such as physical and psy-
chological pain, and adverse effects on families, communities, and society. Costs include
resources related to medical and mental health care, the justice system, intervention pro-
grams, and property-value decreases.
Interpersonal violence is a heterogeneous construct. One obvious distinction at the
individual level is between those who perpetrate violence and those who are the victims of
violence. Another dimension of violence is violence typefor example, physical versus
emotional violence. Physical violence can include hitting, pushing, or shoving another
person, whereas emotional violence can include social exclusion, teasing, name-calling,
spreading rumors and gossip, or cyberbullying with the intent to cause harm to another
person (Crick, 1997; David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2007).
ETHNIC DIFFERENCES
The association between youth violence and ethnicity has been a critically important one
(Guerra & Smith, 2006; Mark & Nishigaya, 2009), especially in light of the changing
ethnic demographics in the United States, whereby the projection is that the United States
will not have a majority group by the Year 2043 (Frey, 2008; Yen, 2012). Previous U.S.
national studies have found ethnic differences in victimization and perpetration. In general,
African American, Native American, and Hispanic American youth tended to be at high-
est risk, whereas European American, Asian American, and combined Asian American/
Pacific Islander adolescents tended to have the lowest violence perpetration and/or vic-
timization risk (National Survey of Adolescents [Kilpatrick, Saunders, & Smith, 2003];
National Crime Victimization Survey [Lauritsen, 2003]; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2000; Wordes & Nunez, 2002).
Studying Asian American/Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) has become increasingly important
given that this collective group has been one of the fastest growing populations in the
United States for the past few decades. From Census 2000 to Census 2010, the number
of Asian Americans (part or mixed) increased 46%, and the number of Pacific Islanders
(part or mixed) increased 40%, compared to the number of European Americans increas-
ing only 6% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b, 2012). In addition, the number of AAPI children
increased by 31%, whereas the number of European American children decreased by 10%
(OHare, 2011).
Although AAPIs have been shown to be at low risk for violence (Grunbaum, Lowry, Kann,
& Pateman, 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000; Harrell, 2009),
aggregating data from these diverse groups have obscured our understanding of group dif-
ferences (Lai, 2009). Efforts in the past 15 years have begun to disaggregate data on AAPIs,
Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Violence 227
providing a deeper understanding into how AAPI groups are different from one another and
may have different needs in terms of violence prevention and intervention. For example,
nationally, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander youth have reported higher rates
of violence than Asian American and European American adolescents (based on CDCs
19992009 YRBS; Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2013).
In addition to disaggregating Asian Americans from Pacific Islanders (including Native
Hawaiians), further disaggregation within the Asian American population and within
the Pacific Islander population is needed to determine other ethnic differences (Mark &
Nishigaya, 2009; Mark, Revilla, Tsutsumoto, & Mayeda, 2005). For example, a study in
California found higher rates of serious violence among Southeast Asian youth as com-
pared to Chinese American adolescents (Le & Wallen, 2006).
Like California, the State of Hawaii is an important setting to study ethnic differences in
youth violence. Hawaiis ethnically diverse population is reflective of the Pacific region and
allows for cross-cultural comparisons: 57% full or part-Asian Americans, 42% full or part-
European Americans, and 26% full or part-Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010a). Researchers in Hawaii found that Samoan high school students had higher
self-reported rates of violence than Native Hawaiian, Filipino American, and Japanese
American students (Mayeda, Hishinuma, Nishimura, Garcia-Santiago, & Mark, 2006).
In another study in which Hawaii teachers rated students, Native Hawaiian and European
American students tended to engage in significantly more violent and other externalizing
behaviors when compared to Asian American students (Loo & Rapport, 1998).
Hawaii, with the only statewide public school system in the United States, is also a
place of research interest given long-standing efforts addressing school violence, includ-
ing recent anti-bullying legislation directed at public schools (Vorsino, 2013). For the
first time since introducing legislation regarding bullying prevention, House Bill (HB)
688 was passed and signed into law by Governor Neil Abercrombie in July 2011. HB 688
required the Hawaii Department of Education to heighten its collective response to bully-
ing and cyberbullying as well as monitor school-level programs. As a result, in September
2011, the Hawaii Department of Education unveiled Peaceful Schools, a campaign to
address not only bullying and cyberbullying but also safety and well-being as a whole.
The campaign included more training for educators, heightened efforts to identify and
assist youth involved in bullying, and increased prevention to stop bullying before it starts
(Vorsino, 2011).
