Protocol - Neighborhood Collective Efficacy - Community Cohesion and Informal Social Control
Description
This protocol includes 10 Likert-style, interviewer-administered questions from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). The Social Cohesion and Informal Social Control subscales include five items each.
Specific Instructions
Although used in the context of a personal interview, the questions and response categories are straightforward and can be adapted to a self-administered format.
Availability
Protocol
Community Cohesion
Now I’m going to read some statements about things that people in your neighborhood may or may not do.
For each of these statements, please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree.
1. This is a close-knit neighborhood.
[ ] strongly agree
[ ] agree
[ ] neither agree nor disagree
[ ] disagree
[ ] strongly disagree
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
2. People around here are willing to help their neighbors.
[ ] strongly agree
[ ] agree
[ ] neither agree nor disagree
[ ] disagree
[ ] strongly disagree
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
3. People in this neighborhood generally don’t get along with each other.
[ ] strongly agree
[ ] agree
[ ] neither agree nor disagree
[ ] disagree
[ ] strongly disagree
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
4. People in this neighborhood do not share the same values.
[ ] strongly agree
[ ] agree
[ ] neither agree nor disagree
[ ] disagree
[ ] strongly disagree
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
5. People in this neighborhood can be trusted.
[ ] strongly agree
[ ] agree
[ ] neither agree nor disagree
[ ] disagree
[ ] strongly disagree
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
Informal Social Control
For each of the following, please tell me if it is very likely, likely, neither likely nor unlikely, unlikely, or very unlikely that people in your neighborhood would act in the following manner.
6. If a group of neighborhood children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, how likely is that your neighbors would do something about it?
[ ] very likely
[ ] likely
[ ] neither likely nor unlikely
[ ] unlikely
[ ] very unlikely
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
7. If some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, how likely is it that your neighbors would do something about it?
[ ] very likely
[ ] likely
[ ] neither likely nor unlikely
[ ] unlikely
[ ] very unlikely
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
8. If a child was showing disrespect to an adult, how likely is it that people in your neighborhood would scold that child?
[ ] very likely
[ ] likely
[ ] neither likely nor unlikely
[ ] unlikely
[ ] very unlikely
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
9. If there was a fight in front of your house and someone was being beaten or threatened, how likely is it that your neighbors would break it up?
[ ] very likely
[ ] likely
[ ] neither likely nor unlikely
[ ] unlikely
[ ] very unlikely
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
10. Suppose that because of budget cuts the fire station closest to your home was going to be closed down by the city. How likely is it that neighborhood residents would organize to try to do something to keep the fire station open?
[ ] very likely
[ ] likely
[ ] neither likely nor unlikely
[ ] unlikely
[ ] very unlikely
[ ] don’t know
[ ] refused
Personnel and Training Required
No specific training is needed if data are collected through a self-administered questionnaire. If interviewers administer the questionnaire, the interviewer must be trained to conduct personal interviews with individuals from the general population and found competent to administer these particular questions (i.e., tested by an expert) at the completion of this training. The interviewer should be trained to prompt respondents further if a “don’t know” response is provided.
Equipment Needs
These questions can be administered in a computerized or noncomputerized format (i.e., paper-and pencil instrument). Computer software is necessary to develop computer-assisted instruments. The interviewer will require a laptop computer or handheld computer to administer or to allow the respondent to self-administer a computer-assisted questionnaire.
Requirements
| Requirement Category | Required |
|---|---|
| Major equipment | No |
| Specialized training | No |
| Specialized requirements for biospecimen collection | No |
| Average time of greater than 15 minutes in an unaffected individual | No |
Mode of Administration
Interviewer-administered questionnaire
Lifestage
Adult
Participants
Adults, aged 18 years and older; children younger than 18 years old, by parent report.
Selection Rationale
The collective efficacy scale from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods was selected because it is a widely used, validated protocol with available recent research documenting its validity, reliability, and association with multiple health-related outcomes. Items from the collective efficacy scale have been incorporated into major studies of neighborhoods and health, including the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (Cohen, Finch, Bower, & Sastry, 2006; Cohen, Inagami, & Finch, 2007) and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (Burdette et al., 2006).
Language
Chinese, English, Other languages available at source
Standards
| Standard | Name | ID | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) | Neighborhood - comm cohesion proto | 63026-9 | LOINC |
| caDSR Form | PhenX PX210801 - Neighborhood Collective Efficacy Community Cohesion An | 6197222 | caDSR Form |
Derived Variables
None
Process and Review
The Expert Review Panel #2 (ERP 2) reviewed the measures in the Demographics, Environmental Exposures, and Social Environments domains.
Guidance from ERP 2 includes:
• Revised descriptions of the measure
Back-compatible: no changes to Data Dictionary
Previous version in Toolkit archive (link)
Protocol Name from Source
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), Community Survey, 1994-1995
Source
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). Community Survey 1994-1995. Questions 11b, 11e, 11f, 11k, 11m (Questions 1-5) and 12a-12c, 12e, 12f (Questions 6-10).
