Development of Peer Problems, Internalizing Behavior Problems, and Externalizing Behavior Problems: Implications for Middle Childhood Interventions

Introduction: Peer relationships play an important role in development, especially during middle childhood and adolescence. Experiencing problems in peer relationships affects both internalizing (IBP) and externalizing behavior problems (EBP). Furthermore, children that have IBP and EBP are at-risk for experiencing peer problems. Peer problems, IBP, and EBP are all maladaptive constructs by themselves, and are also associated with other maladaptive outcomes. Currently, it is unclear how these constructs interact with each other over time. Knowing how IBP, EBP, and peer problems affect one another through adolescence is an important step to take to tailor interventions to reduce both peer problems and behavior problems. The current paper investigates developmental cascades among peer problems, IBP, and EBP from age 8 through 16 in a sample of children identified as high risk for maltreatment in their first years of life.

Method: This study used data (N = 990; 492 females, 498 males) from the Longitudinal Studies in Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN). We assessed peer problems, IBP, and EBP at three time points (ages 8, 12, and 16). Teacher Estimation of Peer Status (Lemerise & Dodge, 1990) was used to measure peer problems and the Teacher Report Form (Achenbach, 1991) was used to measure IBP and EPB. Path analyses were conducted in Mplus.

Results: In the model for the overall sample IBP (b = .12, p < .05) and EBP (b = .11, p < .001) at age 8 predicted peer problems at age 12. For males only, an additional path emerged, such that peer problems at age 8 were negatively associated with EBP at age 12 (b = -0.43, p < .05). For females, IBP at age 8 did not predict peer problems at age 12 (b = .10, p > .05). However, peer problems at age 8 did predict IBP at age 12 (b = .29, p < .01), and IBP predicted peer problems at age 16 (b = .38, p < .05). Tests of indirect effects were non-significant.

Conclusions: These findings highlight the significance of examining peer problems, IBP, and EBP together. Although indirect pathways were non-significant, our results show the importance of taking gender into consideration when designing interventions. We plan on extending this work by also examining if these pathways function differently depending on maltreatment experience.