SEX DIFFERENCES
Significant sex differences between boys and girls have been found for violence perpetra-
tion and victimization. Rather consistently, boys reported higher rates of victimization
and physical violence perpetration than girls, whereas girls tended to report sexual vic-
timization and relational violence perpetration more frequently than boys (Crick, 1997;
Eagly & Steffen, 1986; National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health [Shaffer &
Ruback, 2002]). Similarly in Hawaii, boys self-reported higher rates of violence than
girls (Mayeda et al., 2006). However, a slightly different trend in sex differences has
been shown both nationally and in Hawaii with respect to teen dating violence. With few
exceptions, girls tended to report higher rates of victimization and perpetration than boys
for most dating violence types (Archer, 2000; Baker & Helm, 2011; OLeary, Smith Slep,
Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008).
228 Hishinuma et al.
ETHNICITY-BY-SEX INTERACTION
Few studies on youth violence have been published on sex differences as a function of eth-
nicity regarding AAPIs. Goodkind, Wallace, Shook, Bachman, and OMalley (2009) found
the highest rates of self-reported fighting by African Americans, followed by Hispanics,
European Americans, and then by Asian Americans and Native Americans. Among
boys, however, the highest rates of fighting were self-reported by Hispanics and African
Americans, followed by Native Americans, European Americans, and Asian Americans.
Therefore, for both girls and boys, lower self-reported rates were for Asian Americans.
Sugimoto-Matsuda et al. (2013) found boys self-reported carrying weapons more than girls
in the following descending order: European American, American Indian/Alaska Native,
Hispanic, Asian American, mixed non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, African
American, and mixed Hispanic youth. Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, and Chang (2011)
found Filipino American and Native Hawaiian girls reported being cyber-controlled via the
web more often than their male counterparts, whereas Samoan and European American
boys reported being cyber-controlled via the web more than their female counterparts.
These disparate results were likely reflective of the type of youth violence examined.
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
An important confounding, and potentially causal, variable involves socioeconomic status
(SES). In general, the lower the SES (e.g., income, occupation, education), the higher
the youth violence rates (e.g., National Institute of Justice, 2007; K. Williams, Rivera,
Neighbours, & Reznik, 2007). When examining free or reduced-cost lunch as a proxy for
SES with an Asian American and Pacific Islander youth sample, Goebert and colleagues
(2012) found that 45% received free or reduced-cost lunch, and there was a significant
interaction between lunch status and ethnicity with more Native Hawaiian and Samoan
students qualifying for free or reduced-cost lunch status than European American or
Japanese American students. In addition, Singh and Ghandour (2012) found that SES, as
measured by living below the poverty line and having parents with less than a high school
education, was related to higher odds that children had severe behavioral problems. Higher
rates of youth violence have also been associated with SES measures such as low parental
education and income, decreased economic opportunities, high levels of transiency, and
lack of social capital (K. Williams et al., 2007). Therefore, it is important to control statisti-
cally for SES in determining differences among ethnic groups and gender.
PURPOSES
Our understanding of AAPI youth violence epidemiology has been increasing. However,
gaps in the literature remain. For example, because of the nature of sampling or data col-
lection procedures, previous studies (a) were not able to disaggregate within the Asian
American or Pacific Islander sample (e.g., Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2013); (b) examined
only cyber-related violence (Goebert et al., 2011); or (c) did not include relevant ethnic
groups (Mayeda et al., 2006, excluded European American youth within diverse ethnic
populations). When studying AAPI youth violence, there are two reasons for including
other ethnic groups, including European Americans. First, European American youth can
Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Violence 229
serve as an important comparison group, given the vast majority of research has been
conducted with this ethnic group. Second, although Asian Americans constitute more
than 50% of Hawaiis population, Hawaii does not have a majority ethnic group when
examining disaggregated ethnicity (e.g., Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, Korean). Therefore,
European Americans can be conceptualized as a minority group in Hawaii, with tradi-
tional risk factors associated with minority group status (i.e., minority effort; Halpern,
1993) with some empirical support for this notion (Hishinuma et al., 2005). In addition,
previous studies (e.g., Mayeda et al., 2006; Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2013) did not include
SES in the model to determine whether any significant unique variance was associated
with ethnicity after SES was considered. Finally, previous research (e.g., Mayeda et al.,
2006; Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2013) generally focused on violence perpetration as
opposed to victimization and emotional violence.
