-12), which is a shortened version of the SF-36, with 12 items as opposed to 36 items. It measures both mental and physical health, with higher scores indicating better health. Descriptive statistics for SF-12 scores by gender and age using the normative sample from SF-36 were very similar to SF-36 descriptive statistics, indicating that it is appropriate to use the norms and other interpretation guidelines from the original SF-36 (Ware, Kosinski, Keller, 1996). Test-retest reliability was high for physical health (r = .89). In 12 validity tests involving physical criteria, relative validity estimates ranged from .43 to .78 (median = .67; Ware et al., 1996). In NSCAW, internal consistency for Physical Health is moderate ( = .59). Neighborhood Problems–Caregivers were asked about their neighborhood at baseline. Nine items were asked on the abridged community-environment measure developed for the Philadelphia Family Management Study (Furstenburg, 1990). The first five items ask how much of a problem certain occurrences are within the neighborhood. These questions are rated on a 3-point Likert scale (not a problem at all, somewhat of a problem, or a big problem in your neighborhood). The final four items ask the respondents to compare their neighborhood to OPC-8212 site others on safety, neighbor support, parent involvement, and whether or not it is a better or worse place to live. The mean of the nine community items measured the overall neighborhood environment, with higher scores indicating worse neighborhoods.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Soc Serv Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 25.Rufa and FowlerPageSufficient reliability has been reported for this measure in NSCAW ( = .86; Hazen, Connelly, Kelleher, Barth, Landsverk, 2006). Procedure Data were collected using a probabilistic sample method, as described by the NSCAW Research Group (2002). The United States was divided into nine sampling strata, eight of which were the eight states with the highest child welfare caseloads, and the ninth consisted of the remaining 42 states and the District of Columbia. Families were randomly selected from 97 counties throughout the nation. All children had been involved in a child welfare investigation within the past 6 months. The children’s current caregivers were sent a letter to notify them of the study, as well as a brochure with answers to common questions. Then, as stated within the recruitment materials, the child’s current family was contacted by phone or in person 3-Methyladenine chemical information through a home visit to schedule a time for the first interview. Interviews were conducted within the families’ homes. The current caregiver was interviewed, as well as the child who had been the source of the investigation at baseline, and followed-up over four additional time points over seven years. Each family was called for a shorter phone interview 12 months later (the 2nd wave) and were then contacted for a full follow-up interview at 18 months past baseline (the 3rd wave), 36 months past baseline (the 4th wave), and 59-97 months past baseline (the 5th wave). Data collection and study procedures received institutional review board approval, and the secondary analysis was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at DePaul University and Washington University in St. Louis. De-identified survey data were received through the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) and complied with securit.-12), which is a shortened version of the SF-36, with 12 items as opposed to 36 items. It measures both mental and physical health, with higher scores indicating better health. Descriptive statistics for SF-12 scores by gender and age using the normative sample from SF-36 were very similar to SF-36 descriptive statistics, indicating that it is appropriate to use the norms and other interpretation guidelines from the original SF-36 (Ware, Kosinski, Keller, 1996). Test-retest reliability was high for physical health (r = .89). In 12 validity tests involving physical criteria, relative validity estimates ranged from .43 to .78 (median = .67; Ware et al., 1996). In NSCAW, internal consistency for Physical Health is moderate ( = .59). Neighborhood Problems–Caregivers were asked about their neighborhood at baseline. Nine items were asked on the abridged community-environment measure developed for the Philadelphia Family Management Study (Furstenburg, 1990). The first five items ask how much of a problem certain occurrences are within the neighborhood. These questions are rated on a 3-point Likert scale (not a problem at all, somewhat of a problem, or a big problem in your neighborhood). The final four items ask the respondents to compare their neighborhood to others on safety, neighbor support, parent involvement, and whether or not it is a better or worse place to live. The mean of the nine community items measured the overall neighborhood environment, with higher scores indicating worse neighborhoods.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Soc Serv Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 25.Rufa and FowlerPageSufficient reliability has been reported for this measure in NSCAW ( = .86; Hazen, Connelly, Kelleher, Barth, Landsverk, 2006). Procedure Data were collected using a probabilistic sample method, as described by the NSCAW Research Group (2002). The United States was divided into nine sampling strata, eight of which were the eight states with the highest child welfare caseloads, and the ninth consisted of the remaining 42 states and the District of Columbia. Families were randomly selected from 97 counties throughout the nation. All children had been involved in a child welfare investigation within the past 6 months. The children’s current caregivers were sent a letter to notify them of the study, as well as a brochure with answers to common questions. Then, as stated within the recruitment materials, the child’s current family was contacted by phone or in person through a home visit to schedule a time for the first interview. Interviews were conducted within the families’ homes. The current caregiver was interviewed, as well as the child who had been the source of the investigation at baseline, and followed-up over four additional time points over seven years. Each family was called for a shorter phone interview 12 months later (the 2nd wave) and were then contacted for a full follow-up interview at 18 months past baseline (the 3rd wave), 36 months past baseline (the 4th wave), and 59-97 months past baseline (the 5th wave). Data collection and study procedures received institutional review board approval, and the secondary analysis was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at DePaul University and Washington University in St. Louis. De-identified survey data were received through the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) and complied with securit.