Retrospective Theses and Dissertations

2005

Family functioning and adolescent delinquency in

Malaysia
Fauziah Hanim Abdul Jalal
Iowa State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd

Part of the Counselor Education Commons, Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Home
Economics Commons, and the Student Counseling and Personnel Services Commons

Recommended Citation
Abdul Jalal, Fauziah Hanim, "Family functioning and adolescent delinquency in Malaysia " (2005). Retrospective Theses and
Dissertations. 1742.
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1742

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please
contact digirep@iastate.edu.
 Family functioning and adolescent delinquency in Malaysia

by

Fauziah Hanim Abdul Jalal

A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Major: Family and Consumer Sciences Education

Program of Study Committee:

Cheryl O. Hausafus, Major Professor
Beverly J. Kruempel
Leah C. Keino
Sedahlia J. Crase
Janet N. Melby

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

2005

Copyright Fauziah Hanim Abdul Jalal, 2005. All rights reserved.

 UMI Number: 3200429

Copyright 2005 by
Abdul Jalal, Fauziah Hanim

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
UMI Microform 3200429
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 ii

Graduate College
Iowa State University

This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation of

Fauziah Hanim Abdul Jalal

has met the dissertation requirements of Iowa State University

Signature was redacted for privacy.

Committee Member

Signature was redacted for privacy.

Committee Member

Signature was redacted for privacy.

Committee Member

Signature was redacted for privacy.

Committee Member

Signature was redacted for privacy.

Signature was redacted for privacy.

 Ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF TABLES vii

ABSTRACT ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Background for the Study 1
Theoretical Framework 7
Need for the Study 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Significance of the Study 11
Variables 12
Research Questions 12
Definition of Terms 13
Assumptions 14
Limitations of the Study 14
Dissertation Organization 15
Summary 15

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 17

The Concept of Delinquency 17
Types of Adolescent Delinquents 19
Measuring Delinquency 20
The Developmental Path of Risky Behaviors 21
Risk Factors and Protective Factors 22
Gender and Delinquency 35
Ethnicity and Delinquency 37
Socioeconomic Status and Delinquency 38
Concept of Family Functioning 39
Dimensions of Family Functioning 40
Measuring Family Functioning 43
Malaysian Culture 44

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 50
Introduction 50
Research Design 50
The Population and Sample 51
Questionnaire Development 53
Instruments 58
Psychometric Properties 61
 iv

Human Subjects Review 64

Data Collection 64
Data Analysis 66

CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 71

Section I: Descriptive Summary of Data 71
Participant Profile 71
Descriptive Statistics of Measurements 78
Section II. Analyses of Research Questions 85
The Relationship between Family Functioning Dimensions and Delinquency 85
Delinquency between Gender and among three Ethnic Groups 88
Delinquency between Gender and across Three Socioeconomic Status Levels 95
Family Functioning Dimension between Gender and across Three 97
Socioeconomic Status Levels
Discussion 99

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 109

Summary of Research 109
Implications and Conclusion 111
Recommendations for Future Research 114

APPENDIX A. FAMILY ASSESSMENT DEVICE 116

APPENDIX B. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL 121

APPENDIX C. MALAYSIA ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT APPROVAL 124

APPENDIX D. MALAYSIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 127

APPENDIX E. NEGERI SEMBILAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 130

APPENDIX F. SURVEY INSTRUMENTS (ENGLISH/MALAY) 134

APPENDIX G. COVER LETTERS FOR STUDENTS (ENGLISH/MALAY) 158

APPENDIX H. COVER LETTERS FOR PARENTS (ENGLISH/MALAY) 161

APPENDIX I. INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (ENGLISH/ MALAY) 164

APPENDIX J. DIRECTIONS FOR PROJECT (ENGLISH/MALAY) 169

APPENDIX K. SAMPLING PROCEDURES (ENGLISH/MALAY) 176

APPENDIX L. CONSENT TO USE THE INSTRUMENTS 183

APPENDIX M. RELIABILITY OF ITEMS 187

APPENDIX N. HIGH RISK AND LOW RISK GROUPS 190

REFERENCES CITED

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 VI

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Specific Behaviors Constituting a Status Offense 18

Figure 4.1. Male Group by Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status 92

Figure 4.2. Means for Family Functioning Dimensions for Male Group by 93
Ethnicity

Figure 4.3. Means for Family Time and Routine Subscales for Male Group by 94
Ethnicity
 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Adolescent Delinquency Risk and Protective Factors 24

Table 2.2. Crimes Committed by Juveniles Based on Age and Gender in Malaysia 36
(2002-2004)

Table 3.1. The Questionnaire Development 54

Table 3.2. Response Rate by Schools 66

Table 3.3. Scale Reliability Coefficient for Study Scales (N = 286). 68

Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 286) 72

Table 4.2. Demographic Characteristic of Parents (N = 286) 74

Table 4.3. Socioeconomic Status of the Family (N = 286) 76

Table 4.4. Misbehavior Reports (N = 286) 77

Table 4.5. High Risk and Low Risk Groups by Gender and Ethnicity (N=283) 78

Table 4.6. Family Assessment Device Subscales 79

Table 4.7. Adapted Family Time and Routines Index Subscales 81

Table 4.8. Adapted Religion in Family 83

Table 4.9. Adapted Self Report Delinquency Scales 84

Table 4.10. Correlation between Each Predictor and the Total Delinquency Score 86
(n = 168)

Table 4.11. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting 88

Total Delinquency Score

Table 4.12. Means and Standard Deviations for Adolescents Grouped by Gender 89
and Ethnicity on Total Delinquency Score

Table 4.13. Two-way ANOVA between Gender and Ethnicity on Total 89

Delinquency Score

Table 4.14. Pairwise Comparison within Male Group across Ethnicity on Total 89
Delinquency Score
 viii

Table 4.15. Means and Standard Deviations for Adolescents Grouped by Gender 95
and Socioeconomic Status Level on Total Delinquency Score

Table 4.16. Two-Way ANOVA between Gender and across Socioeconomic Status 95
Level On Total Delinquency Score

Table 4.17. Pairwise Comparison within Socioeconomic Status Level and Gender 96
on Total Delinquency Score

Table 4.18. Means and Standard Deviations for Gender and Across 98
Socioeconomic Status on Overall Family Functioning Score

Table 4.19. Two-Way ANOVA between Gender and across Socioeconomic Level 98
on Overall Family Functioning Score

Table 4.20. Pairwise Comparison within Socioeconomic Status Level and Gender 99
on Overall Functioning Score

Table 4.21. Pairwise Comparison within Male Group across Socioeconomic Status 99
Level on Overall Functioning Score
 ix

ABSTRACT

Malaysia is confronting a problem of increased adolescent delinquency. The involvement

of adolescents in delinquency is an act of risky behaviors that threatens the well being of families,

communities, and the nation. Despite these situations, there is very little research on adolescent

delinquency. Some researchers have suggested that family functioning dimensions may become

risk factors to the development of risky behaviors. The primary aim of this study is to examine

perceived family functioning dimensions (problem solving, affective involvement, affective

response, roles, communication, behavior control, general functioning, family time, religious

belief, and religious practice) and their effect on the occurrence of adolescent delinquency. In

addition, this study also investigates the effect of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on

total delinquency scores of this group. Finally, this study examines the effect of socioeconomic

status and gender on overall family functioning scores of the group. Data were collected from

seven secondary schools in the urban area in the state of Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. There were

286 participants from three ethnic groups (Malay, Chinese, and Indian) who came from different

socioeconomic status families. Several instruments including Family Assessment Device,

adapted Family Time and Routine Index, adapted Religious Practice in Family, adapted Self-

Report Delinquency Scale and demographic questionnaires were used.

Stepwise regression indicated that gender and problem solving were the two strongest

predictors to delinquency. Two-way ANOVA showed that male Chinese were significantly

different from other groups in delinquency. Both genders in low socioeconomic status families

were significantly different from other groups. In particular, males from middle socioeconomic

status families have better family functioning than females. Further, males from high

socioeconomic status families have greater family functioning than males from low and middle
 X

socioeconomic status families. The result also indicates that gender, problem solving, and low

socioeconomic status families were the culture-common concept or etic in delinquency. Further,

males having better family functioning dimension than females was found to be a culture-specific

concept or emic in this collectivist culture. Males from higher socioeconomic status perceived

more positive family functioning than the other groups. The higher family functioning resulted in

lower delinquency was a culture-common concept in this study. Implications for family

educators and mental health professionals and on future research are discussed.
 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Background for the Study

Adolescent delinquency, which includes such actions as misbehaving in school, gambling,

smoking cigarettes, using drugs, and carrying weapons, is becoming a serious social issue. Malaysia

is confronting increased adolescent delinquency with 2,955 reported cases in 2002 and 3,627 cases in

2003, a 23% increase (Statistik, 2004, March 1). These adolescents under 18 years of age have

committed crimes such as assault, rape, molestation, sodomy, incest, burglary, vandalism, gang

activities, theft, and murder. The involvement of adolescents in delinquency is an act of risky

behaviors that threatens the well being of families and communities (Jessor, 1998). In fact,

delinquency has increased the fiscal costs and social costs which affect a nation's economic progress

(DeLisi, 2005).

Today in Malaysia many adolescents are psychologically, socially, and physically healthy.

They perform well in several areas such as in academics and in sports. Despite these facts, some

adolescents are seeking professional help to confront the complexity and severity of the problems

they face (Chong, 2004, July 16). The most prevalent problems affecting adolescents in Malaysia today

are emotional. More adolescents are stressed and unable to find interested people to listen to their

concerns (Chong, 2004, July 16). This scenario is worrying the society as adolescent delinquency is

becoming worse in Malaysia. Those who have worked with juveniles for a decade found that many

parents of delinquent adolescents are not giving their children love and attention (Boosting, 2004,

May 23; Penjenayah, 2004, March 1). In fact, many researchers who conducted studies regarding drug

addiction and other risky behaviors on Malaysian youths found that one of the contributing factors to

this problem was the family (Baginda, 1984, April; Hadi, 1990, December; Nagaraja, 1984, April;

Suppiah, 1984, April; Taha, Ridzwan, & Ahmad, 2004).

These data suggest that the Malaysian society will continue to face problems of adolescent

delinquency. The consensus among practitioners and researchers however maintains that adolescent
 2

delinquency is a dynamic, multifaceted problem with various potentially causal factors. Among the

factors are individuals, peers, school, neighborhood, and family (Loeber & Farrington, 2001). In fact,

Hamburg (1998) has suggested that to overcome adolescent delinquency we must identify the risk

factors and correlates. This is a central and necessary step in trying to address the problem of

adolescent delinquency as well as in attempting to develop subsequent prevention and intervention

efforts. As a result, investigators and professionals suggest that treatment procedures must focus not

only on the immediate issue of the offender's deviant behavior but also on every element within the

context, such as the family (Cox & Paley, 1997; Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen, & Wilson,

1983; Perkins-Dock, 2001).

Because adolescents are part of society, a comprehensive understanding of an adolescent's

delinquency is pivotal in light of the social context in which family is a key system (Steinberg, 1990).

Understanding how the family influences adolescent involvement in delinquency is important when

family plays major roles in adolescent life.

Several existing family competency models such as the Beavers system model (Beavers &

Hampson, 1993), Circumplex model (Olson, 1993), and the McMaster model (Epstein, Bishop, Ryan,

Miller, & Keitner, 1993) assume that poor family functioning leads to negative behavior among the

adolescents within the family. A similar study found that problematic family functioning could

reflect a different relationship pattern in the family (Shek, 2005). Thus, misbehavior of an adolescent

as a family member can be explained in relation to the behaviors of other family members and the

interactions among family subsystems (Cox & Paley, 1997).

The concept of family functioning described by Epstein, Baldwin, and Bishop (1983) as "a

very complex phenomenon which can be assessed in a variety of ways" (p. 171) is commonly

understood as the quality of family life at the systemic level such as wellness, competence, strengths,

and weaknesses of a family (Shek, 2002). Some scholars measured this construct as a family strength,

having higher scores to indicate more positive family functioning (Green, Kolevzon, & Vosler, 1985).
 3

In another measurement, Epstein et al. (1983) assessed family functioning in terms of a weakness of a

family or dysfunction. Here, higher scores mean a more negative aspect of family functioning.

A group of researchers have noted that the influence of family functioning has repeatedly appeared

as one of the strongest predictors of risk for delinquency (Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli, & Huesmann,

1996; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; McCord, 1991; Taha et al., 2004). Therefore, family relationships at the

systemic level affect the adolescents adjustment.

Numerous studies have examined family influences on youth misbehavior (Blanc, McDuff, &

Kaspy, 1998; Cashwell & Vacc, 1996; Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Hirschi, 1969; Loeber & Stouthamer-

Loeber, 1998; Nye, 1958; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Rosen, 1985; Simons, Wu, Lin,

Gordon, & Conger, 2000). Some studies focus on parent-child relationships, family conflict, and

family stress that correlate some measure of family functioning with various risky behaviors (Barber,

1992). Although there is an increasing number of studies that examine family functioning and

delinquency, there are some limitations inherent in the current literature.

First, several research studies on the nature of the relationship between family functioning

and adolescent delinquency are equivocal (Shek, 2005). These studies found that family dysfunction

was positively related to adolescent risky behavior, however, other studies did not link family

functioning to such misbehavior (Shek, 1998). In much literature about family influence on adolescent

risky behaviors, the role of the family is often viewed as either a risk factor or a protective factor

(Jessor, 1998; Rutter, 1987). Positive relationships with family members, establishing rules, and

organization in the family have been proposed as possible protective factors. On the other hand, poor

parenting skills and a lack of bonding have often been associated as risk factors to the family (Rutter,

1987). Thus, knowing which dimensions in family functioning negatively relate to adolescent

delinquency is important.

Second, many family research efforts concentrate on the effect of the dyadic family

relationship, such as the parent and adolescent relationship (Baumrind, 1991; Gecas & Seff, 1990) and

less on the family as a whole. The research is inclined to ignore the fact that relationships in the
 4

family are interconnected and mutually dependent. Studies on the relationship between perceived

family functioning dimensions (e.g., overall family communication, family adaptability, family

cohesion, family behavioral control, family time and routine) and adolescent delinquency are still few

in number (Shek, 2005).

Third, researchers seldom examine family functioning from the adolescents' perspective

where family roles have become more complex (Perkins-Dock, 2001). Edgar (1999) noted that today's

family is experiencing several important shifts in society. One key aspect is that the place of

motherhood in women's lives has changed. Women often have other priorities in the workforce and

this can result in women delaying marriage (Edgar & Glezer, 1992). They may not live together in

extended family households, and they see having children as a choice, rather than as part of their

family duty (Edgar, 1999). Children are being cared for at childcare centers, by babysitters, maids,

and grandparents while parents go to work. This trend is exercised in several countries including

Malaysia.

Fourth, methodological limitations are apparent in the existing studies. In the past, studies on

family functioning have used a single measurement device such as Family Assessment Device (FAD)

developed by Epsetin, Baldwin, & Bishop (1983) or the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation

Scale (FACES-II) developed by Olson, Bell, and Portner (1982), to assess how a family functions. Few

researchers have examined the relationship between perceived family functioning and adolescent

delinquency using several measurements (i.e., Family Assessment Device, Family Time and Routine,

and Religious Practice in Family). Using several instruments to assess family functioning is vital to

support a comprehensive understanding of the role of family in delinquency development (Barber,

1992).

Lastly, studies investigating family functioning are often in the context of Western societies.

Western societies emphasize the individualist culture that holds the "I" consciousness, autonomy,

emotional independence, and right to privacy. The individualistic culture recognizes independence

and autonomy as part of the adolescent's development. This belief leads to self-confidence and
 5

competency of the adolescent. Examining these dimensions of family functioning in a different

cultural context is not new; however, particularly in heterogeneous collectivist cultures as in

Malaysia, this type of research is still rare (Krishnan, 2004). Collectivist culture refers to the

socialization pattern that emphasizes "we" consciousness, collective identity, emotional dependence,

group solidarity, filial piety, group harmony, and duties and obligation (Brislin, 1993; Triandis,

Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Luccas. 1988).

People in a collectivist culture might perceive family functioning very differently than people

in Western culture do (Shek, 2001). Collectivist culture values the welfare of the group as more

important than the personal. They place a strong emphasis on the nature of the relationship between

parents and children. Children are expected to be obedient and respectful, and to avoid behaving in a

way that could bring shame to their family (Triandis et al., 1988). In addition, families transmit

socialization through rituals, activities in their daily life, and the parenting of children according to

their belief and customs. Therefore, examining the roles of family functioning on delinquency in

Malaysia is important.

According to Brislin (1993), in cross-cultural studies and analysis, researchers usually use a

set of conceptual tools in making decisions about the research methodology. One is to create a

distinction between culture-common and culture-specific concepts. Culture-common concepts are

those that can be found among societies all over the world. Several examples of culture-common

concepts are survival of the individual, family, and society, nurturing children and disapproving the

use of violence. The culture-specific concepts are those that exist in a particular society but not in

others. They correspond to a unique adjustment to needs or problems they face. Usually, culture-

specific concepts are the "additions to or variants on culture-common" (p.71). An example is the

difference in responsibility for disciplining by the children's father vs. their uncle. Thus, the culture-

specific concepts signify dissimilar ways that people deal with culture-common concepts.

These concepts when used in cross-cultural research are often described as emic and etic. They

have used a culture-common concept usually known as "etic" and a culture-specific concept usually
 6

known as "emic". The shorthand term emic is borrowed from phonemic analysis linguistics. In "On

Cross-Cultural Comparability," Berry (1999) distinguished between emic and etic approaches to cross-

cultural studies. In the emic approach, behavior is studied from within one specific culture and

criteria are relative to internal characteristics. In the etic approach, behavior is studied from outside

the culture and several cultures are compared at once, using universal or absolute criteria. Using the

emic approach and acknowledging the local perspective helps explain that culture's specific views

(Berry, 1999). Alternatively, an etic approach is a term to describe a concept that is common across

culture (Brislin, 1993).

Thus, in examining the perception of family functioning, an attempt to learn different

behaviors that relate to the same complex concept is made. This is an effort to recognize behavior

from the point of view of people in other cultures. Knowing the culture-common concept or etic and

the culture-specific concept or emic of these collectivist groups in terms of family functioning is

important. Besides, one can address the diversity of Malaysian groups and of groups in the Western

context. From an emic perspective, some similarities between groups can be distinguished, allowing a

clearer representation of the complexity of Malaysian adolescent delinquency. From an etic

perspective, one can learn the underlying universality of human behavior (Berry, 1999). This study

examines both the culture-common aspects of how families function in relating to delinquency as

well as culture-specific aspects of the collectivist culture group.

Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to examine perceived family functioning

dimensions (problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement,

behavior control, general functioning, family time, religious belief, and religious practice) to its effect

on the occurrence of adolescent delinquency in Malaysia, a heterogeneous collectivist culture. In

addition, this study also investigates the effect of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status of the

group on total delinquency scores of this group. Finally, this study will examine the effect of

socioeconomic status and gender on overall family functioning scores of the group.
 7

Theoretical Framework

Adolescent involvement in delinquent behavior will be examined from the Family System

Theory perspective. The Family System Theory based on Bowen's multigenerational approach,

describes a family as a multigenerational network of relationships (Bowen, 1978). The theory

describes how family interaction patterns, as well as the organization and structure of a family, may

affect every member of the family. Moreover, the theory purports that the family functions as a

system in which prototypes of interaction and specific behaviors develops and is maintained. Bowen

(1978) asserted that an individual's behaviors should be understood within the framework of family

relationships. The beliefs, values, emotional warmth, organization, and communication among family

members all seem as parts of the whole system. The smallest change in any part of the family is felt

by all members and requires an adjustment of behavior to the system. The family socialization is an

important part of the system because it influences the behavior of the family members. Emotional

and behavioral difficulties are seen as resulting from negative interactions between individuals and

other subsystems (e.g. siblings and parents) or between subsystems (parents and other systems, like

schools and the local community).