Therefore, the purposes of this study were as follows:
1. To determine whether there are differences across ethnic groups in Hawaii, including among
the AAPI groups (i.e., European American, Filipino American, Native Hawaiian, Japanese
American, Samoan, and other) for six different forms of youth violence (i.e., social exclusion
perpetration, teasing perpetration, physical perpetration, emotional victimization, physical
victimization, and overall), with the hypothesis that there will be generally higher rates for
Pacific Islanders (Native Hawaiians, Samoans) and higher rates of victimization for those
with low ethnic populations for the schools in question.
2. To determine whether there are differences by sex for the six youth violence measures, with
the hypothesis that boys will have higher rates than girls for at least the physical violence
indicators, and girls will have higher rates than boys for emotional violence measures.
3. To determine whether there are ethnicity-by-sex interactions for the six youth violence measures.
4. To determine whether the SES measures, used as covariates, alter the results involving ethnic-
ity and sex, with the hypothesis that SES will decrease the number of statistically significant
findings given SESs association with ethnicity.
METHOD
Selection of Schools
Data collection took place at two public high schools on the island of Oahuthe most
populated island in the State of Hawaii (see also Goebert et al., 2011). The selected
schools are located in communities populated by the ethnocultural groups of interest
(Native Hawaiians, Filipino Americans, and Samoans). One of the schools comprised a
large proportion of Native Hawaiian students as well as Japanese American and European
American youth. The other school is from a more ethnically diverse community where
more than half of this schools student population is Filipino American. The school also
serves other Pacific Islander youth, including Samoan, Marshallese, Chuukese, Tongan,
and Native Hawaiian students.
Sample Description
The sample consisted of 881 high schools students (see Table 1). Ethnicity was based
on self-reported ethnic identity (see Measures section). There were considerably more
Filipino Americans, followed by Native Hawaiians and those of Other ethnicities, with
230 Hishinuma et al.
T
A
B
L
E
1
.
S
am
p
le
D
es
cr
ip
ti
on
(
N
8
81
)
E
th
ni
c
Id
en
ti
fi
ca
ti
on
G
ro
up
E
ur
op
ea
n
A
m
er
ic
an
F
il
ip
in
o
A
m
er
ic
an
N
at
iv
e
H
aw
ai
ia
na
Ja
pa
ne
se
A
m
er
ic
an
b
S
am
oa
n
O
th
er
c
T
ot
al
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
T
ot
al
(
R
ow
%
)
37
4.
2
40
3
45
.7
19
6
22
.3
68
7
.7
41
4.
7
13
6
15
.4
88
1
10
0.
0
G
en
de
r
0
m
al
e
16
44
.4
14
8
37
.0
80
41
.0
32
47
.8
12
29
.3
59
44
.4
34
7
39
.8
1
f
em
al
e
20
55
.6
25
2
63
.0
11
5
59
.0
35
52
.2
29
70
.7
74
55
.6
52
5
60
.2
G
ra
de
l
ev
el
9t
h
4
10
.8
11
4
28
.4
47
24
.0
14
20
.9
14
34
.2
37
27
.4
23
0
26
.2
10
th
17
46
.0
13
4
33
.4
62
31
.6
21
31
.3
12
29
.3
48
35
.6
29
4
33
.5
11
th
10
27
.0
10
1
25
.2
50
25
.5
21
31
.3
11
26
.8
32
23
.7
22
5
25
.7
12
th
6
16
.2
52
13
.0
37
18
.9
11
16
.4
4
9.
8
18
13
.3
12
8
14
.6
L
un
ch
s
ta
tu
s
1
f
re
e
or
r
ed
uc
ed
co
st
l
un
ch
11
29
.7
17
8
44
.7
10
1
52
.9
8
12
.5
31
75
.6
56
42
.1
38
5
44
.6
0
r
eg
ul
ar
26
70
.3
22
0
55
.3
90
47
.1
56
87
.5
10
24
.4
77
57
.9
47
9
55
.4
Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Violence 231
M
ai
n
w
ag
e
ea
rn
er
s
ed
uc
at
io
na
l
ac
hi
ev
em
en
t
1
8
th
g
ra
de
o
r
le
ss
0
0
.0
4
1.
3
0
0.
0
1
1.
8
0
0.
0
2
2.
1
7
1.
1
2
s
om
e
hi
gh
sc
ho
ol
0
0
.0
31
10
.2
12
8.
1
0
0.