General References
Browning, C. R., Burrington, L. A., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Neighborhood structural inequality, collective efficacy, and sexual risk behavior among urban youth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49, 269-285.
Burdette, H. L., Wadden, T. A., & Whitaker, R. C. (2006). Neighborhood safety, collective efficacy, and obesity in women with young children. Obesity, 14, 518-525.
Cagney, K. A., & Browning, C. R. (2007). Exploring neighborhood-level variation in asthma and other respiratory diseases. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 229-236.
Cagney, K. A., Browning, C. R., & Wallace, D. M. (2007). The Latino paradox in neighborhood context: The case of asthma and other respiratory conditions. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 919-925.
Cohen, D., Finch, B., Bower, A., & Sastry, N. (2006). Collective efficacy and obesity: The potential influence of social factors on health. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 769-778.
Cohen, D. A., Inagami, S., & Finch, B. (2007). The built environment and collective efficacy. Health and Place, 14, 198-208.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2003). The quantitative assessment of neighborhood social environments. In I. Kawachi & L. F. Berkman (Eds.), Neighborhoods and health (pp. 112-131). New York: Oxford University Press.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1999). Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology, 29, 1-41.
Sampson, R. J. (2003). Neighborhood-level context and health: Lessons from sociology. In I. Kawachi and L. F. Berkman (Eds.), Neighborhoods and health (pp. 132-146). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Wikstrom, P.-O. H. (2008). The social order of violence in Chicago and Stockholm neighborhoods: A comparative inquiry. In I. Shapiro, S. Kalyvas, & T. Masoud (Eds.), Order, conflict, and violence (pp. 97-119). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Protocol ID
210801
Variables
Export Variables| Variable Name | Variable ID | Variable Description | dbGaP Mapping | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PX210801_Close_Knit_Neighborhood | ||||
| PX210801010000 | This is a close-knit neighborhood. | Variable Mapping | ||
| PX210801_Neighbors_Break_Up_Fight | ||||
| PX210801090000 | If there was a fight in front of your house more | Variable Mapping | ||
| PX210801_Neighbors_Keep_Station_Open | ||||
| PX210801100000 | Suppose that because of budget cuts the fire more | N/A | ||
| PX210801_Neighbors_Report_Children_On_StreetCorners | ||||
| PX210801060000 | If a group of neighborhood children were more | N/A | ||
| PX210801_Neighbors_Report_Children_Painting_Graffiti | ||||
| PX210801070000 | If some children were spray-painting more | N/A | ||
| PX210801_Neighbors_Scold_Child_Showing_Disrespect | ||||
| PX210801080000 | If a child was showing disrespect to an more | N/A | ||
| PX210801_People_Can_Be_Trusted | ||||
| PX210801050000 | People in this neighborhood can be trusted. | Variable Mapping | ||
| PX210801_People_DoNot_Share_Same_Values | ||||
| PX210801040000 | People in this neighborhood do not share the more | Variable Mapping | ||
| PX210801_People_Dont_Get_Along | ||||
| PX210801030000 | People in this neighborhood generally don't more | Variable Mapping | ||
| PX210801_People_Help_Neighbors | ||||
| PX210801020000 | People around here are willing to help their more | Variable Mapping | ||
Measure Name
Neighborhood Collective Efficacy - Community Cohesion and Informal Social Control
Release Date
October 8, 2010
Definition
This measure is a questionnaire to assess the mutual trust and shared expectations among neighbors.
Purpose
This measure can be used to determine how the neighborhood or community context modifies disease risk, prevalence, and severity. Collective efficacy includes the following: social cohesion, the relationships between neighbors and informal social control, community pressure for norms and laws, and other factors that can influence health-related behaviors or access to health care. Research has documented effects of neighborhood collective efficacy on obesity in children and adolescents (Cohen, Finch, Bower, & Sastry, 2006), sexual risk behavior among adolescents (Browning et al., 2008), and adult asthma (Cagney and Browning, 2007; Cagney et al., 2007), among others.
Keywords
Social environments, collective efficacy, social cohesion, informal social control, neighborhood, community, Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, PHDCN, Community Survey
Measure Protocols
| Protocol ID | Protocol Name |
|---|---|
| 210801 | Neighborhood Collective Efficacy - Community Cohesion and Informal Social Control |
Publications
Gonzalez, R., et al. (2021) An update on the assessment of culture and environment in the ABCD Study (R): Emerging literature and protocol updates over three measurement waves. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. 2021 December; 52: 101021. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101021
Moore, T. M., et al. (2020) Development of a scale battery for rapid assessment of risk and resilience. Psychiatry Research. 2020 June; 288: 10. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112996