Need for the Study

Adolescent delinquency is important to the individual, to families, and to the nation in terms

of immediate and long term consequences, which include increased instances of psychiatric illness,

substance abuse, poor academic and vocational achievement, and violence (Steinberg, 1996).

Understanding adolescents' perceptions about delinquency is necessary when considering that the

adolescent population aged 10-19 years is over 10 million or about 35 % of the total population 26.26

million (Department of Statistic Malaysia, 2005).

The emerging emphasis is to remember that this age group represents a critical period of

development. Adolescents may face challenges as they go through developmental stages and

delinquency may occur (Steinberg, 1996). They face many changes when making the transition from

elementary to middle school, a passage characterized by emerging adolescence and increasing

 8

independence. This is the time that parental supervision becomes increasingly important and it is

also more difficult to keep track of youngsters who spend more hours outside than home. The tension

between the need for supervision and independence often leads to conflicts between the adolescent

and his/her parents (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995). However, Lauren, and Collins (1994) argued

that there were inconsistent research findings about conflict between these two generations. Conflicts

usually pertain to chores, finances, appearance, and substance abuse, family relations, school

performance, curfew, dating, friends, and sexual behavior (Galambos & Almeida, 1992). Furthermore,

the rapid advance in technology such as TV shows, video, and internet give adolescents more

opportunities to access various programs. Some experts believe that too much exposure to violent TV

and video shows leads to adolescent aggression (Siegel, Welsh, & Senna, 2003).

This is the period where the adolescent needs the most support and guidance from the family

in understanding physiological changes in the body, dealing with developmental identity, achieving

independence from the family, knowing how to behave when fulfilling social roles with peers and

members of the opposite sex and when completing the requirements of schooling and career. Besides,

adolescents need to know right and wrong about what they do, see, and hear from the environment.

Each of these developments requires the adolescent to adapt to the environment by coping

cognitively and behaviorally (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993), as well as developing spiritual strategies

for effective transition and adaptation. Many experts believe adolescents need other skills such as

problem solving and decision making to be able to make a right conclusion and to arrive at non-

aggressive solutions, or they have difficulty interpreting social situations. Researchers have found an

empirical link between aggression and deficits in problem solving skills (Dodge, 1980; Dodge &

Frame, 1982).

Malaysian families are experiencing change similar to other families in developed countries

such as the United States. UNICEF (2002) has reported that Malaysia is facing increasing cases of

child abuse, juvenile delinquency, and occasional substance abuse. The migration from rural to urban

areas resulted in the family having a more nuclear family living arrangement rather than the
 9

extended family arrangement of previous times. At the same time, an increasing number of women

have joined the labor force, causing, in some cases, a shortage of parental time for child-rearing and

the care of young children. As Edgar (1999) mentioned earlier, the effort to document the family

complexity in regards to delinquency development is necessary so that a new knowledge base will be

gained.

The above development results in some questions to ask families. How does the family

negotiate the conflict caused by an adolescent's misbehavior and does the family communicates

clearly with one another? Are the family members capable of conveying their differences as well as

their closeness, in a manner that is not misunderstood by others (Powers & Welsh, 1999)? How much

does the family as a whole show interest in and value the activities and interest of family members

(Epstein et al., 1993)? How frequently do families work, play, eat, vacation, and attend religious

services together (Rupured & Quick, 1989)?

Thus, there is a need to synthesize the existing literature into a more comprehensive

understanding of family functioning dimensions in adolescent delinquency development. It is

essential to identify and understand adolescents' perceptions of how the family influences their

decision to become involved in such behaviors. Further exploration is needed in regard to specific

family functioning dimensions which can help the adolescent to develop characteristics, attitudes,

and behaviors that can prevent such delinquency.

Statement of the Problem

Malaysians generally believe that families are the primary source for children's learning and

good behavior. Practicing religious tenets and achieving high academic success are signs that the

family is doing well. Moreover, family cohesiveness and relational interdependency among family

members are greatly recommended. Generally, parents are consulted before opinions are formed and

decisions are made. This is a form of respect to the elders which preserves the unity of the family. In

this society men are assumed to be the primary income earners, and although female employment
 10

activity rates have increased in recent years, the burden of caring for the family continues to be

disproportionately placed on women's shoulders (Doling & Omar, 2002).

Although a number of studies conducted in several parts of the world explore the link

between family functioning and delinquency, research on Malaysian adolescents is still limited. There

continues to be a need for Malaysian researchers to examine family context factors in today's families.

In light of this information gap, the decision to examine the role of family functioning to delinquency

is vital. This study will guide understanding of possible dimensions of family functioning in the

Malaysian families. Thus, understanding more about the Malaysian adolescent's involvement and

perception of family functioning can provide a foundation for establishing specific intervention

strategies that may be very helpful for families to better nurture their adolescents.

The focus of the study is to examine the relationship of family functioning and adolescents'

involvement in delinquency. This study will also look at the differences in gender, ethnicity, and

socioeconomic status in regards to delinquency. In addition, this study will examine the differences

in gender and socioeconomics status in regards to family functioning. Hence, this study will help

those who are working with adolescent delinquents, such as school counselors, academics,

enforcement officers, and family educators, in better understanding this problem.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this survey study is to examine the relationships between family functioning

dimensions and delinquency among secondary school students in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.

Adolescents' perceptions of family functioning were assessed on dimensions of problem solving,

communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavior control, general

functioning, family time, religion belief, and practice in the family. The examination of these

dimensions of family functioning is important so that patterns and factors contributing to significant

occurrence of adolescent delinquency can be identified. Respondents are asked to identify types of

delinquency in which that they have been involved. Delinquency is identified by four scales adapted

from the Self-Report Delinquency Scale (Mattern & Nakagawa, 2003). These four scales are: substance
 11

abuse, property, school, and force. Four additional items not included in the Mattem and

Nakagawa's subscales are running away, gambling, trespasses others' property, and watching

pornography.

In addition, demographic variables including gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are

assessed. Specifically, the researcher investigates whether differences may be present with regard to

the effects of respondents' demographic background (gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) on

delinquency and family functioning. Examination of these differences may show the influence of

certain demographic attributes on delinquency and family functioning.

Significance of the Study

A study of family functioning dimensions and delinquency in the Malaysian context is

important for several reasons. First, understanding this relationship can help to reveal the underlying

patterns of family functioning and delinquency. This information adds to the body of knowledge on

the role of the family in the development of delinquent behavior. Secondly, the knowledge of family

functioning in other cultures can serve as input to the literature about the role of family in

delinquency.

If family variables play a role in the development of delinquency this study will help family

educators, counselors, and mental health professionals better understand effectiveness of family

functioning. This information ultimately helps inform those professionals in their work with youth

and family and helps with planning effective preventive and clinical intervention strategies. This

study helps policy makers in Malaysia understand the level of family functioning and its relationship

to delinquent behavior of secondary school students who vary by gender, ethnicity, and

socioeconomic status. Moreover, once adolescents have committed delinquency, both the juvenile

justice and mental heath systems will be better able to address specific rehabilitation needs based on

empirical information related to family functioning.

Lastly, the concepts of family functioning and delinquency in this study are based on western

values and ideas that are embedded in the instruments: The Family Assessment Device (Epstein et al.,
 12

1983), The Family Times and Routines, (McCubbin, Thompson, & McCubbin, 1996), The Religious

Practice in Family (Regnerus, 2003), and the adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale (Mattern &

Nakagawa, 2003). Examining family functioning and delinquency within the Malaysian population

improves the validity of the concepts and reviews their appropriateness across different cultures.

Further, the Family Assessment Device, the adapted Family Time and Routine Index, the adapted

Religious Practice in Family, and adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale provide more psychometric

evidence for both scales in cross-cultural studies.

Variables

The independent variables in this study are family functioning (problem solving,

communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavior control, and general

functioning, family time, religious belief, and religious practice) and the dependent variables are

those associated with adolescent delinquency.

Research Questions

This study is guided by the following research questions and corresponding hypotheses.

Research Question 1 Does a relationship exist between family functioning dimensions and

adolescent delinquency?

HI: There is a significant relationship between family functioning dimensions

and total delinquency scores among the adolescents.

Research Question 2 Do the adolescents differ on delinquency when grouped by gender and

ethnicity?

H2: There is no significant difference in total delinquency score between gender

and among three Malaysian ethnic groups.

Research Question 3 Do the adolescents differ on delinquency when grouped by gender and

socioeconomic status?

H3: There is a no significant difference in total delinquency scores between

gender and across three socioeconomics levels.

 13

Research Question 4 Do the adolescents differ on family functioning when grouped by

gender and socioeconomic status?

H4: There is a no significant difference in overall family functioning scores

between gender and across three socioeconomic levels.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, specific terms are used.

Family Functioning

Family functioning refers to the social climate of the family. It includes the family's

activities and interaction patterns that help the family members to be close with each other and guide

them to manage themselves in facing daily life challenges. There are 10 dimensions of family

functioning. Seven of these are measured by the Family Assessment Device: Problem solving,

communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavior control, and general

functioning. The family time is measured by the total score of adapted Family Time and Routine

Index, and religious belief and religious practice are measured by the adapted Religious Practice in

Family.

Delinquency

Delinquency refers to an act that violates the law and social norms of Malaysia. There are

illegal actions which apply only to individuals under the age of 18 such as truancy and other illegal

acts regardless of age such as substance abuse, gambling, theft, and alcohol use. In this study,

delinquent behaviors are these actions measured within a population of secondary students

regardless of whether respondents have been arrested or reported for disciplinary action to the school

administrator or not.

Secondary Schools

Secondary schools refer to schools that offer tertiary education and are owned by the federal

government. These schools offer classes for students age 13 in Form One class, students age 14 in
 14

Form Two class, students age 15 in Form Three class, students age 16 in Form Four class, and

students age 17 in Form Five class.

Gender

Gender refers to males and females aged 14-16 years old studying in secondary schools

located in Seremban town in the state of Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.

Ethnicity

Ethnicity refers to three main ethnic groups of secondary students live in Seremban town in

the state of Negeri Sembilan Malaysia: Malay, Chinese, and Indian.

Socioeconomic Status

For each student socioeconomic status refers to the student's parent's education levels: (a)

low socioeconomic group (less than high school and some high school); (b) middle socioeconomic

group (high school graduate); (c) high socioeconomic group (some college, bachelor degree, and

graduate degree (Masters, Ph.D.).

Assumptions

This study considers three basic assumptions. First, it is assumed that all respondents will

answer sincerely when responding to the instruments. Second, all respondents are capable of

perceiving and accurately reporting their family functioning dimensions. Finally, the Malay language

is the national language used in the secondary schools; it is also assumed that the respondents

understand the content of the instruments as it is written in the Malay language.

Limitations of the Study

This study has three limitations. First, this study will use only one measure, a self-report

instrument, to collect data on the research constructs. Therefore, results will be accurate to the degree

that the respondents' self-perceptions about their involvement in delinquency and the family

functioning dimensions are accurate.

Second, there is limited data on the reliability and validity of the concepts and instruments

when they are used for cross-sectional studies. This is especially true when the original scales were
 15

not developed for the Malaysian population. Thus, the content may be culturally insensitive and non-

inclusive for certain samples as a result.

Third, the respondents (Malaysian adolescents) are drawn from one state, Negeri Sembilan

(Malaysia has 13 states). As such, the conclusions drawn from this study cannot be generalized to all

Malaysian students, who are ethnically diverse.

Dissertation Organization

Chapter 1 has presented the background for the study, theoretical framework, need for the

study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, variables, research questions, significance of

the study, definition of terms, assumptions, limitations, and organization of the study. Chapter 2

contains the review of literature and research related to the problem being investigated. The

methodology and procedures used to gather data for the study are presented in Chapter 3. The

results of analyses, findings, and discussion from the findings are contained in Chapter 4. Chapter 5

presents a summary of the study research, implications, recommendations for further study and

conclusions.

Summary

Adolescent delinquency is one of the most important issues facing the Malaysia nation. The

increasing rate of delinquency has caused fiscal and social cost at every level of society. Attention to

the family as a significant influence in regard to this emerging issue is important for complete

understanding. The family has experienced dramatic shifts as modernization takes place and adds to

the complexity in family life. It is important to understand adolescents' problems because the

adolescents are part of the family system. When any part of the system is affected by these problems

the functioning of the family has to be adjusted to achieve equilibrium, as perceived by the family

system theory.

Thus, focusing on family functioning dimensions and their relationships to delinquency is

necessary. The strong need to study the Malaysian context is due to the lack of empirical studies in

family functioning there. In addition, the Malaysian society in general values family connectedness
 16

greatly and it is important to relate these values to the occurrence of adolescent delinquency.

Therefore, this study provides an understanding of the culture-common concepts or etic and the

culture-specific concepts or emic in delinquency. This study examines the empirical link between

family functioning and delinquency among the secondary school students in Negeri Sembilan,

Malaysia. This study also examines the differences, if any, in total delinquency scores with respect to

gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as well as the differences in family functioning with

regard to gender and socioeconomic status.

 17

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discusses the theoretical and empirical literature on delinquency and family

functioning. The first part discusses the concept of delinquency, types of delinquents, measuring

delinquency, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status in delinquency, and risk factors and

protective factors of adolescent delinquency. The second part discusses the concept of family

functioning, family functioning dimensions, issues in measuring family functioning, and lastly

cultural aspects Malaysian families are shared.

The Concept of Delinquency

Delinquency is defined as "wrongful, illegal, or antisocial behavior" (Random House

Webster's college dictionary, 2005, p. 327). Delinquency is a legal concept referring to a wide range of

behaviors young people engage in that are against the law, such as shoplifting, selling drugs, or

vandalism (Smith & Stern, 1997). Delinquency refers to a set of behaviors that are not in line with

group practices and/or the ethics of the dominant social group. These activities can be broadly

diverse in terms of the seriousness and impact on others (Henggeler, 1989). Fundamentally, these

behaviors deviate from societal norms and particularly they break established criminal codes and

laws. Less serious offenses committed by adolescents are called status offenses. Siegel et al. (2003)

describes status offenses as a special category of illegal behaviors that apply only to juveniles and

would not be considered illegal if done by an adult. The most common status offenses are school

truancy, curfew violations, and running away from home (Figure 2.1).

As Farrington (1987) has stated, almost all adolescents have committed one or more status

offenses. At the low end of the continuum of deviant activities are status offenses for which adults

would not be arrested (e.g. truancy, running away). At the other end are the criminal offenses that

reflect serious criminal activity which has detrimental effects on victims and community (Farrington,

1987; Siegel et al., 2003). Criminal offenses are behaviors that are illegal regardless of age, and
 18

Skip
school,
disobey
teachers
"llluhl*
Disobcx ilrinU
|i:iivii1n alcohol

Juvenile
Use Status
Il m 11 ni
profanity iniii|i.iiii(iii
Offender

Violate
curfew
Participate
in sex or
immoral
conduct

Figure 2.1. Specific Behaviors Constituting a Status Offense (Extracted from

Siegel et al., 2003)

include a wide a range of activities from non-injurious offenses such as theft and burglary, to acts that

involve perpetrating bodily harm (Siegel et al., 2003).

Researchers have made the distinction between violent offenses such as homicide, robbery,

rape, assault, and property offenses such as burglary, auto theft, and arson (Farrington, 1987). In the

middle range of the continuum are a broad range of criminal activities. This includes activities mildly

violent in nature such as hitting a peer or parent, and damaging property.

The legal status of "juvenile delinquent" is used to specify a minor who has committed an

illegal act. In the U.S., most states define a minor child as an individual under 17 or 18 years old

(Siegel et al., 2003). In the Malaysia legal system, a juvenile is also defined as a person under the age

of 18 years and in relation to criminal proceedings is treated differently from an adult particularly in
 19

respect of procedure and punishment as stated in Section 2 of the Malaysian Child Act 2001 (Hussin,

2005, March).

Types of Adolescent Delinquents

There are two types of adolescent delinquents. Some have an early onset of delinquency

which continues on through adolescence and frequently into adult criminal lives. Other delinquents

have no trouble with the law before adolescence. They become involved in delinquency during their

teenage years, but rarely continue this behavior into adulthood (Wicks-Nelson & Israel, 1997). These

two groups have significantly different characteristics, including family traits and gender.

The Early Onset Adolescent Delinquents

According to Steinberg (1996), most delinquents in early onset are male, and have histories of

aggressive and violent behavior beginning as early as age eight. A number of them suffer from

attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder in childhood which causes aggressiveness and an inability to

concentrate. Significant numbers also have what researchers consider a hostile attribution bias. This

means they interpret ambiguous situations with their peers as actually being hostile and that leads

them to be unpopular among their peers and to have problems in school. These early onset offenders

often come from disorganized families with hostile, neglectful parents. Parents of these groups failed

to instill in their children proper standards of behavior. Some families also tend to be of a low

socioeconomic status and have experienced divorce. Adolescent delinquents who begin at an early

age to commit more serious and violent crimes during their delinquency are also more likely to

become chronic offenders and continue on with their delinquent behavior after adolescence.

The Late Onset Adolescent Delinquent

Delinquents in the late onset group contain an equal number of males and females, and are

more environmentally influenced. These adolescents have been better socialized and thus, the peer

group is essential (Stattin & Magnusson, 1995). They tend to be popular among their peers and their

delinquent activities usually occur in peer situations. As a result, delinquent activities often coincide

with the amount of peer pressure applied. Usually they come from families where the parents do not
 20

carefully monitor them. This distant relationship makes the child more susceptible to peer pressure.

Parental neglect can also lead to associations with deviant peers (Steinberg, 1996). Most of these

adolescents' crimes do not develop into serious criminality and they are unlikely to violate the law

after adolescence.

Measuring Delinquency

There are three sources of delinquency data to measure the level of delinquency: official data,

self-reported data, and victim data. Siegel, et al. (2003) states that the official data are the formal

reports of criminal incidents made to the nation's police department. Adolescents who have an arrest

record are known as "official delinquents"; their proceedings are considered recorded or official

delinquency; their activities become part of the "official statistics." Official data can be used to learn

about the trends and patterns in delinquency rates. Normally the criminal incidents are collected and

disseminated on an annual basis by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in their Uniform Crime

Report (UCR) program. This is recorded as the total number of crimes reported to the police for major

offense categories such as murder and rape, and as the total number of arrests made for any crime

that is cleared or solved.

Another way to measure delinquency is through self-report. Data are obtained from surveys

or interviews, usually conducted in schools. Through this method, risky behaviors that have not been

reported to the police can be detected. This is because some victims fail to report to the police or the

crime is victimless (for example, drug abuse). Because of the difficulties associated with using arrest

records, criminologists developed self-report instruments (Henggeler, 1989). These instruments

measure the extent of unrecorded juvenile delinquency.

The strength of the instrument is that it also can be used to compare the personal

characteristics of gender and race among both the official delinquents and those undetected.

However, studies which employ a cross-sectional design are subjected to the problems associated

with retrospective data collection (Henggeler, 1989). Retrospective data collection often requires a

person to recall the events which occurred in the past, and this may lead to unreliable information for
 21

a number of reasons. For instance, when people are asked to recall events after a long period of time,

they are influenced by circumstances which occurred after the events and by their present situation.

Also, to avoid being seen as socially undesirable, people may feel compelled to report on their

behavior in favorable terms. This may be particularly so for behavior such as delinquency which is

generally disapproved of by society (Widom, 1989).

Finally, another method is the victim survey, in which the experiences of victims are

recorded by the police. This data provide essential information on where victimization takes place,

the likelihood of victimization, and the kind of personal behaviors and lifestyles that increase the

chances of becoming a crime victim (Seigel et al., 2003).