0
2
8.
0
7
7.
4
52
7.
9
3
h
ig
h
sc
ho
ol
gr
ad
ua
te
o
r
G
E
D
8
27
.6
63
20
.7
74
49
.7
16
28
.1
7
28
.0
26
27
.4
19
4
29
.4
4
s
om
e
co
ll
eg
e
or
c
om
m
un
it
y
co
ll
eg
e
5
17
.2
96
31
.5
32
21
.5
14
24
.6
5
20
.0
29
30
.5
18
1
27
.4
5
c
ol
le
ge
gr
ad
ua
te
9
31
.0
82
26
.9
22
14
.8
14
24
.6
5
20
.0
20
21
.1
15
2
23
.0
6
m
as
te
r
s
de
gr
ee
4
13
.8
20
6.
6
5
3.
4
10
17
.5
3
12
.0
10
10
.5
52
7.
9
7
d
oc
to
ra
l
de
gr
ee
(
P
hD
,
m
ed
ic
al
,
la
w
)
3
10
.3
9
3.
0
4
2.
7
2
3.
5
3
12
.0
1
1.
1
22
3.
3
N
o
te
.
G
E
D
g
en
er
al
e
du
ca
ti
on
d
ev
el
op
m
en
t.
a I
nc
lu
de
s
pa
rt
–
an
d
fu
ll
-N
at
iv
e
H
aw
ai
ia
n.
b I
nc
lu
de
s
Ja
pa
ne
se
A
m
er
ic
an
a
nd
O
ki
na
w
an
A
m
er
ic
an
.
c I
nc
lu
de
s
A
fr
ic
an
A
m
er
ic
an
,
C
hi
ne
se
A
m
er
ic
an
,
C
hu
uk
es
e,
H
is
pa
ni
c
A
m
er
ic
an
,
K
or
ea
n
A
m
er
ic
an
,
M
ar
sh
al
le
se
,
P
or
tu
gu
es
e
A
m
er
ic
an
,
P
ue
rt
o
R
ic
an
,
T
on
ga
n,
O
th
er
,
N
on
-H
aw
ai
ia
n
M
ix
ed
E
th
ni
ci
ty
,
an
d
fo
ur
p
ar
ti
ci
pa
nt
s
w
ho
d
id
n
ot
i
nd
ic
at
e
th
ei
r
et
hn
ic
i
de
nt
it
y
M
ai
n
ef
fe
ct
s:
E
th
ni
ci
ty
x
2 (
5,
N
8
81
)
6
64
.9
,
p
,
.
00
01
G
en
de
r
x
2 (
1,
N
8
72
)
3
6.
3,
p
,
.
00
01
G
ra
de
l
ev
el
x
2 (
3,
N
8
77
)
6
4.
1,
p
,
.
00
01
L
un
ch
S
ta
tu
s
x
2 (
1,
N
8
64
)
1
0.
2,
p
.
00
14
M
ai
n
w
ag
e
ea
rn
er
s
e
du
ca
ti
on
al
a
ch
ie
ve
m
en
t
x
2 (
6,
N
6
60
)
3
94
.7
,
p
,
.
00
01
.
In
te
ra
ct
io
n
ef
fe
ct
s
w
it
h
et
hn
ic
it
y:
G
en
de
r
x
2 (
5,
N
8
72
)
6
.6
,
p
.
25
37
G
ra
de
l
ev
el
x
2 (
15
,
N
8
77
)
1
4.
0,
p
.
52
62
L
un
ch
s
ta
tu
s
x
2 (
5,
N
8
64
)
5
1.
6,
p
,
.
00
01
M
ai
n
w
ag
e
ea
rn
er
s
ed
uc
at
io
na
l
ac
hi
ev
em
en
t
x
2 (
30
,
N
6
60
)
8
0.
4,
p
,
.
00
01
.
232 Hishinuma et al.
the lowest frequencies for Japanese Americans, European Americans, and Samoans. There
were more girls than boys; more students in the lower grade levels (i.e., greater proportion
of 9th, 10th, and 11th graders as compared to 12th graders); more students who did not
receive free or reduced-cost lunch than did; and more students whose main wage earners
educational achievement were at the high school graduate, some college, or college gradu-
ate levels than below these levels.
