”
Summarize the article( abstract below) and answer the following
questions: concise,accurate and straight to the point responses.1) Name the type of design used in the
research. 2) Describe whether or not the researchers could have arrived
at the same conclusions without a control group. 3) Would another design
been more appropriate for the research, and if so what design and why? 4) Any ethical concerns in the research. Please include the
abstract with this assignment by either uploading a screen shot or by copy and pasting the abstract below your write up. Answer each point in two- three sentences.
Watch the video for further info: ASA format, 1-page max. 15 sentences. Modification of Housing
Mobility Experimental Effects on Delinquency and Educational Problems: Middle
Adolescence as a Sensitive PeriodAuthor: Schmidt, Nicole M1; Krohn, Marvin D2; Osypuk, Theresa L31 Minnesota
Population Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA2 Department of
Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,
USA3 Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN, USAPublication info: Journal of Youth and Adolescence
; New York Vol. 47, Iss. 10, (Oct 2018):
2009-2026.Abstract: Residential mobility is one
documented stressor contributing to higher delinquency and worse educational
outcomes. Sensitive period life course models suggest that certain
developmental stages make individuals more susceptible to the effects of an exposure, like residential mobility, on
outcomes. However, most prior research is observational,
and has not examined heterogeneity across age or gender that may inform
sensitive periods, even though it may have important implications for the
etiology of adolescent development. Moreover,
there are important translational
implications for identifying the groups most vulnerable to residential mobility
to inform how to buffer adverse effects
of moving. In this study, low-income families were randomized to residential
mobility out of public housing into lower poverty neighborhoods using a rental
subsidy voucher (“experimental voucher condition”), and were compared to control families remaining in public
housing. The sample was comprised of 2829
youth (51% female; 62% Non-Hispanic Black, 31% Hispanic, 7% other race). At
baseline, youth ranged from 5 to 16 years old. This study hypothesized that
random assignment to the housing voucher condition would generate harmful
effects on delinquency and educational problems, compared to the control group,
among boys who were older at baseline. The results confirmed this hypothesis:
random assignment to the experimental voucher condition generating residential
mobility caused higher delinquency among boys who were 13–16 years old at
baseline, compared to same-age, in-place public housing controls. However,
residential mobility did not affect delinquency among girls regardless of age,
or among boys who were 5–12 years old at baseline. The pattern of results for
educational problems was similar but weaker. Families with teenage boys are
particularly vulnerable to residential transitions. Incorporating additional
supports into housing programs may help low-income, urban families to
successfully transition to lower poverty neighborhoods.