The Developmental Path of Risky Behaviors

It is interesting to note that adolescents are involved in experimentation and exploration of

various things around them. Thus, it is not surprising to see that some of them are involved in such

risky behaviors during this period (Hurrelmann, 1990). A survey of youth misbehavior in many parts

of the world found that problem behaviors such as delinquency and drug abuse are an increasing

trend (Hurrelmann, 1994). Dryfoos (1990) classified risky behaviors into four categories: (a) drug and

alcohol use and abuse; (b) unsafe sex, and teenage parenting; (c) school underachievement, school

failure, and drop out; and (d) delinquency, crime and violence. Some of the youth may have a single

risk behavior and some may have multiple risk behaviors. Those having multiple risk behaviors are

known as having "risk behavior syndrome" (Jessor, 1992).

According to Lerner and Galambos (1998), there are two important trends which characterize

the nature of risk behavior in youth. First, some risk behavior is normative. This means that the

majority of adolescents have experience with some risky behavior, such as smoking. Second,

adolescents tend to repeat the behavior, although some stop when they reach a certain age. This type

of continued engagement in risk behavior may prevent the adolescent from engaging in a

constructive, positive lifestyle.

 22

In Malaysia, delinquency is generally an urban phenomenon brought by the process of

modernization and urbanization (Baginda, 1984, April). More cases were found in the urban setting

than in rural areas. There have been an increasing number of juvenile offenders brought before the

courts in Malaysia from 1960 to 1980. For example in i960, there were 1,098 arrested for property

offenses and this number increased to 2,474 cases in 1980, an overall gain of 39.3%. At the beginning

of the 1960s, research found that juvenile offenders were more likely to come from low socioeconomic

families. Most of them from were single parent home and often come from slum and squatter areas.

However, Hadi (2004, March 1) found that the trend has changed. Some of the adolescents

involved in delinquency were found to come from two parent families which have stable income as

well as those from single parent families. In the past, most adolescents who were involved in

delinquency came from single-parents families (Fong, 1982; Taib, 1973) and lower income families,

but today the problem of delinquency involves adolescents from higher income families as well.

Some adolescents who committed negative actions such as drinking, gambling, and watching

pornography came from harmonious families and from upper income families. Alternatively, there

are adolescents who come from single-parent families who are not involved in delinquency (Hadi,

2004, March 1).

According to Abdul Rahman (2004, March), during the past three years, there were 15,797

cases registered involving juveniles. Of these, 61.4% (n = 8,448 cases) involved property which

included stealing and possessing stolen things. The second highest category of offences involved is

fighting, hurting, and murder. The third most prevalent category is involving drug abuse and

addiction. Fourth included adolescents involved in traffic violations such as driving in a dangerous

way. Finally, the least prevalent category was for carrying dangerous weapons.

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

A model of delinquency prevention among youths has focused on risk factors and protective

factors (Hawkins, 1994). Risk factors are individual or environmental vulnerability that increase

youth's disadvantage to negative developmental outcomes (Werner, 2000). Risk factors can be found
 23

in many different domains, sometimes called key systems (Hawkins, 1994) including the individual,

peer group, family, school, and community. Each of the domains has characteristics and influences on

an individual's behavior. Rutter (1979) states that the presence of one risk factor (i.e. low social status)

was more likely to create trouble compared with no risk factors. When youth experience multiple risk

factors (i.e. low social status and severe marital discord between their parents) the chance for problem

behaviors to happen was higher. Risk factors are elements in the adolescent's life that increase

individual vulnerability to harm. Lerner and Galambos (1998) have concluded that individual and

context factors (family, peers, school, community) appear pivotal to the development of risk

behavior.

Protective factors are the opposite of risk factors. Protective factors play an additional

indirect role in the occurrence of adolescent problem behavior by moderating or buffering the impact

of risk factors. There is considerable empirical evidence of such moderation (Jessor, 1992). When

protection is low, the higher the risk and the greater the involvement in problem behavior, but when

protection is high, that relationship is attenuated. Protective factors lower the chance that an

adolescent will engage in delinquency. Jessor (1992) has suggested that some protective factors

provide the adolescent strength to avoid delinquency in life. Some of these protective factors are

personal controls such as religious beliefs, high self-esteem, and social control such as social support

and authoritative parenting. Discussion on risk factors and protective factors with regard to

delinquency is organized into individual, family, peer, school, and community domain. Table 2.2

outlines each of the domains and the associated risk factors and protective factors.

Individual Factors

Risk factor

As shown in Table 2.1, the individual factors domain has several risk factors. Robins and

Przybeck (1987) found that the earlier the youth's involvement in drug experience, the greater the

risk to the youth developing drug problems. In addition, a study found that individual factors
Table 2.1. Adolescent Delinquency Risk and Protective Factors

Domain Risk Factors Protective Factors

Individual Alienation/Rebelliousness Well-developed problem solving and intellectual abilities
Factors Early Initiation Sense of self-esteem, self-efficacy and personal responsibility.
Victimization Well-developed social and interpersonal skills
Religious commitment

Family Poor family management practices A close relationship with at least one person
Factors Family history of problem behavior Family cohesion
Family conflicts Open, instrumental, and maternal communication
Family low socioeconomic status Spending time together
Single parent family Problem solving skill

Peers Engage with friends who have similar Engage with resilient friends, having stable friendships
Factors delinquent behaviors

School School transitions Positive school experiences

Factors Academic failure Warm, responsive school climate
Low commitment to school
Lack of clear policies at school

Community Low economic status Belonging to supportive community

Factors Laws and norms favorable toward problem Close attachment to community institutions
behavior
Neighborhood attachment and community
disorganization
Media influences
 25

exhibited early in childhood, such as various forms of rebellious behaviors and difficult

temperament, have been found to predispose youth to problems later in life. Youth who have a

personal history of sexual victimization, physical abuse, violence, neglect, or lack social and

vocational skills will most likely engage in substance abuse (Siegel et al., 2003).

It has been found that youth engage in problem behavior as a way to cope with a low sense

of self-worth and dissatisfaction and low confidence in one's own abilities (Baldwin, Baldwin, Kasser,

Zax, Sameroff, & Seifer, 1993). It may also be a way to externalize problems such as drug abuse use.

Children who lack social skills, who are disliked and rejected by peers (Pulkkinen, 1983; West &

Farrington, 1977), who do poorly in schools, and who are rated as lazy and troublesome by teachers

(Wadsworth, 1979; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Stellin, 1972) are more likely to self report high rates of risky

behaviors.

Protective factor

As stated in Table 2.1 individuals who possess protective factors such as problem solving

competence, the ability to control their impulses, and the ability to concentrate on their school work

even when the home is in chaos are better protected from involvement in risky behaviors (Werner &

Smith, 1982). Some researchers have also found religion to be a viable protective factor. Several

studies found that religious beliefs protect youth from involvement in delinquency (Johnson, Jang,

Larson, & Spencer, 2001; Pearce & William, 1998; Regnerus, 2003). Whatever the believer's affiliation

or socioeconomic status is, faith can give a strong sense of coherence and stability despite difficult

times (Werner, 2000). However, careful understanding of the context and the teachings is necessary in

order for religion to prevent involvement in risky activities.

Family Factors

Risk factor

Youth misbehaviors are more likely to develop in a family that has experienced risk factors

such as poor family management practices, family conflict, and family history of problem behaviors

(see Table 2.2). Families with poor family management practices tend to exhibit the following
 26

characteristics: poor parental monitoring, ineffective discipline, lack of bonding and caring, and

unclear family rules, expectation, and rewards (Smith & Stern, 1997).

Poor parental monitoring or supervision is one of the most powerful predictors of adolescent

delinquency (Patterson & Stouthamer, 1984; Smith & Stem, 1997). Monitoring refers to knowing

where the adolescents are, who they are with, and what they are doing when they are not in sight.

Snyder and Patterson (1987) stressed that monitoring becomes important when the child is nine or

ten years of age. Steinberg (1987) agreed that monitoring an early adolescent is necessary, especially

in the after-school hours. Adolescents who spend much of their after-school time unsupervised and

away from their homes "hanging out" are at high risk for engaging in antisocial activities.

Barber (1997) suggested that adequate regulation of adolescents measured in terms of

supervision, monitoring, and other forms of behavioral control is important. His thesis is that with

adequate regulation, children learn self-regulation and are not as susceptible to influence from other

forces and thus can avoid engaging in various forms of antisocial behavior.

Another aspect is ineffective discipline which Snyder and Patterson (1987) explained

is a complex construct that refers to methods used by family members to discourage behavioral

excesses or antisocial behavior in children. Effective methods consist of the accurate definition and

labeling of certain behaviors as excessive or antisocial and the consistent tracking of those behaviors

over time and across settings. Discipline described as lax or neglectful, erratic or inconsistent, and as

overtly harsh or punitive, is predictive of adolescent delinquency and aggression.

Specifically, Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber (1984) have shown that parental

mismanagement (i.e. harsh and inconsistent discipline) of early oppositional behaviors shapes further

aggressive behavior through the process of involving increasingly coercive parent-child interactions.

In order to avoid this aversive discipline interaction, parents will often become inconsistent in their

discipline and monitoring, resulting in the child's aggressive behavior becoming more established.

Likewise, in their extensive analysis of longitudinal studies of antisocial behavior, Loeber and
 27

Dishion (1983) found that the most powerful predictors of later delinquency were parenting

variables, specifically those related to harsh, inconsistent discipline, and poor supervision.

This notion is confirmed by another longitudinal study on delinquency, funded by the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry (1995)

found that parental supervision, attachment to parents, and consistency of discipline are the most

common risk factors in influencing delinquency in high-risk youth.

Jin (2004) examined the interpersonal experiences and coping strategies of Malaysian

students with adults. In this study, 307 primary and secondary school children aged 11-16 years were

surveyed to ascertain the differences in their interpersonal experiences that may vary according to

their ages. Group comparison analyses of the data indicated that comparatively the secondary school

children used more coping strategies such as avoidance, distraction, emotional orientation, and task

orientation. This study reported that parents used harsher disciplining methods with the primary

school children such as shouting, spanking, and caning whereas the secondary school children

reported that their parents used less harsh discipline on them; however, they received less social

support from their parents and teachers. Parents find difficulty in getting support from family and

friends when having problems with adolescents compared to problems they face with primary school

children.

Lack of caring and bonding is considered as one of the most consistent findings in the study

of the association between family functioning and adolescent delinquency. Barber (1996) reviewed

numerous studies and found that delinquency is associated with families that have low warmth and

affection as well as high conflict and hostility. Low level of parental acceptance and affection were

also found related to adolescents' delinquency.

Similarly, a study done in Malaysia found that a lack of family cohesion is a consistent risk

factor in adolescent delinquency. Hadi (1990, December) found low quality parent-child relationships

in 125 girls who were placed in residential treatment for involvement in vice activities. The majority

of the girls, 68.7 % (n = 86), were not enjoying harmonious relationships with their parents. Of these,
 28

50 were reported to have parents who were neglectful, 33 reported having parents who were

permissive, and 3 have parents who were reported to be sexually or physically abusive.

Barnes, Farrell, and Wind le (1987) assessed parent-child relations and identified a model for

describing the relationships between parental socialization factors and adolescent alcohol abuse and

other deviant behaviors. They reported that the more often adolescents perceive their parents as

providing support and nurturance (affective involvement), the less often they will regard peers as the

more important significant people in their lives and the less they will engage in deviant behaviors.

However, Elliot (1994) did not suggest that parents and children must develop a deep bond

to inhibit subsequent delinquent behaviors attributable to family factors. Of course, the adequacy of

the parent-adolescent bond will be determined by the perceived quality of the interaction and the

psychological characteristics of both the parent and the adolescent. Steinberg (1991) notes that while

parental bonding is an important variable of authoritative parenting, it is not enough for today's

family to nurture the adolescents, as these youth have to face many potentially problematic situations

where parents need to be informed. Similarly, Carnegie (1989) cautions that in giving more

independence to adolescents, parents must still maintain a context of closeness and continuing

involvement in their lives.

Family conflict is another risk factor that endangers the adolescents' healthy development.

Family conflict happens when there is inconsistent or harsh discipline, family discord or abuse.

Research findings have consistently supported the relationships between family conflict, hostility,

and delinquency. Current studies have also found that children who grow up in maladapted homes

and witness discord or violence will later exhibit emotional disturbance and behavior problems

(Simons, Wu, Johnson, & Conger, 1995).

Another family risk factor is a family history of problem behavior. Family involvement in

risky activities predicts the involvement of adolescents in delinquency. Perkins-Dock (2001) reviewed

several studies which have shown significant correlation between parental criminality and

delinquent adolescents. Men of the ages 18 to 23 with criminal fathers were approximately four times
 29

more likely to have committed violent criminal acts than those with non-criminal fathers (Baker &

Mednick, 1984). Additionally, Farrington, (1989) found that the presence of delinquent behavior in

siblings also predicted later convictions for violence during the adolescent years.

Delinquency has been associated with low socioeconomic status families. Findings show that

families experiencing economic difficulties may have weakened parental capacity for consistently

applying social control (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Similarly, Gordon, Jurkovic, and Arbuthnot (1998)

found that economic stresses for many families lead to decreasing parental support and lessened

parental involvement as parents spend more time at work. Several studies reviewed by Perkins-Dock

(2001) stated that low family income predicted self-reported teen violence as well as convictions for

violent offenses and that teenage fathers were more likely to be involved in delinquency. Thus,

children are at higher risk when families experience economic difficulty and poverty (Kumpfer,

1999), or are families of minorities (McLoyd, 1990).

Finally, family composition is frequently associated with delinquency. The single parent

family was found to be another risk factor to adolescent delinquency. Studies found that children

with single or divorced parents were more likely to display several emotional and behavioral

problems than children from intact families (Wells & Rankin, 1991).

Protective factor

Family cohesion is considered as a factor that helps the family to bond together and protect

the family members from involvement in risky behaviors (Table 2.1). Cohesiveness in the family

exists when there is positive, supportive interaction among family members. This concept is linearly

related to individual and family functioning (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Family cohesion is defined as

the emotional bonding family members have toward one another. Consistent, stable, positive,

emotional connections with significant others, such as parents, appear to equip children with

important social skills.

Another protective factor is communication among family members. Communication has

been accepted as essential for understanding delinquency. There are two types of communication, the
 30

intimate that is sharing personal feeling and instrumental is talking about problems and plans for the

future influence delinquency. Hirschi (1969) in a study of self-reported delinquency among boys

found that as the intimate communication between the parent and the child improved, the

adolescent's involvement in delinquency decreased. Cemkovich and Giordano (1987) did not support

the relationship of intimate communication to delinquency but accepted instrumental communication

as significantly related to lower levels of delinquency.

Clark and Shield (1997) supported the findings that types of communication influence level

of delinquency. A study was conducted on 339 primarily Caucasian high school students in a

Midwestern city. Adolescents were administered the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale

(Barnes & Olson, 1985), which was developed to measure the extent of openness or freedom of

exchange related to ideas, information, and concerns between parents and their adolescent children.

Results indicated that having open communication with either parent is significantly associated with

less serious forms of delinquency. In other words, the less open the level of communication, the more

serious the forms of risky behaviors. The greater the problems communicating with either parent, the

more significant the inclination toward engaging in more serious forms of delinquency. In

conclusion, good communication with one's parents is significantly associated with less involvement

in delinquency.

Further study was conducted by Klein, Forehand, Armistead, and Long (1997) on types of

communication and problem solving in families. In a longitudinal research on 132 Caucasian

adolescents and their parents, 89 were from intact families and 43 from divorced families. These two

groups were assessed in two phases: during early adolescence and about 6 years later during the

transition to adulthood. The study found that young adults from families characterized by poor

maternal communication/ problem-solving skills and high family stress (divorce, high maternal

depressive mood, or high interparental conflict) had the highest rates of index crimes [Crime indexes

are generated to analyze crime statistics. The most common source of such statistics are records

reported to the police and arrest]. In contrast, the study found that the combination of good maternal
 31

skills and low family stress (intact marriage, low maternal depressive mood, or low interparental

conflict) were associated with the lowest level of index offenses [Crimes identified by the FBI as the

most serious, including personal crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, assault) and property crimes

(burglary, larceny, car theft, arson and arrests]. The higher delinquency rate may be due to the

parenting behaviors (maternal communication /problem-solving skills) which have direct impact on

the adolescent whereas marital conflict, for example, occurs primarily between the parents and, thus,

is more distal to the adolescent. As a result, family stressors may operate primarily through disrupted

parenting (communication /problem solving skills), thus predicting delinquency.

Montemayor's (1986) review and Robin and Foster's (1989) work support these findings.

They indicate that maternal positive communication, conflict initiation and problem-solving skills are

important constructs in fostering a positive parent-adolescent relationship and reducing adolescent

problem behaviors.

Taha et al. (2004) conducted a survey on 274 male and 225 females, mostly Malay adolescents

among secondary students with conduct problems, the secondary students without conduct

problems, and juveniles in residential institutions in Malaysia. Using the Family Assessment Device,

this study examined the differences between family functioning and internalized and externalized

problems among these groups. The study found that secondary students with conduct problems

perceived their family functioning more negatively than the secondary adolescents without conduct

problems. This group with conduct problems also scored higher means for all the FAD dimensions

which implies a more negative aspect of family functioning than the other two groups. Interestingly,

juveniles in residential institutions who score higher for internalizing and externalizing problems

perceived their family functioning less negative than the group with conduct problems. Analysis of

variance revealed that there was no difference between the adolescent groups with regard to the

various functions assessed by FAD except for communication. This result was not as expected

because the researchers anticipated higher scores on FAD dimensions for juveniles in the residential

institution, yet they scored lower.

 32

Spending time together as a family is another protective factor. The family is the exclusive

early environment for most children and the primary environment for nearly all. Garbarino, (1995) in

his book "Raising Children in a Socially Toxic Environment," argues that children function not so

much as individuals, but as members of families. He added that one of the characteristics of strong

families includes spending time together. It takes time to knit a family together and to keep it from

unraveling. Eating together, working together on projects, and participating together in community

and school activities will make successful families. This notion is supported by Farrington (1989) who

say that inadequate engagement in cooperative leisure activity makes violent juvenile behavior more

likely.

Problem solving is also a protective factor in family. Family problems come in all shapes and

sizes. Issues and conflicts in family may serve as a training process for adolescents to learn about

working toward solution. Experts also agreed that parents play an important role in helping to create

the way an adolescent deals with interpersonal problems through their approach to child rearing

(Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993). Adolescent's response to interpersonal

differences is of interest because the ability to resolve conflicts is an important aspect of successful

adolescent development (Hauser & Bowlds, 1990). Research found that effective families solve

problems as they arise; whereas, families that avoid problem solving, or seem incapable of dealing

with many of their problems have more difficulties (Epstein et.al.,1993). Bowen (1978) in Family

System Theory has described a well-differentiated adolescent as a person who has the ability to act

after making a thoughtful judgment and not be influenced by emotion. This ability is demonstrated

through using problem solving skills. However, the undifferentiated person acts without thinking

and makes decisions based on opinion and attitude of those around him or her.

Peer Factors

Risk factor

Peers with deviant behaviors pose a risk to adolescents. As the environment grows larger, so

too do the factors that affect adolescent's adjustment. Because of the increasing independence of
 33

adolescence and their interactions with others, influences outside the family, especially peers, might

become more important. One aspect of peer relationships that has consistently been found as a potent

predictor of problem behavior is the exposure to friends who model deviant behaviors (Dishion et al.,

1995).

Protective factor

A close and stable relationship with a peer may become a protective factor for adolescents.

According to Werner (2000), having a close and stable relationship for a long period of time helps the

adolescents with emotional support. Besides, adolescents who have one or more close friends can

become resilient and adapt more successfully than others who do not.