The interaction effects between ethnicity and sex, and between ethnicity and grade level
were not statistically significant. There was a statistical significant interaction between
ethnicity and lunch status (p , .0001; see Table 1), whereby the proportion on free or
reduced-cost lunch from highest to lowest based on ethnicity was as follows: Samoans,
Native Hawaiians, Filipino Americans, Others, European Americans, and Japanese
Americans. There was also a statistically significant interaction between ethnicity and
main wage earners educational achievement (p , .0001; see the following sections for
description), where Native Hawaiians had generally lower attainment.
Measures
Demographic Variables. Ethnicity was determined based on the question, Which of the
following do you most strongly identify with? (bubble only one), with the following
choices: Hawaiian, Samoan, Marshallese, Chinese, Japanese/Okinawan, Black/African
American, Portuguese, Filipino, Puerto Rican, Hispanic, Korean, Tongan, Chuukese, Dont
know, and Other. Students responding to the other category were recoded (e.g., if the
student wrote in German, then the student was coded as being European American).
Given the purposes of this study and the need to have sufficient sample sizes for each
ethnic category, the ethnic groups were collapsed into six ethnic classifications: European
American, Filipino American, Native Hawaiian, Japanese American, Samoan, and Other
(see Table 1 for n sizes for each). Native Hawaiians consisted of students who were either
full or part-Hawaiian because the large majority of Native Hawaiian adolescents are of
mixed ancestry and such a classification system is commonly used in Hawaii. Japanese
American youths consisted of students who were of Japanese or Okinawan heritage. The
Other category was composed of all other students (see Table 1, Footnote c).
The following questions were used to determine sex, grade level, lunch status, and main
wage earners educational achievement, respectively: What is your sex? What is your
grade level in school right now? Do you get free or reduced cost lunch? and The main
wage earner is the person who makes the most money to support your family. What is
the highest level of schooling for this person? Table 1 provides the response choices and
coding. The latter two variables served as measures of SES.
Interpersonal Youth Violence. Both perpetration and victimization were measured for
physical and emotional-relational violence. Physical and emotional violence items mea-
sured behaviors that are encountered on a regular basis in high schools, such as hitting,
pushing and shoving, intimidation, and threats of physical violence. Relational violence
(e.g., teasing and social exclusion) items were adapted from the Relational Aggression and
Prosocial Behaviors Scale (Werner & Crick, 1999) to reflect self-reported statements about
both violence victimization and violence perpetration. Students rated 18 items based on the
instructions, In the last 30 days, how many times have you . . . with the following rating
choices: 0 never, 1 once, 2 23 times, and 3 4 or more times. The responses were
coded to indicate whether any violence occurred (i.e., 0 no, 1 yes) to study whether a
particular type of violence occurred versus the frequency of such occurrences.
Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Violence 233
To determine the more robust underlying psychological constructs of the 18 items, fac-
tor analyses were used. Given the dichotomy between perpetration versus victimization
and physical violence versus nonphysical violence, a four-factor solution was suggested
(i.e., physical violent perpetration, physical violent victimization, nonphysical violent perpe-
tration, and nonphysical violent victimization). In addition, the emotional violence perpetra-
tion construct consisted of nine variables that appeared to measure two separate subconstructs,
and therefore, preliminary cross-validation exploratory factor analyses were first conducted
on only these nine variables. The cross-validation entailed performing the factor analyses on
two separate, random halves of the dataset. The result was two forms of emotional violence
perpetration (i.e., social exclusion vs. teasing). Exploratory factor analyses were not per-
formed on the physical violence items because there did not appear to be such a dichotomy
as with the emotional violence items. A confirmatory factor analysis was then conducted on
the five-factor solution (Table 2). A reasonably good fit was obtained: root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) .054 (90% confidence interval .048.059) and comparative
fit index (CFI) .957. Because of the smaller n sizes of some of the ethnic groups, a multi-
group structural equation modeling analysis was not conducted. The overall Cronbachs alpha
was .85 for all 18 items and ranged from .63 to .75 for the five factors (see Table 2). These
Cronbachs alpha values indicated adequate internal consistency, taking into account the
dichotomous measurement scale of the variables and the relatively small number of items per
factor. The Cronbachs alpha (.85) for all 18 items may have been higher than any individual
factor because the greater the number of items, the higher will be the Cronbachs alpha. The
composite score for each of the five domains was derived by computing the mean of the items
in question. To provide equal weight to each of the five factors, the overall composite score
was computed based on the mean of the five factor composite means.
Procedures
In spring 2007, the sampling strategy involved recruiting students from two public high
schools on Oahu.
