"A longitudinal person-centered perspective on youth social support: Relations with psychological wellbeing": Correction to Ciarrochi et al. (2017).

Résumé

Reports an error in "A longitudinal person-centered perspective on youth social support: Relations with psychological wellbeing" by Joseph Ciarrochi, Alexandre J. S. Morin, Baljinder K. Sahdra, David Litalien and Philip D. Parker (, 2017[Jun], Vol 53[6], 1154-1169). In the article, the approach utilized (and illustrated in the authors' online supplements) for tests of distributional similarity conducted in the context of Latent Transition Analyses (LTA) is suboptimal, and has been recently optimized in a webnote prepared by Morin and Litalien (2017). This webnote should be consulted by anyone thinking to rely on similar methodologies in the LTA context. Importantly, distributional similarity was not supported in Ciarrochi et al. (2017) using either the initial or optimized method, so that the application of the optimized method results in no change in the reported results. As part of this correction, the online supplemental materials have been updated to direct readers to the webnote. The reference for the Morin and Litalien (2017) webnote is included in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2017-17082-001.) Past research suggests that perceived social support from parents, teachers, and peers are all positively associated with wellbeing during adolescence. However, little longitudinal research has examined the implications of distinctive combinations of social support for developing adolescents. To address this limitation, we measured multiple dimensions of social support, psychological ill-health, and wellbeing in a sample of 2034 Australian adolescents (M = 13.7; 49.6% male) measured in Grades 8 and 11. Latent transition analyses identified a 6-profile solution for both waves of data, and revealed substantial inequality in perceived social support. Two "socially rich" profiles corresponded to 7% of the sample and had high social support (>1SD above sample mean) from at least two sources. (). In contrast, 25% of the sample was "socially poor," having support that was between -.65 to -.86 SD below the sample mean for all 3 sources ( profile). None of the other profiles () had levels of support below -.37 SD from any source. Furthermore, almost all wellbeing problems were concentrated in the Profile, with negative effects more pronounced in Grade 11 than Grade 8. Despite feeling low parent and teacher support, adolescents in the profile felt strong peer support and average to above-average levels of wellbeing in Grades 8 and 11. However, they also had an 81% chance of making a negative transition to either the or profiles in Grade 11. (PsycINFO Database Record