School Factors

Risk factor

School transitions, from elementary to middle school, especially when changing school

buildings may add another risk to youth. A survey found that the greatest risk factor for a ninth

grader of being a school dropout in Seattle (Hawkins, 1994) was not minority or low income status

but rather the move from middle school to high school. This is due to several problems, including

losing friends during the move (Steinberg, 1991).

Academic failure may increase risks of drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and delinquency.

The opposite is also true: Those risky activities can increase the likelihood of academic failure (Brook-

Gunn & Furstenberg, 1989). As a result, these students are then facing the next risk factor, low

commitment to school.

Low commitment to school is also at greater risk of delinquency. Hawkins (1994) specified

that those students who hate school, go to school just to hangout with friends, and have no

commitment to pursuing their studies are at greater risk of delinquency. Barker and Gump (1964)

reported that low commitment to school may be due to school size. Large schools offer more

nonacademic activities, but extra curricular participation per person is only half as much as in smaller

schools. In large schools, academically marginal students often feel unneeded, like outsiders. They
 34

rarely get involved in school activities. In small schools, however, students feel a sense of

involvement and obligation.

Protective factor

Positive school experiences give greater commitment and enjoyment to the students. Some of

the experiences are success in non-academic pursuits such as sports, music, and art. Having a

positive relationship including warm and responsive connections with a teacher and friends helps

students to feel accepted in the school (Rutter, 1987). In addition, schools that have clearly defined,

consistently enforced rules, standards, and responsibilities provide a secure environment for students

who may otherwise be experiencing life changes such as divorce (Werner, 2000).

Community Factors

Risk Factor

Hawkins, Herrenkohl, Farrington, Brewer, Catalane, Harachi, et al. (2000) suggested that

other environmental influences such as high crime rates, pervasive poverty, and under-funded social

programs and schools are risk factors. The community is considered a risk factor when there are

existing complacent or permissive community laws and norms. Adolescent action depends on the

forces of law, work place policies, and the general action in the community. Community factors such

as accessibility of weapons (Hawkins et al., 2000) and media violence (Dorfman, Woodruff, Chavez,

& Wallack, 1995), and inequitable educational opportunities (Mayer, 1995) may lead adolescents to

become more delinquent. Further, signs of community disorganization such as vandalism, broken

windows, and unoccupied dwellings are associated with higher levels of drug abuse among

community residents. Also, media influences have been shown to be linked to adolescent's greater

delinquency. For example, advertisers try to convince young people that they will be happier, have

more fun, and be accepted by peers when they smoke cigarettes and consume beer.

Protective factor

Community attachment is related to community rates of problem behavior. Alexander,

Massey, Gibbs, and Altekruse (1985) found that a larger percentage of residents in neighborhoods
 35

attended community meetings or clubs, had lower rates of crime and victimization than residents of

neighborhoods that participate less in organizational activities. Also, the neighborhood's crime rate

lowered in larger neighbor hoods when residents report greater numbers in their neighborhood

(Sampson & Groves, 1989).

Gender and Delinquency

To date most research has focused on the development of delinquent behaviors in boys,

however, there now seems to be a trend to focus on the development of delinquent behavior in girls.

In 1997, females accounted for 26% of all juvenile arrests in the U.S. and by the year 2000 the amount

increased to 28% (Snyder, 1998). Furthermore, the growth in juvenile violent crime arrest rates

between 1987 and 1994 was far greater for females than for males. Even though girls share increasing

rapid involvement in delinquency, males are arrested much more often than females (Siegel et al.,

2003)

In Malaysia, the number of males committing a crime is far greater than females (see Table

2.2). In 2004, around 4,884 males were arrested compared to only 152 females (Hussin, 2005, March).

As Steffensmeier and Allan (1996) stressed, "women are always and everywhere less likely than men

to commit criminal acts. Also gender differences in crime and delinquency are substantial; gender

often is advanced as "the strongest predictor of criminal involvement" (Messerschmidt, 1993). Siegel

et al. (2003) reported that sociologists and psychologists currently accept that there are clear

differences between males and females in attitude, values, and behaviors. Several theorists explain

that personality, cognitive ability, and socialization are factors related to the differences between

males and females. Males act differently than females due to their unique skills of cognition,

information processing, and physical strength.

Biosocial theories view a girl's psychological makeup, hormonal, and physical characteristics

as the main reasons for their involvement in risky behaviors. Girls are instructed to be more passive

and obedient. Girls are supervised more closely than boys and are expected to stay at home more

often (Loeber & Stouthamer Loeber, 1998). Messerschmidt (1993) suggested that masculinity is an
 36

Table 2.2 Crimes Committed by Juveniles based on Age and Gender in Malaysia (2002 -2004)

Year No. of Age Gender No. of

cases 7-12 13-15 16-18 Male Female arrest
2002 2955 113 1265 2822 4066 134 4200

2003 3647 151 1593 3711 5303 152 5455

2004 3274 149 1356 3531 4884 152 5036

Total 9876 413 4214 10064 14253 438 14691

Source: (Hussin, 2005, March)

important construct for understanding crime and violence. Boys are viewed as more aggressive and

assertive and use aggression as a way to gain status and power.

This distinction may not correctly describe the development of antisocial behavior in females.

According to these authors, females mostly follow a delayed-onset trajectory in which the

development of antisocial behavior is delayed until adolescence, and very few follow an early-onset

trajectory. Recent findings support this assumption by showing that the early-onset trajectory is rare

in girls. Females tend to develop antisocial behaviors primarily during adolescence rather than

earlier, and use more indirect and verbal aggression (Fergusson & Horwood, 2002; Moffitt & Caspi,

2001).

In other findings, several researchers indicate that sexual abuse victimization might be the

strongest risk factor of delinquency in females. Although family relationships of female delinquents

have not been studied extensively, some investigators have supported the view that families of

female delinquents are more dysfunctional than families of male delinquents (Henggeler, Edwards, &

Borduin, 1987).

Evidence exists to support the fact that adolescent girls' pattern of offending is directly

related to the female process of growing up in a culture which bombards them with negative

messages about their bodies, their minds, and their worth. Calhoun, Jurgens, and Chen (1993)

reported that more than 75% of all girls identified as juvenile delinquents by the courts have been

sexually abused. Given that one of the most common early onset violations of the law for adolescent
 37

girls is running away, it may be the mechanism for a girl to escape the abuse. This suggests that

relational abuse, whether emotional or sexual, is likely to play an important role in the problem

behavior of adolescent females.

Ethnicity and Delinquency

In contrast to the gender relationship to delinquency, the association between ethnicity and

delinquency is equivocal and more open to explanation (Bemburg & Krohn, 2003). In the United

States, African Americans and Hispanics were found to be involved in delinquency more often than

the whites (DeLisi, 2005; Siegel et al., 2003). African American adolescents are arrested for more

serious forms of violence such as murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults, while whites are arrested

more often for arson and alcohol-related violations. Siegel et al. (2003) found that the racial

differences were due to several reasons. The African American has suffered racial discrimination for a

long period of time. The young African American males were treated more harshly by the justice

system than members of any other group (Leiber & Stairs, 1999). Furthermore, the social and

economic disadvantage to African Americans has weakened the family structure. The high divorce

and separation rates indicate a weakened effect for the family to function as a social control agent

(Phillips, 1997).

In Malaysia, some research showed differences and similarities between three ethnic groups

in terms of factors contributing to such misbehaviors. Qualitative research was conducted by Suppiah

(1984, April) on 12 male inmates at Kuala Kubu Bahru Drug Rehabitation Center. The inmates were

15-25 years old from the Malay, Chinese, and Indian ethnic groups. This study found the absence of a

father role as one common factor for all ethnic groups that contributed to the addiction. All subjects

pointed to the lack of supervision, discipline, and control, and the lack of a father's role model as

important probable contributing factors to their drug addiction. The mothers' role was less

important. However, some stated that lack of mother's love and care was one of the reasons they

became involved in drug use. The majority of the addicts came from a family that lacked love and
 38

closeness, as well as receiving less moral and emotional support including support from the siblings.

As a result they felt neglected and unwanted which deepened their emotional crisis.

Socioeconomic Status and Delinquency

Socioeconomic status (SES) is an amorphous concept used in different ways by different

social science disciplines. Measures of SES are typically a composite of occupation, education,

income, location of residence, membership in civic or social organizations, and certain amenities in

the home (e.g., telephone, TV, phonograph, records, books, newspapers, magazines). However, the

most common markers for SES are parental education, occupation, and family incomes (Ensminger &

Fothergill, 2003). Some developmentalists combine education and occupation in the widely used four

factors Hollingshead Social Status Index whereas others use single indicators as measures of SES.

Studies found that often substantial correlations exist between SES measures, parenting practices, and

children's health, ability, and behavior. Nevertheless, the causal impacts of these components are less

clear, as are the processes by which SES affects development (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardif, 2002).

According to Smith (1991), all 3 major ethnic groups in Malaysia profited from the increasing

levels of real income over time. The relative income of ethnic Malays, the poorest socioeconomic

class, increased more so than the Chinese and Indians. However Chinese income was 108% higher

than that of Malays. Income of Indians was 60% compared to Malays. Further, economic growth

resulted in higher earnings for young men than for older men. This is because the young are more

educated and education was the most significant determinant of time related growth in incomes.

Lastly, economic growth increased earnings of men in urban areas more so than those in rural areas

(Wu & Rudkin, 2000).

The socioeconomic status of the Malaysian society is reflected through economic

development. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates have averaged above 8.0 % per

annum since the mid 1980s (Lee, 2002). The unemployment rate was also less than 3 %. There has

been an increase of per capita income from RM 1106 in 1970 to RM 9786 in 1995, which amounts to

US$ 4340. However, after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the financial sector was weakened and this
 39

affected the real economy as well as bringing socio-economic implications. The economy grew by

only 3.0 % per annum on average during the period of 1996-1999. As a result of the crisis, there was

an increase in the incidence of poverty in the country, particularly the urban dwellers were hit

severely from the retrenchment of economy. This has affected mostly the urban poor (Hasan &

Hashim, 2001, April).

Researchers in the U.S. found that low family income affects the quality of the neighborhoods

in which children and adolescents grow up (McLoyd, 1998). They have low access to high-quality

public and private services such as parks, child care centers and preschools, community centers, and

health care providers, as well as fewer social supports and less effective social networks.

Subsequently, they are facing more risk of living in high crime areas where street violence, greater

availability of illegal drugs, and many negative peer influences are present (McLoyd, 1998; National

Research Council, 1995). This influences the cognitive functioning, socialization, physical health,

emotional functioning, and academic achievement of children and adolescents (Ellen & Turner, 1997).

In terms of parental behavior such as warmth, hardness, and supervision, several studies

found that as family economic hardship increases parental stress and anxiety may influence parents

to use harsh parenting (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994; McLoyd, 1990). Another study

conducted by Simons, Johnson, Beaman, Conger and Whitbeckm (1996) that examined mediation

models found that quality of parenting (monitoring, warmth/support, inductive rearing, harsh

discipline, hostility, and communication) accounted for the positive association between community

disadvantage and adolescent problem behavior when controlling for family socioeconomic status.

Ethnographic researchers have suggested that parents who live in dangerous and poor

neighborhoods might use more restrictive monitoring practices with their children to minimize the

children's exposure to negative community influences (Burton & Jarrett, 2000).

Concept of Family Functioning

The family performs many functions for its members essential to healthy development and

well being. Several experts in family science have suggested that family functioning is a very complex
 40

phenomenon and broad concept that encompasses multi-dimensions which can be assessed in a

variety of ways (Epstein et al., 1983; Olson et al., 1983; Walsh, 2003). Epstein et al. (1983) refer to

family functioning as the quality of the family that is more related to transactional and systemic

properties of the family system than to intrapsychic characteristics of individual family members.

Walsh (2003) describes family functioning as a family's activities and interactions that provide

material and emotional support for the family's well being. In addition, Walsh (2003) addresses the

diversity of contemporary family functioning patterns that include family structure (e.g. dual-earner

and remarried families), sociocultural context (e.g. ethnic differences, and social class), and

developmental context (e.g. serious illness) as important considerations in understanding how the

family functions. In the Circumplex Model of couple and family systems, Olson et al. (1983) presents

a conceptual framework that family functioning is a subject of balancing polar opposites. The model

is set up along two major dimensions. On one end is the dimension of cohesion or emotional bonding

where families are required to balance separateness and togetherness. On other end, the dimension of

flexibility or the ability to adapt to change, requires families to balance stability and transition.

Further, Meadows and Blacher (2002), Garbarino (1995), Larson and Richards (1994), and

McCubbin et al. (1996) have also characterized family functioning with several dimensions. The

following are the family functioning dimensions that help to develop a healthy family.

Dimensions of Family Functioning

According to Epstein, Bishop, and Levin (1978) and Epstein et al. (1993) families have to do

three things: basic tasks, developmental tasks, and hazardous tasks. Basic tasks are the most

important issues such as the provision of the food and shelter. Developmental tasks fall into two

categoriesthose which occur naturally with the individual developmental stages such as infancy,

childhood, adolescence, middle and old age, and those that are related to the family stages such as

the beginning of marriage, the first pregnancy, and the birth of the first child. The hazardous tasks

consist of the crises that happen in relation to illness, accidents, loss of income, job changes, and

moves. This model suggested six dimensions for healthy family functioning.
 41

First, problem solving refers to the family's ability to resolve issues which threaten the honor

and functional capacity of the family. Second, communication focuses on verbal exchanges that prefer

a clear message and direct style for effective functioning. Third, roles refer to organizing and

providing resources, nurturance and support, sustaining individual development, retaining and

managing the family systems and providing adult sexual satisfaction in a clear and fair way. Fourth,

the affective responsiveness refers to the ability to respond to a range of stimuli with appropriate

quality and quantity of feelings. These feelings include welfare feelings such as love, and emergency

feelings such as fear. Fifth, the affective involvement refers to the level at which the family shows

interest in and values the activities and interests of individual family members. Sixth, the behavior

control focuses on how the family assessed different patterns of control (flexible, rigid, laissez-faire

and chaotic) to maintain standards for the behavior of its members.

Meadows and Blacher (2002) expand the dimensions of family functioning for families

having antisocial children. First, organization of the household decreases the parent's work pattern, or

the available resources regardless of the family configuration. Two aspects of organization include

the ability to adapt within a stable structure where leadership is clear and rules are known and

adhered to by all, and having a sense of belongingness in the familythe sense of being able to say

"we are family" while appreciating individual differences and the autonomy of the members. Second

is establishing rules for building authority. Four ways to implement rules are: ensuring there are few

and clear rules that have who, what, when, and where questions, monitoring the rules to comply,

enforcing rules consistently, and developing effective consequences for non-compliance. Third is time

management, which refers to gaining more control in limited time. This supervision is critical for

working parents with family budget constraints. Lastly, ensuring that the family relationship is geared

to closeness and an appreciation for individual differences is the mark of a properly functioning

family. This includes teaching children social skills, teaching them how to get along with others,

helping their relationships with family members and with peers, and improving family cohesion.
 42

Garbarino (1995) recommended religious orientation dimensions to be an important function of

a healthy and strong family. Strong families seem to be attached in a sense of purpose, usually

religious or spiritual in its foundation, sometimes secular. This provides the strength for commitment

to the family as well as to the larger purpose. This is supported by Pearce and William (1998) who

studied religious dynamics between parents and children. They found that parents and children who

reported more similar values, including religious values, perceive greater affective closeness to one

another. Closeness in a family is important for family cohesiveness, one dimension in the family

functioning.

Larson and Richards (1994) found that for spending time as family to be functional each family

member must have daily interaction such as eating meals or spending other time together that will

help the family replenish themselves and verify their experience of 'we-ness.' Their study found that

parents who see family time as an important experience create long-lasting and happy memories for

their children. This is elaborated by McCubbin et al. (1996) who asserted that for a family to be stable

across time a well organized system of behaviors is needed. This is achieved by having family

traditions (continuing across time), celebrations (continuing in the current groundwork for the

future) and family routines (stability on a day to day basis). It is suggested that family units establish

routines and make time commitments for paired relationships (parent-child, adolescents-parents,

relatives-family, husband/significant other-spouse), family activities and practice (child and

adolescents routines, chores), and family system activities (family meals, family management, and

togetherness).

Therefore, family functioning dimensions may vary from one family to another. Some

families may have more and fewer dimensions apply within the family system. It is important to look

at the context of the family such as the family structure (dual earner family and single-parent family,

nuclear family and extended family), and the socioculturel factors that influence how the family

functions (Walsh, 2003). According to Olson and Gorall (2003) described family functioning

dimensions as a metaphor of skiing: "A professional skier smoothly shifts his or her weight from one
 43

leg to another, whereas a novice skier tends to emphasize one leg or another. In balanced families,

people are able to move in a more fluid manner... whereas unbalanced systems tend to be stuck at

one extreme or the other and have a difficult time shifting...",.

Measuring Family Functioning

In past studies, problems have been associated with relying on the self-report of one family

member to assess family functioning, even when well-validated instruments are used. Jacob (1975)

noted that there is often a lack of congruence between self-reports and actual behaviors. The response

of family members, such as the adolescent offender, may reflect an inaccurate elaboration to justify

their problem behaviors. In addition, researchers have shown that there is relatively low intra-family

agreement regarding the quality of family functioning. For example, in a recent study of juvenile

offenders, the intraclass correlation between mothers', fathers', and adolescents' rating of mother-

adolescents affect was .23. Similar studies have reported that parents and children view familial

relationships very differently. Hindelang, Hirschi, and Weiss (1981) have offered empirical evidence

supporting the position that the child perception of a parent may be more related to adjustment than

are the actual behaviors of parents. Ausebel (1954) stated that although parent behavior is an

objective event in the real world, it affects the child's ego development only to the extent and in the

forms in which he [the child] perceives it. Hence, perceived parent behavior is, in reality, a more

direct, relevant and proximate determinant of personality development than the actual stimulus

content to which it refers (p.173).

The use of individual reports as the sole determinant of family functioning is not favored by

developmental psychology and family psychology (Henggeler, 1989). In light of these issues,

researchers have suggested including these methodological strengths: (a) the use of well-validated

self-report instruments, and (b) the consideration of important covariates of family relations and

delinquency.
 44

Malaysian Culture

The general societal pattern in Malaysia is reflected by the multi-racial composition of the

population. Malaysia has a population 26.26 million with three major ethnic groups-the Malays

(65%), Chinese (24.6%), and Indian (6.9%). The tribal indigenous people account for about 5% of the

total population and mainly live in East Malaysia/Borneo (Krishnan, 2004). In Malaysia, ethnicity

determines the varied differences in the socio-cultural and religious diversity of the population. The

Malays being the majority in the country are Muslim. The second largest group, the Chinese, is

mostly Tao Buddhist. Similarly, the Indian segment of the population who came originally from

India, are mainly Hindus. It was observed that religion is highly correlated with ethnicity. Islam was

the most extensively professed religion in Malaysia; its percentage increasing from 58.6% in 1991 to

60.4% in 2000. Malaysia, being a multi-religious nation, other religions such as Buddhism (19.2%),

Christianity (9.1%), Hinduism (6.3%) and Confucianism/Taoism/other traditional Chinese religion

(2.6%) as showed in Census 2000 (Department of Statistic Malaysia, 2001). Besides having its own

unique culture, this country is also blending together other cultures including the culture from the

west because Malaysia is a former British colony.

Generally, families in Malaysia provide the socialization for keeping values such as

cooperation, helpfulness, obedience, dependence, respect, and interpersonal relationships (Kling,

1995). Although the former values are now part of the new generation due to modernization and

urbanization (Mohammad, 2002 December), families still have cultural maintenance. Filial piety and

the subordination of personal goals for those of the family/group are common features of the culture.

