. Specifically, the set of interactions between a dichotomous indicator of prior behavior and all of the covariates listed in Table S2 of the online supporting information (including a square term for age) was nonsignificant, F(105, 134495) = 1.07, p = .283, for our eight-category variable of configurations of later serious delinquency using the multinomial logit model discussed in the next section (the 105 numerator degrees of freedom in this F test reflects one Pepstatin A msds interaction term for each of 15 covariates in each of the 7 multinomial logit equations). A similar set of interactions for gang membership based on a logit model was also nonsignificant, F(15, 30178) = 1.01, p = . 442. We conducted a second analysis to address the fact that the measure of youth’s antisocial behavior at baseline reflected different ages for youth in the youngest and oldest cohorts. To do this, we created a variable capturing the boys’ self-reported antisocial behavior by age 7. Using the same items as listed in Table S3 of the online supporting information for selfreported antisocial behavior, we drew on boys’ reports of whether they had ever engaged in each activity; and, for boys in the oldest cohort, the age at which they had first engaged in the activity. Doing so allowed us to define a similar early onset variable for both cohorts: The number of antisocial behaviors by age 7. This variable was logged due to skewness (M = 0.66, SD = 0.64). We tested whether this early onset antisocial behavior moderated the associations reported in Table 3 and Table 4. We found no significant interactions: F(14, 31169) = 0.91, p = .551 for moderation of the Setmelanotide web association between gang status and serious delinquency configurations; F(98, 119515) = 1.19, p = .095 for moderation of the association between covariates and serious delinquency configurations; and F(14, 36196) = 0.63, p = .847 for moderation of the association between covariates and gang participation). Based on these results, we focus on the full sample of youth (those with and without early delinquency), which increases cell sizes and power. Analytic Approach All analyses were conducted with Stata 12 (StataCorp, 2011). Our first research question was whether gang members were more likely to combine certain types of serious delinquency than were non-gang involved youth. To examine this question, we first calculated percentages, using Rubin’s rules to combine estimates from our 25 multiply imputed data sets and applying the study’s sampling weights to adjust for initial oversampling of high-risk youth (Johnson Young, 2011; Rubin, 1996; Wooldridge, 2009). We used chi-square values to test for differences in the proportion of young men reporting each set of serious delinquent activities by gang membership status (never in a gang, ever in a gang but not in the reference period before the study wave, ever in a gang including in the reference period before the study wave). With our multiply imputed data, we first calculated the chi-square value within each of the 25 replicate data sets (based on a two by three crosstabulation of a dichotomous variable indicating whether the youth did or did not engage in a particular configuration of delinquency and a trichotomous variable indicating the youth’s gang membership status). We then combined these values with Rubin’s rules. The final test statistics were F rather than chi-square values because precision of estimates based on multiple imputations depends not only on the sample.. Specifically, the set of interactions between a dichotomous indicator of prior behavior and all of the covariates listed in Table S2 of the online supporting information (including a square term for age) was nonsignificant, F(105, 134495) = 1.07, p = .283, for our eight-category variable of configurations of later serious delinquency using the multinomial logit model discussed in the next section (the 105 numerator degrees of freedom in this F test reflects one interaction term for each of 15 covariates in each of the 7 multinomial logit equations). A similar set of interactions for gang membership based on a logit model was also nonsignificant, F(15, 30178) = 1.01, p = . 442. We conducted a second analysis to address the fact that the measure of youth’s antisocial behavior at baseline reflected different ages for youth in the youngest and oldest cohorts. To do this, we created a variable capturing the boys’ self-reported antisocial behavior by age 7. Using the same items as listed in Table S3 of the online supporting information for selfreported antisocial behavior, we drew on boys’ reports of whether they had ever engaged in each activity; and, for boys in the oldest cohort, the age at which they had first engaged in the activity. Doing so allowed us to define a similar early onset variable for both cohorts: The number of antisocial behaviors by age 7. This variable was logged due to skewness (M = 0.66, SD = 0.64). We tested whether this early onset antisocial behavior moderated the associations reported in Table 3 and Table 4. We found no significant interactions: F(14, 31169) = 0.91, p = .551 for moderation of the association between gang status and serious delinquency configurations; F(98, 119515) = 1.19, p = .095 for moderation of the association between covariates and serious delinquency configurations; and F(14, 36196) = 0.63, p = .847 for moderation of the association between covariates and gang participation). Based on these results, we focus on the full sample of youth (those with and without early delinquency), which increases cell sizes and power. Analytic Approach All analyses were conducted with Stata 12 (StataCorp, 2011). Our first research question was whether gang members were more likely to combine certain types of serious delinquency than were non-gang involved youth. To examine this question, we first calculated percentages, using Rubin’s rules to combine estimates from our 25 multiply imputed data sets and applying the study’s sampling weights to adjust for initial oversampling of high-risk youth (Johnson Young, 2011; Rubin, 1996; Wooldridge, 2009). We used chi-square values to test for differences in the proportion of young men reporting each set of serious delinquent activities by gang membership status (never in a gang, ever in a gang but not in the reference period before the study wave, ever in a gang including in the reference period before the study wave). With our multiply imputed data, we first calculated the chi-square value within each of the 25 replicate data sets (based on a two by three crosstabulation of a dichotomous variable indicating whether the youth did or did not engage in a particular configuration of delinquency and a trichotomous variable indicating the youth’s gang membership status). We then combined these values with Rubin’s rules. The final test statistics were F rather than chi-square values because precision of estimates based on multiple imputations depends not only on the sample.