In addition, Malaysian culture is also generally similar to other collect!vist cultures which place a

strong emphasis on the nature of the relationship between parents and children. Children are

expected to be obedient and respectful, and to avoid behaving in a way that could bring shame to

their family. Through socialization in families, children are practicing rituals, traditions, religion, and

activities in their daily life (Krishnan, 2004). This was supported by Baumrind, (1980) who states that
 45

socialization is an inherently cultural process in which children, through insight, training, and

imitation acquire the habits and values that help them adapt to their culture.

In terms of family and household structure, there are several differences across the three

main ethnic groups. Household structure in Malaysian communities is predominantly nuclear,

although household composition is quite fluid, and often complex, as members move in and out

depending on need. For example, relatives stay with the family for a while before they move to rent a

house. Even when adult children do not agree with parents, they often live nearby. The Malaysian

kinship system is generally bilateral, with some areas remaining to a matrilineal system in patterns of

post marital residence and inheritance. In contrast, the Chinese adhere to a patrilineal kinship system

in which extended or stem families are the ideal. Extended families are also more common among the

Indians, but the particular kinship systems vary in this minority population according to the part of

India from which the immigrants originated (Kling 1995). In terms of family structure the majority

has formed nuclear families (Kling 1995) and extended families in urban areas are decreasing. This is

due to the rural-urban migration factor.

Malay Family

Malays are Muslims in practice and by definition. The Federal Constitution of Malaysia,

Article 160(2) defined Malay as a person who professes the religion of Islam habitually speaks the

Malay language and conforms to Malay customs. Kling (1995) has suggested three basic foundations

for understanding the Malay family and its ideology. The first is the traditional socio-cultural

configuration which is known as "adat," second, the impact and accommodation of Islamic religious

principles, and lastly, the influence of British colonial legislative laws. Kling (1995) stressed that the

direct exposure of family members, especially the younger generation, to foreign familial interaction

patterns is influenced by the mass media. The current electronic media brought in an alternative

structure of interaction in the family socialization pattern for the younger generation. These created a

sort of structural gap in family life.

 46

Malay families regard religion as a part of every family life activity. The belief in the absolute

unity of God and his attributes (sifat) constitutes the most fundamental teaching in the Islamic

articles of faith. This is frequently recited in the simple formula called "Kalimah Shahadah"- the

"sentence of testimony" which also includes the testimony that Muhammad is the messenger of God.

Because God has no other similarity, hence God's messenger must be human, chosen by Him in order

to reveal His word to mankind (Kling, 1995). The Qur'an, Sunna, and Hadith provide guidelines to

address practically every aspect of daily life (Qureshi, 1991).

One of the important tenets in Islam is praying five times a day (solat), an obligatory practice

that is performed at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, sunset, and night fall. Prayer can be performed at

the mosque or at home individually or in congregation. The father and sons are encouraged to pray

at the mosque. Women can perform prayer in the mosque if they prefer. Usually they will go to the

mosque in the neighborhood to pray the congregation prayer led by the imam of the mosque. The

mosque is full during sunset and night fall when everybody comes back from work or schools. If the

family prays at home usually prayers are led by the most learned person who knows the Qur'an and

is carried in a family context (father, grandfather or son). Women can also lead the prayer among the

female family members if there is no male family member at home. Usually each praying takes about

5-7 minutes.

In the Malay families, parents are considered to be clear authority figures and are obeyed

without question unless these parents encourage behaviors that are against the tenet in religion.

Parents have greater responsibility in teaching right and wrong to the children. The family is

considered the starting point for learning and internalizing the teachings of the religion and the

culture. Spiritual growth is considered important in the development of the children. Family

members are constantly involved in common activities that help build and strengthen family bonds.

Caring for one's parents is considered an honor and a blessing. Mothers are particularly honored and

children are taught that "paradise lies at the feet of mothers." Fathers are considered to have more
 47

responsibilities in terms of income and providing for the basic needs of the children such as school

and food.

Behavior, for example, is regulated by the traditional values of "budi" (etiquette) and

"bahasa" (language). The term "budi bahasa" summed up the kind of proper behavior an individual

should display both in the private family life and in public. This is much in line with morality

(akhlak) and is enjoined by Islamic teaching (Kling, 1995). Islam forbids activities such as anything

that brings harm to oneself and others. Forbidden activities include gambling, drug abuse, drinking

alcohol, murder, premarital sex, killing, homosexuality, adultery, and eating pork. All these are

considered great sins in Islam. The degree of tolerance within the moral and legal ordinance is clearly

defined in terms of the ruling (hukm). The degree ranges from "haram" (absolutely forbidden) to

"makruh" (not forbidden, but not encouraged either). Each individual is responsible for what he is

doing.

Modern life has opened up the Malay family to exogenous influences. Those who

traditionally lived in rural areas have migrated to the cities in searching for better opportunities.

Media have exposed the family to global culture which portrays "Western" behavior to the young.

Parents who are already conditioned by traditional norms find it difficult to accept their children

acquiring the "Western" pattern of behavior. Some may not really reject but the majority, however,

prefer the traditional and religious teaching (Kling, 1995). Thus, Malay values such as unity, sharing,

and caring for others continues to be emphasized.

Chinese Family

Chinese Malaysians generally can be categorized into English-speaking and Chinese-

speaking individuals. The former received their formal education mainly in English and the latter in

Chinese. Generally, the English-speaking Chinese are more westernized than their Chinese-speaking

kin (Carlson, Kurato, Ruiz, Ng, & Yang, 2004).

According to Ho (1981), in the traditional Chinese family, the socialization of children is

influenced by two interesting concepts. "Yang-yu" refers to rearing or nurturing. Parents are more
 48

indulgent and more nurturing with younger children. The second concept, "Chiao-yang" refers to

parental responsibility for children's education. The first concept emphasizes the guidance of proper

development of character toward morality rather than psychological orientation. Parents are blamed

if they fail to bring up children properly. The concepts of "Yang-yu" and "Chiao-yang" have

influenced the expectation of socialization of children in the Chinese families.

Parent-child interaction in Chinese families changes as the age changes. Parents tend to be

lenient towards infants and young children below six years of age because they were regarded as

being too young to "understand things" (tung-shih). However, parents can be strict and even harsh

toward older children. Older children must learn to control or inhibit the impulses of earlier years.

Thus, difficulties and conflicts are more likely to be encountered in middle-childhood and early

adolescence when increasing expectation is placed on the child to conform to parental demands.

However, the period of adolescence has not been found to be marked by the "storm and stress" as is

typically observed in contemporary western societies (Ho, 1981).

In Chinese families, parents tend to control their children than their Western counterpart.

Dependency is encouraged when reaching the age of "tung-shih." Major decisions in career and

marriage require parental approval. Filial piety is demanded even after the death of parents. Shek

(1998) found that there is clear gender differentiation in parenting of children. Families rely more on

induction when disciplining daughters than disciplining sons. With sons, families use more power

assertion and love withdrawal. Boys experienced restrictive treatment and demanding teaching by

the father and stronger autocratic discipline by both parents than did the girls.

The general agreement among the Chinese community in Malaysia is that students in

Chinese medium schools frequently are more disciplined, are more respectful of their elders, are

more aware of and value their Chinese cultural beliefs and practices, are more hardworking, and

achieve better academic results (Carlson et al., 2004).

 49

Indian Family

In an Indian family, religion plays an important role. A majority of Indian-Malaysians are

Hindus. Hinduism's ethical restraint has a defined code of conduct, relational behavior, and

socialization goals for family life. These codes of conduct are used as guidelines to relational behavior

and particularly provide deterrents, especially to delinquent behavior.

Krishnan (2004) elaborated several ethical restraints in the Indian family that influence the

behavior in the family. The first is "ahimsa" or non-injury to any living creature. It requires complete

abstinence in terms of mind, mouth, and hand. Respect for elders is to be shown in verbal and non

verbal behavior. Another restraint is "satya" which refers to truthfulness or refraining from lying. In

addition, "Asteya" is restraint from stealing, misappropriation of physical property, and entering into

debt. Parents encourage "Brahmacharya," a divine conduct which commands controlling lust.

Premarital love or sex is not allowed before marriage. Another restraint is "daya" or compassion.

Honesty is referred to as "arjava" and a sense of caring and sharing called "mitahara" is also instilled

in the family. Two additional concepts "Karma" and "Dharma," are important in family socialization.

"Karma" is destiny, the belief the present state is the result of previous actions. Poor parenting results

in negative outcomes for the family. "Dharma" is the ultimate law that brings prescribed roles to the

world.

The Indian family structure is patriarchal, patrilineal, and patrilocal (Sheth, 1995). The father

is the dominant figure in the family. The female is subordinate to the male. Her life depends on the

father, then her husband and then to her eldest son. Children are expected to be good, respectful, and

bring honor to the family through high achievement. Independence is not encouraged and is seen as

a threat to the parents. Parents treat their sons and daughters differently. Female children are more

protected. Assertive behavior and autonomy is not encouraged, especially in girls. The children are

encouraged to be patient, control themselves, and not yield to passion (Sala, 2002).
 50

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter discusses the methodological process, consisting of the research design,

sampling, questionnaire development, data collection procedures, and data analysis plan. The

measures used in this study as well as sample items, scaling, scoring, and reliabilities for each

measure are provided. In general, the aim of this study is to examine the relationships between

family functioning dimensions and adolescent delinquency for Malaysian adolescents. More

specifically, this study seeks to fulfill the following objectives:

1. Determine family functioning dimensions.

2. Examine whether differences in delinquency exist for Malaysian adolescents grouped by

gender and ethnicity.

3. Examine whether differences in delinquency exist for Malaysian adolescents grouped by

gender and socioeconomic status.

4. Examine whether differences in family functioning exist for Malaysian adolescents

grouped by gender and socioeconomic status.

Research Design

This study used a cross-sectional survey research design to investigate the research problem.

The main aim of using survey research was to obtain data to describe specific characteristics,

attitudes, or behavior of a group (Frankel & Wallen, 1996). Similarly, Gay (1996) defined the survey

approach as an effort to gather data from a specific population in respect to one or more variables.

In addition, cross-sectional surveys gather information from a sample which has been

identified for a predetermined population at just one point in time. This study used a self-

administered survey to collect information from participants about themselves (Bourque & Fileder,

1995) using paper and pencil techniques. Because the participants were secondary students who need

supervision, the questionnaires were administered to all the participants in the group at the same
 51

time and in the same place, such as in a classroom (Frankel & Wallen, 1996). The advantage of this

method is the high rate of response, low cost, and the opportunity to explain the questionnaires and

answer any questions the participants have. The items in these questionnaires were closed-ended and

focused on adolescents' involvement in delinquency and on their perception of dimensions of family

functioning. In addition, adolescents were asked about demographic information.

The information collected attempts to determine whether, or to what extent a relationship

exists between family functioning dimensions and delinquency among the Malaysian adolescents.

Therefore, this study examines the relationship of family functioning to predict the existing

delinquency problem in Malaysia.

The Population and Sample

The population for this study consisted of 15 and 16 year-old students attending 28 public

secondary schools (which corresponds to the American notion of Junior High and High School

combined), in Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. The population was recognized by examining

the 2004 Secondary Students Directory data bank (Negeri Sembilan State Department of Education,

2004). Secondary schools were selected using the stratified random sampling procedure. The school

sample was stratified according to daily schools, consisting of Form 1 classes to Form 5 classes (Grade

8 to Grade 12), and co-education schools. The purpose of stratifying the sample is to ensure a true

proportion of school types represented through selecting certain subgroups, or strata, that exist in the

population of schools (Fowler, 1988; Frankel & Wallen, 1996; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). About 20

schools out of 28 met the above criteria; out of this number, 7 were selected at random for the sample.

Within each selected school, two groups of students were selected from each of the two grade

levels, Form 3 (Grade 10) and Form 4 (Grade 11) were selected. The first group was students who

have been identified by the schools as having high-risk behaviors such as persistent absenteeism,

smoking, gang fighting, gambling, weapons possession, a pattern of increasing failure on tests, and

dropping out of school. The second group consisted of students who did not have high risk

behaviors, the criteria used to identify the high risk groups.

 52

For the first group (high-risk behaviors), purposive sampling within a stratified school

framework was used. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1996), purposive sampling uses the

researcher's personal judgment from previous knowledge of the population and the specific purpose

of the study. All students listed as having high-risk behaviors were classified by gender in one of two

groups, males or females. Because the number of high-risk behavior students was usually a small

number, all of them were invited to participate in the study. If the number was greater than needed, a

selection was made. During the selection, preference was given to females and to Chinese and Indian

students because their numbers in the school were small. This selection provided a balanced

composition of gender and ethnicity in the study. The number of students in this group varied

depending on how many high-risk students the schools have. A maximum number of 24 high-risk

students were selected for each school if a school had many high-risk students. However, to avoid

losing any sample for the high-risk students, one alternate student was added for each gender and

ethnic group. Therefore, another 12 students were added which made a total of 36 high risk students

for each school.

The second group, whose members showed no sign of high-risk behaviors, was selected

using a systematic within each strata process with a random starting point. This approach selected

every nth student in the population list after grouping according to gender (Frankel & Wallen, 1996).

A total of 24 students, with an equal number by gender (boys and girls) and ethnicity (Malay,

Chinese, and Indian), from each school was expected in the selection plan. For the low risk group of

students there were no alternate students identified. This was because it is easier to get permission to

participate from the low risk students.

Therefore, a total of 420 students from 7 schools were selected and invited to participate in

this study. Gay (1996) suggested that the "goodness" of the sample will determine the

generalizability of the result. Thus, selection of urban schools in Seremban, Negeri Sembilan with an

adequate number of students by gender and ethnic diversity gave the representation similar

proportions in the sample.

 53

Questionnaire Development

To assess the family functioning dimensions, three instruments were used: (1) the Family

Assessment Device, Malay Version (Epstein et al., 1983); (2) the adapted Family Times and Routines

(McCubbin et al., 1996); and (3) the adapted Religious Practice in Family (Regnerus, 2003). To assess

the behavior of the adolescent this study used the adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale (Mattem &

Nakagawa, 2003) which was adapted from several other instruments (Balkely, Kushler, Parisian, &

Davidson, 1980; Elliot & Ageton, 1980; Elliott & Voss, 1974; Hindelang, et al.1981; Huizinga,

Esbensen, & Weiher, 1991; Moffitt & Silva, 1988).

Prior to data collection, a careful back translation procedure was used for the adapted Family

Times and Routines (McCubbin et al., 1996), the adapted Religious Practice in Family (Regnerus,

2003), and the adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale (Mattem & Nakagawa, 2003). This is to ensure

the equivalence and comparability of the instruments. First, these were translated from English to

Malay by a bilingual individual. Then, another individual translated the questionnaires from Malay

back to English. The two versions were then compared and any significant differences were corrected

in the Malay versions used in the study. The questionnaires were organized into three parts which

include adolescents' demographic information, family functioning dimensions, and delinquency as

shown in Table 3.1.

Part one of the questionnaire collects demographic information about the participating

secondary school students. This information includes age, gender, ethnicity, religion, family

composition (with whom the students reside and length of time), total hours parents are at home

daily, socio-economic status (parents' educational level, parents occupation, and text book index),

and a self-reported disciplinary record (meeting with counselor, reasons for meeting the counselor,

and family members in delinquency).

Part two has three sections of family functioning; the first is Family Assessment Device, which

has seven dimensions (problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective

involvement, behavior control, and general functioning). Second is the Family Time and Routine
 Table 3.1. The Questionnaire Development

Part 1 Demographic (16)

Items Response Scales Sources
Age, gender, ethnicity, religion, family household composition, Developed by
father/mother educational background, father/mother occupation, total hours father/ researcher
mother at home daily, receive text book, meeting with counselor, self-report disciplinary
record, and family member involvement in delinquency.

Part II (a) Family Time and Routine Index (FTRI)X (31)

Subscales
Child Routines (4) 1 = True Adapted McCubbin,
Couple's Togetherness (4) 4 = False Thompson &
McCubbin, (1996)
Meals Togetherness (2)

Parent-Child Togetherness (5) S

Family Togetherness (4)

Relative's Connection (4)
Family Chores (1)
Family Management (5)

Part II (b) The McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD)Z (60)

Dimensions
Problem Solving (6) l=Strongly Agree Epstein, Baldwin, &
Communication (9) 4=Strongly Disagree Bishop (1983)

Roles (11)
Affective Responsiveness (6)
 Table 3.1 (Continued)

Affective Involvement (7)

Behavior Control (9)
General Functioning (12)
Part II (c) Adapted Religious Practices in Family (ARPF) (4)
Items Response Scales Sources
The importance of religion to the familya 1 = Strongly Agree Adapted Regnerus
4 = Strongly (2003)
The importance of religion to self3

Frequency of praying a 1 = 5 times a day

6 = less than once a day

Frequency of attending religious activitiesa 1 = More than once a week

7 = No attendance within the past year

Part III Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDSM22)

Subscales
Substances abuse-smoking, drug, alcohol (5) 1 = Never Adapted Mattern &
4 = Often Nakagawa (2003)
Property violation-theft, vandalism, mooching/freeloading, trespassing b gamblingb (8)

School disciplinary action-truancy, cheating on exam (2)

Force-weapon, physical fight, hitting, throwing, cruelty to animals (3)

 Table 3.1 (Continued)

Run away (1)

Pornography b(l)
Total Questionnaires: 133 items
Note: Parentheses indicate the number of items measured in this study
a Developed by researcher
k Additional items developed by researcher
x This section appears under the title Family Daily Life Management in the questionnaire
z No. 4 and 24 are not included in the subscales
 57

Index which has eight subscales (child routine, couple's togetherness, meals together, parent-child

togetherness, family togetherness, relative connection, family chores, and family management). Third

are the religious practice in a family that ascertain the importance of religion in life, the frequency of

prayer, and the frequency of attending religious activities.

Part three consists of subscales of delinquency acts which include substance abuse (smoking,

drugs, alcohol), property violation (theft, vandalism, mooching or freeloading, trespassing,

gambling), school disciplinary action (truancy, cheating on examinations), force (using weapon,

physical fight, hitting, throwing objects, cruelty to animal), and other items not included in any other

subscales, such as running away and watching pornography. Three items are added to the Self-

Report Delinquency Scale that includes watching pornography, trespassing on other people's

property, and gambling.

The content-related and format-related evidence of validity was established by asking faculty

and members of the program of study committee to review of the questionnaire form. According to

McMillan and Schumacher (1997), evidence of content-related validity is "the extent to which the

content of a test is judged to be representative of some appropriate universe or larger domain of

content" (p. 236). The purpose of this review was to examine the test items for the suitability to the

Malaysian context.

Then, a pilot survey was administered to 10 secondary students with diverse gender and

ethnicity with selected participants from each grade levels, Form 3 (Grade 10) and Form 4 (Grade 10).

This pilot was used to determine participants' ability to understand the directions of the

questionnaires. There were several changes made on the original instrument, Family Time and

Routine Index. Corrections made were in wording so that all the instances where the term "children"

in the instrument were changed to the word "I" or "me" depending on the context of the text. In

addition, some wording in sentences such as "Whole family eats one meal together" was changed to

"My entire family eats one meal together daily." The pilot study was conducted two weeks before the

full study was held.

 58

Instruments

McMaster Family Assessment Device

McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD) (Epstein et al., 1983) is a 60-item, self-report

instrument designed to measure seven subscales of family functioning: problem solving (the family's

ability to resolve problems; e.g. "We try to think of different ways to solve problems"), communication

(the degree of content clarity and appropriate directness; e.g., "People come right out and say things

instead of hinting at them"), roles (adequacy of established patterns of behaviors for approaching a

wide range of family functions and clarity of task assignment; e.g., "We make sure members accept

their family responsibilities"), affective responsiveness (the ability of family members to express

appropriate affection in a wide range of situations; e.g., "We express tenderness"), affective

involvement (degree of collective family interests in each other's lives ; e.g. "We get involved with each

other when something interests us"), behavior control (the functionality of the family's way of

expressing and maintaining standards of behavior; e.g., "We have rules about hitting people"), and

general functioning (degree of overall family health/pathology and functioning; e.g., " We feel

accepted for what we are" and "We confide in each other"). Using a 4-point Likert-type scale, rhe

students were asked to indicate how well statements describe their family. The original Likert scale

for the FAD was listed in the following order: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly

Disagree. The FAD takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete.

FAD consisted of seven scales, one measuring overall family functioning and one for each of

the six dimensions. Each of the items on the FAD refers to only one of the seven scales. Items for each

scale describe healthy functioning and unhealthy functioning (Appendix A). To score the FAD, all

responses were coded as follows: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree and 4 = Strongly

Disagree. Those items which describing unhealthy functioning conditions were transformed by

subtracting the response number from 5. The purpose was to code on the response scales for the

unhealthy items so that all items in a scale had a similar orientation. Scoring plan in Appendix A
 59

identify the transformed items. Then, the item scores of each scale were averaged to give seven scale

scores each having a possible range from 1.00 (healthy) to 4.00 (unhealthy).

Family Times and Routines Index:

The Family Times and Routines Index (FTRI) (McCubbin et al., 1996) is a 30-item, self-report

instrument designed to measure eight activities and routines families use to maintain and put values

into practice. This instrument is a relatively reliable index of family integration and stability, effective

ways of addressing common problems, and the ability to handle major crises (McCubbin et al., 1996).

The Family Times and Routines Index is based upon the Family Routines Inventory developed by

Jensen, James, Boyce, and Harnett (1993). Later, it was modified and expanded to be more inclusive

of other family life cycle stages, particularly the adolescent and launching stages, which have an

important influence on daily stability and continuity.

The eight subscales are: child routine (how the family established time to promote adolescent's

sense of autonomy and order, e.g., "Each adolescent has some time each day for playing alone"),

couple's togetherness (the family establishing time to communicate with each other, e.g., "Parents have

a certain hobby or sport they do together regularly"), meals together (the family efforts to promote

togetherness through family meal, e.g., "Family eats at about the same time each night"), parent-child

togetherness (the family emphasis on establishing communication between parent and adolescent, e.g.,

"Parent(s) have some time each day for just talking with the adolescent"), family togetherness (the

family emphasis to be together including special events, caring, quite time and family time, e.g.,

"family has a quiet time each evening when everyone talks or plays quietly"), relative connection (the

family effort to establish meaningful connection with relatives, e.g., "at least one parent talks to his or

her parents regularly");/ami/y chores (the family spends time in establishing adolescent

responsibilities at home, e.g., "Adolescent does regular household chores"), and family management

(the family having time in managing the family organization and accountability needed to maintain

family order in the home, e.g., "Family checks in or out with each other when someone leaves or

comes home").
 60

The students were asked to specify how well statements describe their family time and routines using

a 4-point Likert-type scale. The original Likert scale for the FTRI was listed in the following order:

false, mostly false, mostly true, and true. The FTRI takes approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

To score the FTRI, the students were asked to give one score that reflects how true each

statement was for their family. In this study, the score was valued as 1 = False; 2 = Mostly False, 3 =

Mostly True, and 4 = True to be in the same order with FAD and Religious Practice in Family.

Summing the numerical value of the items selected in the first score gave a total Family Routines

Score. A score of each subscale can be found by adding the scores for the items included in each

subscale. This score would show which types of routines the family follows. From earlier applications

of the FTRI, a second scoring procedure uses the values of 0 = Not Important, 1 = Somewhat

Important, 2 = Very Important, and 3 = Not Applicable that determined the total value of how

important the family routines were. This protocol was not used in this study because it refers to

respondents who have children. Because the sample in this study was adolescents who have no

children, the decision was made to ignore the second score. The FTRI was used because it has good

validity and reliability.

The Religious Practice in Family

The Religious Practice in Family is adapted from Regnerus (2003). In this study the author

examined the influence of parental religious identity and behavior on the serious delinquency of

adolescents. The authors asked the respondents to report their (1) frequency of attendance at

religious services, (2) frequency of personal prayer, and (3) the importance of religion in their lives.

From this measurement, the researcher made some changes in the responses to fit the understanding

of religion in the Malaysian culture. For example in the frequency of personal prayer, the response

option that is the highest was changed to five times a day. This level more closely pertains to

Muslims participants' religious ritual.

Overall, the instrument measures the religious belief and religious practice at this level

suitable for the Malaysian culture. The response categories for the importance of belief in the family
 61

and self is 1 = Strongly Agree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Disagree; 4 = Strongly Disagree. The response categories

for the frequency of prayer is 1 = At least 5 times a day; 2 = At least 4 times a day; 3 = At least 3 times

a day; 4 = At least 2 times a day; 5 = At least 1 time a day and 6 = Less than once a day. The response

categories for attending religious service or activities is 1 = More than once a week; 2 = At least once a

week, 3 = At least once a month; 4 = At least once in two months, 5 = At least once in 6 months, 6 = At

least once a year, 7 = No attendance within the past year. A participant's score on the total religious

practice in family is calculated by averaging the responses to the items.

Self-Report Delinquency Scale

The Self-Report Delinquency Scale from Mattem and Nakagawa (2003) is adapted from

several other instruments (Balkely et al, 1980; Elliot & Ageton, 1980; Elliott & Voss, 1974; Hindelang et

al., 1981; Huizinga et al., 1991; Moffitt & Silva, 1988). This instrument contains 45 items measuring

delinquency. The original adapted instrument represents a specific delinquent behavior (e.g., used

marijuana, stole small items, hit someone), and participants are asked to indicate how well statements

describe how often in the past they had engaged in the behavior. The response categories are 0 =

Never; 1 = Once or Twice; 2 = Several Times; and 3 = Very Often. This instrument has four

delinquency subscales: substance abuse (5 items), property (6 items), school (2 items), force (5 items),

and running away (1 item). A participant's score on a particular subscale will be calculated by

averaging the responses to the items that comprise the subscale.

Psychometric Properties

Much of the psychometric evidence for the FAD, FTRI, Religious Practice in Family, and Self-

Report Delinquency Scale are obtained from adolescent samples who are primarily white. However,

FAD has been used in cultures other than the United States and has been translated into several

languages. Therefore, the psychometric properties of the original English version of the FAD, FTRI,

and Self-Report Delinquency and the translated versions are discussed in this section.
 62

McMaster Family Assessment Device

In a review of several measures of family functioning, Tutty (1995) concluded that "the FAD

has consistently solid psychometric data" (p.102) and has demonstrated an estimated internal

consistency of reliability. The coefficient alpha was the highest for the general functioning scale (.92)

and the lowest for the roles scale (.72) on the basis a normative sample (Epstein et al., 1983). Another

psychometric investigation that studied three groups: non-clinical families (n = 627), families with a

member with a psychiatric diagnosis (n = 1138), and families with a member with a medical disability

(n = 298), shows that alpha was lowest for the roles scale (.57 to .69) and highest for the general

functioning scale (.83 to .86) (Miller, Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985). There is further evidence for

test-retest reliability of the FAD. Miller et al. (1985) reported a one-week test-retest coefficient that

ranged from .76 (affective responsiveness) to .66 (problem solving) on data from a non-clinical

sample.

Although the FAD has been translated into several languages, information on its reliability in

other cultures has been limited to the Dutch, Italian, and Chinese versions. The internal consistency

reliability of the Dutch version ranged from .94 for the total score to .81 (affective responsiveness) and

.66 (roles) (Wenniger, Hageman, & Arrindell, 1993). A psychometric evaluation of the FAD in Italy

was conducted by Roncone, Rossi, Muiere, Impallomeni, Matteucci, and Giacornelli, (1998). Roncone

et al. (1998) reported the test-retest reliability for the total score based on a non-clinical sample (n =

30) that ranged from .91 (problem solving) to .69 (behavioral control) and estimates of internal

consistency for the total score of the Italian version was high (r = .88). In recent articles, Shek (2001,

2002) reported the results of two different studies on the reliability of the Chinese version. The

estimated coefficient of the FAD Chinese version score was .91 in Study 1 and .92 in Study 2. The

internal consistency reliability ranged from .91 (general functioning) to .44 (affective responsiveness)

to) in Study 1 and from .84 (general functioning) to .61 (roles and affective responsiveness) in Study 2.

In addition, the scale was found to be temporally stable (test-retest reliability coefficients = .77). The

general functioning was highly recommended to be used as a single index representing overall
 63

functioning because it was found to be highly correlated with the first principal component of the

other 48 items (Byles, Byrne, Boyle, & Offord, 1988).

In the Malaysian context, one published empirical study that used FAD (Taha, Ridzwan, &

Ahmad, 2004) reported that an unpublished validation study by Mazlan who interviewed families of

adolescents referred to the psychiatric clinic for behavior problems had .70 alpha coefficient for FAD

Malay version for most scales. Other than the above study, there was no other information regarding

the validity and reliability of the FAD specifically for the context of this study.

Family Time and Routine Index

The reliability and validity of the instrument are presented. The overall internal reliability for

FTRI is reported as a = .88. The Family Time and Routine is positively correlated with the criterion of

family bonding or family cohesiveness (Olson et al., 1982) to .24, family coherence or family sense of

order and trust (McCubbin, Olson, & Larsen, 1981) to .34, family celebrations or family effort to

acknowledge special family events and transitions (McCubbin & Thompson, 1986) to .30, and quality

of family life or family satisfaction to .25, marital satisfaction to .26, and community satisfaction to .19.

No other studies report test-retest reliability and no studies report additional validity checks. Family

Time and Routine has positive correlation to the criterion indices of family functioning.

The Religious Practice in Family

The adapted Religious Practice in Family (Regnerus, 2003) was taken from a study examined

by Regnerus (2003) to find the relationship between intergenerational religious influences on

adolescent delinquency. No validity or reliability data were reported.

The Self-Report Delinquency Scale

The adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale (Mattern & Nakagawa, 2003) measure has been

originally validated. However, because of adapted questions from a variety of different measures, the

researcher cannot verify the validity and reliability of the delinquency scale for the purpose of this

study. According to McAuliffe and Handal (1984), self-report measures of delinquency are the most
 64

frequent method of data collection, and also provide the most valid and reliable available proof of

undetected delinquent activities.

Human Subjects Review

This study received approval from the Iowa State University Committee on Use of Human

Subjects in Research (Appendix B). The committee reviewed the letters of approval from the

Malaysian government (Appendix C, Appendix D, and Appendix E), survey instruments (Appendix

F), cover letters (Appendix G and Appendix H), informed consent forms (Appendix I), direction of

project (Appendix J), and sampling procedure (Appendix K), for both English and Malay languages.

The committee recommended that the rights and the welfare of human subjects in this study were

adequately protected and the suggested format for reporting group data ensured confidentiality of

the individual.

Data Collection

Data collection began after approval was secured. The researcher contacted school counselors

from the seven selected secondary schools in Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia to assist in

identifying students who met the criteria in the sampling procedure. A total of 420 students were

selected and informed consent forms (Appendix I) and cover letters (Appendix H) were sent home to

the parents or guardians of possible participants. One week time period was provided for parents or

guardians to respond to the invitation. A total of 324 letters of acceptance were returned to the school

counselors. Several meetings were held in the selected schools to make arrangements to administer

the questionnaires between a representative and the school counselors.

A representative was appointed by the researcher to administer the questionnaires. This

representative is a Malay male and currently works as an assistant researcher in a government office.

He assisted the researcher from the beginning of the study with activities such as getting approval

from the Malaysian government for meetings with the school principals and school counselors. He

was provided with information about the study and appropriate ethic of research. He supervised the

administration of questionnaires.
 65

Data collection occurred mostly in laboratory, library, and classrooms where there was no

class being at the time. However, there was an exception of one data collection session that took place

in a school canteen. Those selected students who had signed permission from parents or guardians

were informed to attend the questionnaires administration session. For those students who did not

participate, they attended classes according to their normal class schedule. The time for data

collection varied from school to school depending on the time made available by the school and the

availability of the students. Some sessions were held in the afternoon after classes ended and some

were held in the morning during the school day. Data consisted of students' responses to a paper-

and-pencil based survey questionnaire. The survey instrument (Appendix F) and a personalized

cover letter (Appendix G) explaining the nature of study and the human subjects safeguards for

confidentiality were delivered to each participating student on the day the questionnaires were

administered.

The data collection used the Malay language because it is considered the first language and is

recognized as the formal language of Malaysia. The Malay language is the medium of instruction in

all public schools and universities. A standard text was used to administer instructions to the

questionnaire (Appendix J). This was to ensure that the same procedure and language was used in

each data collection session. It took about 40 minutes for the students to answer the questionnaires.

The number of responses from each selected school varied (Table 3.2). The differences in

participation from schools could be due to several reasons. These reasons include that students did

not get permission from their parents or guardians, a lack of school administrative support, different

capabilities among the school counselors to identify sample, limited time given to the parents and

school counselors to provided signed consent, and lack of interest among the students themselves.

All data were collected during one visit by the representative and reviewed to recognize the

ambiguous responses. From 324 questionnaires received, there were 38 questionnaires that were not

included in the final data producing sample for the following reasons: 4 students were not in the

three ethnic groups (1 Pakistani, 2 Sikh, 1 Eurasian), 1 participant was 17 years old, 21 participants
 66

are from single parents households, and 12 participants did not fully complete the questionnaire as

required, failing to answer all of the questions. For useable data, a final number of 286 surveys were

provided by participants who live with both parents. Therefore, the response rate was 68.10%. A

summary of these 286 secondary student respondents in this data producing sample from the seven

secondary schools in Seremban district in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia is shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Response Rate by Schools (N = 286)

SCHOOLS

A B C D E F G
Sample Total
Invited a 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 420

Neededb 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 336

Response 52 43 40 41 50 28 30 286

Response Rate 86.7 71.7 66.7 68.3 83.3 46.7 50.0 68.1
(%)
a Total number of students invited to participate
b Total number of students needed for the study

Data Analysis

Data analysis discusses how the preliminary analyses including the data preparation,

handling missing data, normality and transformation of data, and reliability were performed. The

second part describes the statistical analyses used related to the research hypotheses questions

including, descriptive statistics, correlations, stepwise regression, ANOVAs, and Tukey post hoc test.

All analyses used the SPSS 13.0 for Windows.

Preliminary Analyses

Data preparation

Before the data were used for analysis, they were coded. First, the items in FAD that

described unhealthy functioning were transformed by subtracting each score from 5, as mentioned in

chapter three (Appendix A). In all, 35 of the items in FAD were transformed to have the effect of
 67

equating the Strongly Agree response to an unhealthy item with a Strongly Disagree response to a

healthy item. The transformation resulted in the items from each scale being averaged to create seven

scales, each having a range of 1.00 (healthy) to 4.00 (unhealthy).

Missing data

Missing data were treated in calculating the socioeconomic status of parents. There were 30

cases of missing data in the father's education level. This means that respondents did not report their

father's level of education. Because the father's level of education was used to find the socioeconomic

status of the family, data from father's occupation, mother's level of education, and mother's

occupation were used. If there is no data for all of these, then by default socioeconomic status was

reported as the lowest socioeconomic status level, SES 1 (having less or some high school).

Scale reliability

Reliability coefficients were computed to find the internal consistency of the measurements.

The measurement scales were purified based on item to total correlations as recommended by

Nunnally (1978). The post-hoc internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) estimates were

reported to be: .83 for Family Time and Routine Index; .80 for Family Assessment Device; .56 for

Religious Practice in Family, and .94 for Self-Reported Delinquency Scale. According to McMillan and

Schumacher (1997), a coefficient of .90 indicates a highly reliable instrument, but a coefficient ranging

from .70 to .90 is acceptable for most instruments (p. 240). These high alpha coefficients indicated

strong internal consistency of items and suggested that the sampling domain was adequately

captured. In this study, coefficients ranged from .56 to .94 and therefore were found to be within the

acceptable range. However, the decision was made to have two subscales for Religious Practice in

Family. These are the Religious Belief and the Religious Practice which have higher reliability than

the total, Religion Practices in Family. The reliability coefficient for Religious Belief is .73 and the

Religious Practice .58 (Table 3.3).

 68

Table 3.3. Scale Reliability Coefficient for Study Scales (N = 286)

Measurements Survey item Cronbach

Number a
The McMaster Family Assessment Device 60 items .80

The Adapted Family Time and Routine 31 items .83

The Adapted Religious Practice in Family 4 items .56

a) The Religious Belief 2 items .73

b) The Religious Practice 2 items .58

The Adapted Self-Reported Delinquency Scale 22 items .94

Normality and transformation of data

For inferential statistics, the dependent variable should be normally distributed. In this study

the dependent variable, total delinquency score, was positively skewed. To achieve a normal

distribution, effort was used to utilize three transformations (logarithm, square root, and inverse).

Transformation of a positively skewed variable is an adjustment to the original value based on the

minimum value for the variable. Results found the three transformations still showing a positively

skewed distribution. It may be possible to find a transformation using a more advanced method, but

it is harder to interpret. Thus, the total delinquency score remains as the actual score.

Case-Influence Statistic

Observed skewness was found in the studentized residual plot and as a result, the skewness

causes normality and the equal variance assumption has been violated. Case-influence statistic was

used in the regression analysis. Case-influence statistic refers to numerical measures associated with

individual influences of each case, identifies and treats influential outliers that contributed largely to

the regression relations (Ramsey & Schaper, 2002). In other words, the inclusion or exclusion of these

outliers will cause great changes to the fitted models being examined. Sometimes, an outlier does not

look too unusual but has a major influence (effect) on the regression fit. A convenient check is to

delete the case, reanalyze the data and examine the change. Further, because outliers in one
 69

dimension may not be outliers when all variables are examined together in a regression equation, the

influential outliers were identified as those that violated all the following:

a. Cook's distance is a measure of the amount of residuals of all cases that change if a

particular case were excluded from the calculation of the regression coefficients. A large

Cook's distance indicates that excluding a case from computation of the regression

statistics changes the coefficients substantially.

b. Leverage points were used to identify the outliers based on the independent variables.

Leverage points measure the influence of a point on the fit of the regression. The centered

leverage ranges from 0 (no influence on the fit) to (N-l)/N.

c. DFBETAS refers to standardized difference in B value that implies the influence of an

observation on a particular regression coefficient. Values greater than 2/Vn were

considered influential outliers.

d. DFFITS computes the influence each case has on the fitted values of the dependent

variable. The effect of observations which were identified as outliers in both cases above

(leverage and studentized deleted residual values), on the regression function and

parameter estimates were examined using this statistic. If values were more than 2*Vp/n,

they are considered influential outliers.

Through this elimination process, the sample was reduced to 168 cases for further regression analysis.

Research Questions Analysis

Frequencies and descriptive statistics were used to check for discrepancy, examine response

rates, descriptive summary, and report checklist items. Statistical analyses were used to compare

means and determine the levels of significance in the independent variables and the dependent

variable.

Stepwise regression was used to find which independent variables give the 'best fit' to

predict the dependent variable. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to

assess the strength of the linear relationship between family functioning and involvement in
 70

adolescent delinquency. To ascertain whether there were significant differences in delinquency level

and family functioning dimension between and among genders, the three ethnic groups and

socioeconomic status, 2-way ANOVA was utilized. Significant ANOVAs would be examined further

with post hoc analyses using the Tukey method to find mean differences among groups and main

effect and simple main effect to significant interaction effect. Findings would be examined to

determine if the data support the hypotheses. All decisions on the statistical significance of the

findings used p < 0.05. At each step, the next independent variable to be added was the one that

contributed the largest increase to the R2 measure of relationship between the dependent and the

independent variables. At the conclusion of each step, the variables already entered into the equation

were tested to see if the overall relationship would be stronger if one or more variables were

removed. Hence, the strength of the equation predicting each dependent variable measured by

squared multiple correlations, R2 indicates the amount of variance accounted for in the dependent

variables by the independent variables.

Therefore, data analysis in this study is organized into three phases of analysis. This includes

data preparation which involves the process of cleaning and organizing the data, describing the data

and providing simple summaries in the descriptive statistics and inferential statistics that estimate

the characteristics of a population from data gathered on a sample, and testing significant

relationships between variables and significant differences between groups.

 71

CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter reports the results of the statistical analysis obtained from the research sample in

two sections. Section I presents the descriptive profile of the research sample as well as descriptive

statistics of the four measurements used in this study. Section II presents analyses on the research

questions and hypotheses.

Section I: Descriptive Summary of Data

Participant Profile

The descriptive data reported in this study are based on 286 respondents who were living

with both parents as presented in Table 4.1. The sample consisted of 54.2% (n = 155) males and 45.8%

(n = 131) females, of whom 62.5% (n = 179) were 16 years of age (M = 15.62, SD =.50). In terms of

ethnicity groups, the sample explained the general population of Malaysia, with the Malays forming

the majority 48.6% (n = 139) followed by the Chinese 28.3% (n = 81), and then the Indians 23.1% (n =

66). With regard to religion, there was no large difference within an ethnicity group, because mostly

the Malays are Muslim, some of the Chinese are Buddhist and generally the Indians are Hindu.

Within this sample a few Chinese and Indians reported that they are Christians.

The results show a total of 286 respondents reported that they live with both parents. Of

these 98.3% (n = 281) live with both of their biological parents and a few others with a stepfather or

stepmother. In terms of others in the household, most respondents have siblings 72.7% (n = 208) who

stay with them and large numbers reported having two siblings 40.6% (n = 116). Therefore, the

majority of the respondents live in a nuclear family. Only a small proportion of the respondents have

grandparents and uncles or aunts living together with them. This is known as extended families, and

is slowly decreasing as a practice in urban areas. In the general Malaysian society having

grandparents, uncles or aunts stay together is normal. Usually the reasons are for maintaining

the family unity. However, some may send the elders to a nursing home due to personal reasons.
 72

Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 286)

Variable Categories n %
Age 14 2 0.7
15 105 36.5
16 179 62.5

Gender Male 155 54.2

Female 131 45.8

Ethnic group Malay 139 48.6

Chinese 81 28.3
Indian 66 23.1

Religion Islam 140 49.0

Buddhist 69 24.1
Hindu 60 21.0
Christian 14 4.9
Others 3 1.0

Household composition Biological parents 281 98.3

Biological mother and stepfather 2 0.7
Biological father and stepmother 3 1.0
Siblings 208 72.7
Uncles/aunts 38 13.2
Grandfather/grandmother 15 5.2
Maid 3 1.1
Others (relatives) 1 0.4

No. of children living in One 78 27.3

household (including Two 116 40.6
respondent) Three 77 26.9
Four 40 14.0
Five 17 5.9
Six 7 2.5

Received free textbooks Yes 235 82.7

in school No 49 17.3

Their staying together is due to old age, sickness, and poverty. Family members and children are

encouraged to look after the elders particularly asking them to stay together as a sign of filial piety

Parents' characteristics including the levels of education, kinds of occupation, and hours

parents spend at home daily are presented in Table 4.2. For the level of education, there are six levels,

less than high school, some high school, high school graduate, some college, bachelor degree, and
 73

graduate degree (Master's and PhD). Some parents' highest education level was at less than high

school. This is the third largest group. The percentage was 11.9% (n = 34) for father and 16.2% (n = 47)

for mother. Less than high school level refers to those who have completed school at the elementary

level or less. With greater emphasis on the importance of education by the government and

awareness of the people, more students go to secondary school. However, some may chose to stop

schooling for several reasons such as finding a job to support their family. Reports show that more

mothers than fathers were at the some high school level.

Parents at some high school level of education formed the second largest group. There was

no difference in terms of numbers between father 19.2% (n = 55) and mother 20.6% (n = 59). This level

is equivalent to having Lower Secondary Assessment (PMR), a centrally administered national

examination at the lower secondary level or having schooling either until Form 1 (Grade 8), Form 2

(Grade 9), or Form 3 (Grade 10). Usually many pass this examination and move to the next class. On

the other hand, some may stop schooling and find a job to support their family at this time.

The largest group was high school graduates. Over two-fifths of all parents were at this level

with 41.3% (n = 116) for fathers and 44.4% (n = 127) for mothers. This means that these parents have

passed the Malaysian Education Certificates (SPM) which is the main national examination,

administered centrally and taken at the end of secondary school after passing Lower Secondary

Assessment (PMR). Because the objective is for certification, it is used for entrance to pre-university,

colleges as well as for scholarship and job purposes. Most Malaysians normally have this level of

education. Thus, the majority of respondents' parents achieved this level of education.

The next group is those parents at a post-secondary education college level. This level

corresponds to those having the Malaysian Higher School Certificate (STPM), a two year post-

secondary education and serves as one of the bases for selection into local universities. This level is

also used by those who went to college after they completed SPM and gained two or three years for a

diploma or certificate in various skills.

 74

Table 4.2. Demographic Characteristics of Parents (N = 286)

Father Mother
Categories n % n %

Levels of Education
Less than high school 34 11.9 47 16.2
Some high school 55 19.2 59 20.6
High school graduate 118 41.3 127 44.4
Some college 29 10.1 31 10.8
Bachelor degree 13 4.5 6 2.1
Graduate Degree (Master and PhD) 7 2.4 4 1.4

Kinds of Occupation
Laborers (cleaner, general worker) 21 7.3 5 1.7
Clericals (typist, dispatch) 19 6.6 20 6.9
Drivers (bus, truck, taxi) 30 10.5
Technicians and supervisors 38 13.3 7 2.4
Services (teachers, army, police, nurses) 29 10.1 30 10.5
Production operators 6 2.1 5 1.7
Business (street vendors, contractors) 48 16.8 14 4.9
Executives and professionals 26 9.1 11 3.9
Retired 16 5.6 1 0.3
Housewives - - 165 57.7

Hours parents spend at home daily

Less than 8 hours 90 30.6 27 9.2
8-16 hours 141 48.0 94 32.0
More than 16 hours 39 13.3 160 54.4

Then follows the group with parents who have a bachelor's degree. Only 4.5% (n = 13) of the

fathers and 2.1% (n = 6) of the mother's have a bachelor degree levels. Finally, the least percentage of

all is parents having a graduate degree as their level of education. There are more fathers than

mothers who hold graduate degrees.

Many kinds of occupations were reported for parents. This includes job such as laborers,

clericals, production operators, drivers, technicians, supervisors, teachers, police, army, nurses,

business, executives, professionals, retired, and housewives. Only one-fourth of the fathers were in

the highly skilled areas such as business, executives or professional. In addition, the majority of

mothers were housewives 57.7% (n = 165).

 75

The hours parents spent at home daily is presented in Table 4.2. Reports show that the

majority of the fathers spent 8-16 hours at home daily. The mothers spent more than 16 hours at

home daily which is expected because many of them are housewives. Therefore, this report indicated

that the mothers spent more time at home than the fathers. Mothers may have more time to

communicate with their adolescents than the fathers.

The socioeconomic status of the family is presented in Table 4.3. The indicators used to

identify the level of socioeconomic status were the parents' levels of education and parents'

occupations. According to Shuttz (1961), education is an investment to increase the productivity of

workers as well as increase their incomes. In Malaysia there have not been any attempts to classify

social class based on occupation (Pang, 1995). Nevertheless, occupations are used in this study to help

determine the socioeconomic status if there were no information about the parents' levels of

education. In addition, the free textbook program in schools was used to provide a general estimate

of parents' level of income. The report shows that 82.7% (n = 235) of the respondents received free

textbooks (Table 4.1). Those respondents who received free textbooks were considered as having low

income. Parents whose monthly income was below RM 1000 or USD 257.72 (RM = Ringgit Malaysia)

or above RM 1000 but have more than one child in school are also eligible to receive the free

textbooks. Yet, results show that some parents whose occupation was executive or professional also

received free textbooks and some parents whose occupation was laborer did not receive the free

textbooks. However, the number of families reporting this unexpected association was small and no

additional information was available to explain why this happened.

This study has utilized the government scheme of services to help in determining the levels

of socioeconomic status of the family. In the government scheme, there are four types of services that

are grouped according to the education levels (i.e. from less than high school to graduate degree).

These are Support 1 (less than and some high school/PMR); Support 2 (high school graduates/SPM);

Support 3 (some college/SPTM) and Professional (Bachelor/ Graduate degree). Here, the father's level
 76

of education was selected to be the indicator of socioeconomic status because fathers are assumed to

be the head of the household and the majority of mothers were housewives not receiving a wage.

In using the father's level of education, other indicators such as occupation of the father were used if

the father's level of education was not indicated. Additionally, the mother's level of education could

be used if there was no information about the father's occupation. Lastly, the mother's occupation

was used if there was no information about mother's level of education. If there was no information

provided for either fathers or mothers, these parents were included in the Support l(less and some

high school/PMR) level.

Therefore, in this study, three levels of socioeconomic status were established. The low

socioeconomic status usually has monthly income less than RM 1000 that is the Support 1. The

middle socioeconomic status normally has income between RM 1000 to RM 1500 which is the

Support 2 and the high socioeconomic status has income between RM 1500 to RM 4000 which

includes Support 3 and the Professional group (Redzuan, 2004; Pekeliling Perkhidmatant Bil 4/2002).

The mean annual household income for urban Malaysia in 1989 was RM 13, 965 (Pang, 1995).

Results in Table 4.3 show that the majority of the respondents' families were in the middle

socioeconomic status 45.1% (n = 129) and next is low socioeconomic status families with 37.7% (n =

106). This is consistent when considering the number of responses that 82.7% (n = 243) received free

textbooks generally come from the low and middle SES groups. The number of high socioeconomic

status families is not many (17.8%) compared to the other two groups.

Table 4.3. Socioeconomic Status of the Family (N = 286)

Variable n %
Low SES 106 37.7
Middle SES 129 45.1
High SES 51 17.8

Misbehavior activities of the respondents are presented in Table 4.4. Respondents were asked

if they had been referred to the school administrators and school counselors for involvement in risky
 77

behaviors. About two-thirds of the sample answered never (n = 19). A total of 32.1% (n = 92) of

respondents were referred once or twice to the school administrators for risky behaviors. Further

analyses from the above data were categorized according to gender and ethnicity.

Table 4.4. Misbehavior Reports (N = 286)

Variable Categories n %
Referred to the school Never 191 66.8
administrator for misbehavior Once 55 19.2
Twice 37 12.9
Meeting with counselors Yes 90 31.5
No 198 67.3

Reason for meeting with Academic 28 9.8

counselors Career opportunities 18 6.3
Personal matter 17 5.9
Misbehavior 18 6.3
Others 2 0.7
Family member involvement Yes 4 1.4
in risky behaviors No 281 98.3

These findings are presented in Table 4.5. Findings show that the number of males who

reported misbehaviors (high risk group) was greater than the number of females across all ethnic

groups. In addition, those reporting no misbehaviors (low risk group), show no large difference in

numbers between males and females across the ethnic groups. However, only one female Indian

reported misbehaviors in the high risk group. This is due to the small number of high risk

participants among the female Indians.

Table 4.4 also shows that only 6.3% (n = 18) met with the school counselors having similar

misbehavior reasons. Only 1.4 % (n = 4) respondents reported that other family members had been

involved in risky behaviors.

 78

Table 4.5. High Risk and Low Risk Groups by Gender and Ethnicity (N = 283)

Variable Categories Females Males

n % n %
Malays Low risk 37 13.1 43 15.0
High risk 19 6.7 38 13.4

Chinese Low risk 34 12.0 25 8.7

High risk 8 2.8 14 5.0

Indians Low risk 31 11.0 21 7.3

High risk 1 0.4 12 4.2

Descriptive Statistics of Measurements

In this section, descriptive statistics, means, and standard deviations are reported and

discussed for scores on family functioning dimensions (i.e. Family Assessment Devices, Family Time

and Routine, and Religion in Family) and the delinquency level (Self-Report Delinquency Scale). The

family functioning scores for three instruments were transformed so that the magnitude and

direction ranged from 1.00 (unhealthy) to 4.00 (healthy). In this case, for example, a high score for

problem solving means that the family is able to resolve problems at a level that maintains effective

family functioning. Similarly, a high score for total FTRI means that the family is able to spend more

time and has established more routines with family members in various activities that maintain

effective family functioning. Equally, a high score for religious belief means the family believes that

religion is important in life, a factor which supports effective family functioning. A high score for

religious practice means more personal praying and attending services or activities at the religious

center. These habits also imply healthy family functioning.

Family Assessment Device

This instrument is made up of seven scales, one measuring overall family functioning and the

remaining scales each measuring one of the six dimensions of the McMaster Model (Epstein et al.,

1983). The respondents were asked to report how they perceived family functioning in terms of

problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavior

 79

control, and general functioning. Using a 4-point Likert-type scale where 1 = Strongly Agree to 4 =

Strongly Disagree, the respondents answered 60 items concerning how their family functions in those

dimensions. Note that these Likert scales were recoded in the analysis so that 1 = Strongly Disagree to

4 = Strongly Agree to make the score more positive as its numeric value increased.

The means and standard deviations of the Family Assessment Device subscales are presented

in Table 4.6. Problem solving has a mean score of 3.09. This signifies the ability of the family to

resolve problems at a level where the effectiveness of family functioning is maintained.

Communication has a mean score of 3.01 that implies information exchange within the family is clear

and direct. Roles, with a mean score of 3.09, means that the family has established patterns of

behavior such as providing resources, nurturance, support, and maintaining the family systems.

Subsequently, affective responsiveness with a mean score of 2.88 indicates that the family

members are less able to experience appropriate affect over a range of stimuli. The lowest score is

affective involvement, with a mean score of 2.85 which indicates that the ability of the family

members to be interested in each other's activities is lowest. Next, behavior control has a mean score

of 2.98. Here the respondents perceived the way the family expresses and maintains standards for the

behaviors of its members. General functioning, which assesses the overall health of the family, has

the highest score with a mean of 3.12.

Table 4.6. Family Assessment Device Subscales

Subscales n M* SD
Problem Solving 262 3.09 .43
Communication 263 3.01 .32
Roles 265 3.01 .31
Affective Responsiveness 272 2.88 .33
Affective Involvement 273 2.85 .44
Behavior Control 271 2.98 .32
General Functioning 247 3.12 .32
* Scores range from 1 to 4 with 1 reflecting unhealthy functioning and 4 reflecting healthy
functioning.
 80

Overall the means and standard deviations of the subscales of this sample are not very

different. The adolescents perceived that their families generally have similar ways of dealing with

maintaining family functioning. There was not much variability in the scores. Many mean scores are

similar and have small differences in standard deviation for the subscales. The closeness of the means

and standard deviations may indicate that these heterogeneous collect!vist cultures share the same

values and beliefs regarding the ways the family should function in these dimensions. In addition, it

is interesting to find that the problem solving dimension is second highest next to general

functioning. A higher score for problem solving means that many families were focusing their effort

on finding solutions and making decisions while confronting problems faced by the family members.

Apparently, this result may show important concerns faced by families as a whole. It is assumed that

many families are affected by the adolescents when they are involved in activities such as coming

home late at night, spending more time with peers, losing money in the house, and skipping classes

in school. Also, it may imply that when adolescents struggle with academic performance or social

life, families take an interest to explore and help work out the solutions.

Family Time and Routine Index

The means and standard deviations of the Adapted Family Time and Routine Index

subscales are presented in Table 4.7. This instrument is made up of eight scales, measuring time spent

with family members in several routine activities (McCubbin et al., 1996). The respondents were

asked to report how they perceived family functioning in terms of child routines, couple's

togetherness, meals together, parent-child togetherness, family togetherness, relative's connection,

family chores, and family management. On a 4-point Likert-type scale with 1 = True to 4 = False, the

respondents responded to 31 items concerning how their family functions in those subscales. To

make the score more positive as its numeric value increased, note that these Likert scales were

recoded in the analysis where 1 = False to 4 = True.

Results show that the subscales ranged from 2.64 (relative's connection) to 3.47 (family

chores). Child routines had a mean score of 2.88 which indicates that the family established time to
 81

promote the adolescent's sense of autonomy and order. Similarly, couple's togetherness has a mean

score of 2.90 which implies that the respondents perceived their parents as having established

communication as a couple. Next, meals together has a mean score of 2.96, which suggests that the

family makes an effort to promote togetherness through family meals. Both parent-child togetherness

and family togetherness have a mean score of 2.84. The former proposed that the family has set time

aside to communicate with each other. The latter refers to ways the family puts emphasis on

spending time together, including special events, caring, quiet time and family time. Under relative's

connection, a mean score of 2.64 was reported which means that their families had made an effort to

establish meaningful connections with relatives. For family chores, respondents reported a mean of

3.47 implying that the family established a time for the adolescent to complete the assigned

responsibilities at home. This is the highest mean reported. Similarly, family management has a mean

score of 3.33 which indicates that respondents perceived that their family managed time for the

family organization and accountability needed to maintain order in the home. The total mean family

time and routine was 2.77.

Table 4.7. Adapted Family Time and Routines Index Subscales

Subscales n M* SD
Child Routines 277 188 .48
Couple Togetherness 278 2.80 .64
Meals Together 280 2.96 .73
Parent-Child Togetherness 274 2.84 .63
Family Togetherness 282 2.84 .60
Relative's Connection 277 2.64 .66
Family Chores 276 3.47 .60
Family Management 269 3.33 .51
Total Mean Family Time 236 2.77 .34
* Scores range from 1 to 4 with 1 reflecting unhealthy functioning and 4 reflecting healthy
functioning.

Overall the means and standard deviations of the subscales of this sample are moderate. This

shows that the respondents perceived that their families have spent time with family members on the

above scales to a moderately healthy degree. There was not much variability in the scores. Many
 82

mean scores are similar and have small differences in standard deviation for the subscales. Similarly,

in the scores of the FAD, the closeness of the means and standard deviations may indicate that these

heterogeneous collect!vist cultures share the same values and beliefs regarding the time the family

should spend together. Family chores and family management have higher mean scores compared to

the other subscales. Adolescents are required to help parents with the housework such as cleaning

and washing dishes as well as being trained the adolescents for their adult roles in the family to carry

out this responsibility. As for the family management, it explains that the family shows concern for

the whereabouts of the adolescents because at this age adolescents spend more time with peers and

participate in several activities outside the house.

Religious Practice in Family

The means and standard deviations of the Adapted Religious Practice in Family subscales are

presented in Table 4.8. This measurement is made up of two subscales, measuring the importance of

religious belief and the importance of religious practice. There are four questions measuring these

subscales (Regnerus, 2003). The religious belief subscale, which uses a 4-point Likert-type scale range

from 1 = Strongly Agree to 4 = Strongly Disagree, the respondents answered two items concerning

how their family functions in this subscale. Note that these items are recoded to range from 1 =

Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree to make the score more positive as its numeric value

increased.

The second subscale, the religious practice subscale reports the number of times praying was

performed daily. The respondents were to choose an answer from at least 5 times a day to less than

once a day. There were six items in this subscale. In regard to the number of times respondents attend

religious services or activities, the respondents were asked to choose from attending more than once a

week to no attendance within the past year. There were seven items in this subscale. These items

were also recoded to allow higher scores to indicate more desirable practice, that is, from at least 5

times a day to less than once a day and for the other questions, from no attendance within the past

year to attending the services or activities at the religious center more than once a week.
 83

Taking into account the religious belief, respondents perceived that their personal belief on

the importance of religion in life is greater than what they perceive for their family. The total

religious belief score has a mean of 3.68. The result for religious practice, interestingly, shows that the

mean for personal prayer is 3.41 which is greater than the number attending services or activities

which is 3.27. The total religious practice score has a mean of 4.15. Thus, this result shows that

respondents reported their religious practice to be more important than their religious belief.

Overall means and standard deviations of the subscales of this sample are also moderate.

This shows that the adolescent perceives that religious belief and practice in the family as moderately

important in life. The official religion in Malaysia is Islam. Under the constitution, other ethnics are

free to believe and practice any religion in an atmosphere of acceptance and tolerance. The other

main religions include Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity. Religion remains important in

people's life. Thus, it is not surprising to see only 1% (n = 3) had no religion (Table 4.1). From this

study, it shows that people place more value on religious practices than on their underlying religious

belief. Hence, a higher score was found for attending the services or activities in their local religious

centers than personal prayer.

Table 4.8. Adapted Religion in Family

Subscales n M* SB

Religious Belief
My family believes religion is important in life 279 3.71 0.60
I believe religion is important in life 279 3.65 0.66
Total mean religious belief 279 3.68 0.44
Religious Practice
The number of times I pray a day 279 3.59 1.61
Number of services or activities attended held in 274 4.73 2.08
the religious center in the local area
Total mean religious practice 273 4.16 1.56
* Scores range from 1 to 5 with 1 reflecting unhealthy functioning and 5 reflecting healthy
functioning.
 84

This finding may also imply that the religious practices are observable actions which indicate one's

belief in religions. Furthermore, in the collectivist culture, the practice of the groups can bring a sense

of unity to the community and obedience to the family errands. Thus, not performing the religious

practices may at times bring shame to the family. In the collective culture, avoiding behaving in a

way that could bring shame to their family is important.

Self-Reported Delinquency Scale

The means and standard deviations of the adapted Self-Reported Delinquency Scale

subscales are presented in Table 4.9. This instrument is made up of six scales, measuring risky

behaviors in several activities, including substance abuse, property violations, school discipline,

force, pornography, and runaway behavior (Mattern & Nakagawa, 2003). On a 4-point Likert-type

scale range from 1 = Never to 4 = Very Often, the respondents answered 22 items. Note that this scale

is not recoded as in the other three instruments.

Responses on delinquency activities ranged from 1.19 (runaway) to 1.52 (school). School

disciplinary action such as truancy and cheating on examinations or tests in class has the highest

mean of 1.52. Pornography is the second highest delinquency subscale. Pornography which involves

pornographic images on the internet and video had a mean score of 1.42. The third highest is force

which is comprised of hitting, fighting, cruelty to animals, and throwing objects, had a mean score of

1.32. Similarly, property violations, which includes stealing, vandalism, gambling, mooching or

freeloading, carrying a weapon, and trespassing, has a mean score of 1.30. Substance abuse which

Table 4.9. Adapted Self Report Delinquency Scales

Subscales n M SD
Substance Abuse 281 1.28 .52
Property 275 1.30 .49
School Discipline 283 1.52 .70
Force 279 1.32 .55
Pornography 284 1.42 .71
Runaway 283 1.19 .58
Total Mean Delinquency 270 1.31 .46
 85

includes using cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana or cocaine has a mean score of 1.28. The least is

runaway, with a mean score of 1.19. The total mean score for all delinquency forms is 1.31.

The overall means and standard deviations of the subscales for the six delinquency subscales

are low. Although the delinquency score for the sample as a group is low, within the sample, all the

risky behaviors from skipped class to carrying weapons were committed by some of the respondents.

Interestingly, the pornography subscale is the second highest score after the school disciplinary

action subscale score. This indicates that there was interest among the adolescents to engage in

watching pornography through the internet and videos. This is also an important finding because it

may relate to other crimes such as sex crimes and sex assault. Compared to other misbehaviors,

which can be seen such as truancy or fighting, pornography can be a private activity. However, it can

become addictive and prevent adolescents from enjoying more productive entertainments.

Section II: Analyses of Research Questions

This section reports the results of data analyzed using three different statistical measures: (1)

stepwise regression, (2) Pearson product-moment correlation, and (3) two-way analysis of variance.

The Relationship between Family Functioning Dimensions and Delinquency

Stepwise regression.

The stepwise regression analysis was performed to examine the extent to which the predictor

variables (problem solving, communication, roles, affective response, affective involvement, behavior

control, general functioning, family time, religious belief, and religious practice) contributed to the

variability on the total delinquency score. The control variables, gender and ethnicity, treated as

dummy variables were also included. The objective of the stepwise regression procedure was to find

the smallest subset of predictor variables that have the strongest R2 relationship to the criterion

variable, total delinquency score.

Further, multicollinearity was computed to find whether high inter-correlations between two

or more predictor variables exist. In other words, two predictor variables are attempting to explain

the same variance in the criterion variable. In this study, tolerance statistics were close to one (.80 to
 86

1.00) and variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics were low (ranging from 1.00 to 1.26). Tolerance

should be more than .20 and VIF should be less than 10 (Neter, Kutner, Nachtsheim, & Wasserman,

1996). These indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem for analyses of this data.

Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to measure the strength of

association between the criterion variable and the predicted variables and covariates (gender and

ethnicity). A one-tailed test was used to test the directional hypothesis in which there is a significant

relationship between family functioning dimensions and total delinquency scores among the

adolescents. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between family functioning and the

total delinquency score was negative as expected, and the correlations for three family functioning

dimensions (problem solving, communication, general functioning) were found to be significantly

different from 0 (p< 0.05). Problem solving was negatively related to total delinquency score with a

correlation coefficient of r = -.25 while communication is also negatively related with a correlation

coefficient of r =-.16. General functioning is found to be negatively related to total delinquency score

with a correlation coefficient of r =-.18 (Table 4.10).

These correlations indicated that a lower score of family functioning will result in a higher

total delinquency score. In other words, a negative correlation exists between the delinquency and

only the family functioning dimensions that show negative signs. Based on the correlational analyses,

Table 4.10. Correlation between Each Predictor and the Total Delinquency Score (n = 168)

Predictors r
Problem solving -0.25"
Roles 0.01
Communication -0.16**
Affective response 0.03
Affective involvement 0.04
Behavioral control -0.04
General functioning -0.18**
Family time -0.12
Religious belief -0.04
Religious practice -0.10
**+p < 0.01
 87

problem solving, communication, and general functioning might be useful predictors for total

delinquency score. A correlation coefficient or r value from .01 to .25 indicates a weak relationship.

Hinkle, Wiersma and Jurs (1996) suggested that as a rule of thumb for interpreting the size of a

correlation coefficient, a value from .30 to .50 indicates a low correlation.

The summary of the stepwise regression analysis is presented in Table 4.11. Step 1 shows

that gender was selected as the predictor of total delinquency score with an unstandardized B

coefficient of .26. This regression coefficient indicates that males are predicted to have higher total

delinquency scores than females at .26. In Step 2, regression results suggest gender and problem

solving are predictors to total delinquency score. This means that for every unit increase in problem

solving score there is a B = 0.26 decrease in delinquency level with gender being held constant.

Stepwise regression analyses also explained the standardized (3 coefficient in judging the

relative importance of the predictor variables to the criterion variable. The standardized (3 compares

the effect between the two variables, gender and problem solving, on total delinquency score. The

variable with the largest impact on the total delinquency score is the one with the largest

standardized (3 coefficient. In this study, gender has the largest standardized (3 coefficient of .33

followed with problem solving at -.26.

The stepwise regression procedure also indicates that gender and problem solving are the

smallest subset of predictor variables which have the strongest R2 relationship to the criterion

variable. In the first step, gender accounts for 10% of the variation in total delinquency score (R2 =

.10). Variables that enter in block 2 account for an extra 7% (17-10) of the variance in total

delinquency score. Therefore, gender appeared to be a stronger predictor of delinquency than did

problem solving. The F-ratio represents the ratio of improvement in the prediction that results from

fitting the model. For the initial step, the value of F (1,167) = 18.68 on the total delinquency score was

significant at p < 0.05. The next step the value of F (2,167) = 16.64 on the total delinquency score was

significant at p < 0.05.

 88

Therefore, this study accepts the research hypothesis 1 and reject null hypothesis which

predicted that there were linear relationships between delinquency levels and family functioning

dimensions. This is because problem solving was found to be a significant predictor of delinquency

among the adolescents (p < 0.05).

Table 4.11. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Total Delinquency
Score

B SEB P
Step 1
Constant 0.89 0.09
Gender 0.26 0.06 0.32
Step 2
Constant 1.70 0.24
Gender 0.26 0.06 0.33
Problem Solving -0.26 0.07 -0.26
Note. R 2 = .10 for Step 1: R2 = .07 for Step 2 (p < 0.05).

Delinquency between Gender and among Three Ethnic Groups

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of three ethnic groups and gender

on total delinquency score. The means and standard deviations on total delinquency score for

adolescents grouped between gender and ethnicity are presented in Table 4.12. The two-way

ANOVA analysis yielded significant main effects for both gender F (1,270) = 30.39, and three ethnic

groups, F (2, 270) = 5.29. Similarly, a significant interaction between gender and three ethnic groups, F

(2, 270) = 3.50, was found (Table 4.13).

Because the interaction between gender and ethnicity was significant, this study ignored the

gender and ethnicity main effect and instead examined the ethnicity simple main effects, that is, the

differences among three ethnic groups for males and females separately (Green, Salkind, & Akey,

2000). To control for Type I error across the two simple main effects, alpha was set at .025. There was

no significant difference between ethnicity for females F (2, 264) = 1.98, p = .14, but there were

significant differences for males F (2, 264) = 6.55, p = .002.

 89

Table 4.12. Means and Standard Deviations for Adolescents Grouped by Gender and Ethnicity on
Total Delinquency Score

Gender Ethnicity n M SD
Female Malay 55 1.23 .30
Chinese 37 1.14 .30
Indian 33 1.04 .07
Male Malay 81 1.41 .41
Chinese 35 1.65 .78
Indian 29 1.28 .48

Table 4.13. Two-way ANOVA between Gender and Ethnicity on Total Delinquency Score

Source SS df MS F P
Main Effects
Gender 5.65 1 5.65 30.39 .00**
Ethnicity 1.97 2 0.98 5.29 .01**
Gender x Ethnicity 1.30 2 0.65 3.50 .03*
Error 49.09 264 0.19
Total 520.45 270
y < 0.05 < o.oi

The significant simple main effects of ethnicity were further analyzed by pairwise

comparisons to identify differences in means for males. Total delinquency scores for Chinese males

(M = 1.65) were found to be significantly different from the Malay males (M = 1.41). This indicates

Table 4.14. Pairwise Comparison within Male Group across Ethnicity on Total Delinquency
Score

Mean
Gender Ethnicity (I) Ethnicity Difference SE ps
(J) (I-J)
Male Malay Chinese -.23 .09 .02**
Indian .13 .09 .53
Chinese Malay .25 .09 .02**
Indian .38 .11 .00**
**p < 0.05
s Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni
 90

that the Chinese males were involved more in delinquency when compared to the Malay males.

Similarly, the Chinese males were found to differ significantly from the Indian males (M = 1.28) in

total delinquency score which means that the Chinese males were involved in delinquency to a

greater extent than Indian males. However, there was no significant difference in total delinquency

score between the Malay and the Indian males (p =.53) (Table 4.14).

Therefore this study rejects the null hypothesis 2, which stated that there were no significant

differences in the total delinquency score between gender and across ethnicity groups and accepts the

alternative hypothesis.

In addition, this study also obtains other findings that may explain the reasons why there is

a significant difference for male Chinese on total delinquency score. Findings show that 35.7% (n =

18) Chinese males came from families with a low socioeconomic status, the largest group within the

Chinese males (Figure 4.1). Thus, many of Chinese males' parents were having either less than high

school or some high school. Chinese males who came from middle socioeconomic families are 19% (n

= 15) and from high socioeconomic status families, 8% (n = 2). The number of Chinese males in this

study, did not reflect the true number of Chinese males that goes to secondary schools in Seremban,

Negeri Sembilan. Some Chinese families send their children to the Chinese private secondary schools

located in Seremban. The Chinese private secondary schools use Mandarin as the medium of

instruction and follow the Ministry of Education guidelines. Although the majority of Chinese males

came from low socioeconomic status families which may be associated with delinquency, no further

analysis was done to examine ethnicity when controlling for socioeconomic status. ANCOVA,

analysis could not be utilized because of the skewedness of the dependent variable. Future analysis

using Kruskal-Wallis is suggested.

Findings are also obtained for the family functioning dimensions and family time and routine

subscales. The family functioning scores for Chinese males are lowest (M = 11.63) compared to the

other two ethnics groups, Malay (M= 11.61) and Indian (M= 11.82). The scores for the family

functioning dimensions for all the ethnic groups are presented in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2 shows that
 91

Chinese males have lower scores for most of the family functioning dimensions. Figure 4.2 shows

that Chinese males' family time and the problem solving family functioning dimension were among

the lowest scores compared to the other two ethnic groups. For problem solving, the mean for

Chinese males (M = 2.63) is lower than Malay males (M = 3.14) and Indian males (M = 3.43). The

highest score for male Chinese is the religious belief (M = 3.28). However, when compared to Malay

males (M = 3.91) and Indian males (M = 3.63), Chinese males are still the lowest. The family time for

Chinese males (M = 2.57) is lower than Malay males (M = 2.76) and Indian males (M = 2.92).

In Figure 4.3 adapted Family Time and Routine subscales is presented. The figure shows

Chinese males perceived their family as giving them too much time on family chores such as

adolescents helping with housework (M = 3.27) and family management (M = 3.16), yet lowest time

spent with parent-child relationships (M = 2.45) and meal togetherness (M = 2.55). This is interesting

when compared with male Indians who have high scores for family chores (M = 3.57) and family

management (M = 3.31), while the parent-child relationship is also high (M = 3.27). This figure shows

that the parent-child relationship is important at this stage.

This may explain why the Indian group has the lowest mean for total delinquency score. This

behavior indicates that the Chinese males spend more time in family chores and their families also

spend more time in setting limits and monitoring the whereabouts of the adolescents (family

management) but they are also perceived lacking of parent-child relationships.

50-

46.001"

....
". ..
40
...
...
30- NO
M

...
20-

....
..
...
"14.00
... ... Ethnicity
10-
0 Malay

1
Mi
1 Chinese
Indian

T
Low SES Middle SES High SES
Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Figure 4.1. Male Group by Ethnicity and Socioeconmic Status

 g] Problemsolving
Q Communication VO
W
3 Roles
H AffectiveResponse
Affectivelnvolvement
BehaviorControl
GeneralFunctioning
g] FamilyTime
HH ReligiousBelief
H ReligiousPractice

Malay Chinese Indian

Ethnicity

Figure 4.2. Means for Family Functioning Dimensions among Male Group by Ethnicity
 H ChildRoutines
fflHJ CoupleTogetherness
s Meal
g ParentChild
FamilyTogehterness
Rl RelativeConnection
g Chores
H Familymanagement

Malay Chinese Indian

Ethnicity

Figure 4.3. Means for Family Time and Routines Subscales for Male Group by Ethnicity
 95

Delinquency between Gender and across Three Socioeconomic Status Levels

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of three socioeconomic status levels

and gender on total delinquency score. The means and standard deviations on total delinquency

scores for adolescents grouped by gender and socioeconomic status levels are presented in Table 4.15.

The two-way ANOVA yielded significant main effects for gender F (1,270) = 24.17, but no significant

main effects for socioeconomic status level, F (2, 270) = .03. Significant interaction effects between

gender and socioeconomic status level F (2, 270) = 3.26, was found in this study (Table 4.16).

Table 4.15. Means and Standard Deviations for Adolescents Grouped by Gender and
Socioeconomic Status Level on Total Delinquency Score

Gender SES1 n M SD
Female SES la 54 1.07 .11
SES 2b 46 1.24 .36
25 1.19 .28
SES 3e
Male SES 1= 42 1.54 .42
SES 2b 78 1.40 .78
25 1.42 .25
SES 3e
1 Socioeconomic status
a Low SES
b Middle SES
c High SES

Table 4.16. Two-Way ANOVA between Gender and across Socioeconomic Status Level On
Total Delinquency Score

Source SS d MS F ^
Main Effects
Gender 4.67 1 4.67 24.17 .00'
Socioeconomic status 0.01 2 0.01 0.03 .98
Gender x SES 1.26 2 0.63 3.26 .04'
Error 50.99 264 0.19
Total 520.45 270
* p < 0.05 * * p < 0.01
 96

Because the interaction between gender and socioeconomic status levels were significant, this

study also ignored the gender main effect and instead examined the socioeconomic status levels

simple main effects, that is, the differences among the three levels for males and females separately.

To control for Type I error across the two simple main effects, alpha at .025 was set. There was a

significant difference between males and females at low socioeconomic status F (1, 264) = 26.57. No

significant differences were found for middle socioeconomic status F (1, 264) = 3.87, or high

socioeconomic status level F (1, 264) = 3.40.

Table 4.17. Pairwise Comparison within Socioeconomic Status Level and Gender on Total
Delinquency Score

SES1 Gender Gender Mean SE

(I) (J) Difference
(I-J)
SES la Female Male -.47 .09 .00**
SES 2b Female Male -.16 .08 .05
SES 3e Female Male -.23 .12 .07
**p < 0.05
s Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni
1 Socioeconomicstatus
a Low SES
b Middle SES
c High SES

The significant simple main effects of socioeconomic status levels was further analyzed by

pairwise comparisons to identify the differences in means for male and female to total delinquency

score. Males (M = 1.54) were found to differ significantly in total delinquency score to females (M =

1.07) low for socioeconomic status level. This indicates that males from low socioeconomic status

families were involved in delinquency more than females from low socioeconomic status families

(Table 4.17).

Thus, this study rejects the null hypothesis 3 which stated that there was no significant

difference in the total delinquency score between genders across the three socioeconomic status levels

and therefore the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

 97

Family Functioning Dimension between Gender and across Three Socioeconomic Status Levels

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of three socioeconomic status levels

and gender on overall family functioning score. The overall functioning score is the total of family

time, general functioning, religious belief, and religious practices. The means and standard deviations

on overall functioning score for adolescents grouped by gender and socioeconomic status level are

presented in Table 4.18. The two-way ANOVA yielded significant main effects for socioeconomic

status level F (1, 202) = 4.94, but no significant main effects for gender, F (1, 202) = .75. Significant

interaction effects between gender and socioeconomic status F (2, 202) = 3.24, were found in this

study (Table 4.19).

Because the interaction between gender and socioeconomic status levels was significant, this

study also ignored the socioeconomic status levels' main effect and instead examined the

socioeconomic status levels' simple main effects, that is, the differences among three socioeconomic

status groups for males and females separately. To control for Type I error across the two simple

main effects, alpha was set at .025. There was a significant difference between males and females at

middle socioeconomic status F (1,196) = 6.24. No significant differences were found in low

socioeconomic status F (1,196) = 1.38 or high socioeconomic status level F (1,196) = .20. Among

gender groups, only males showed a significant mean difference between low and high

socioeconomic status levels F (2,196) = 4.86. No significant differences for females were found among

all the three socioeconomic status levels F (2, 196) = 2.90.

The significant simple main effects of socioeconomic status were further analyzed by

pairwise comparisons to identify the differences in means among males and females to overall family

functioning score. There were significant differences between males (M = 3.53) and females (M = 3.27)

at the middle socioeconomic status level. This indicates that males from the middle socioeconomic

status level have higher overall family functioning scores than females from middle socioeconomic

status level (Table 4.20).

 98

Table 4.18. Means and Standard Deviations for Gender and Across Socioeconomic Status on
Overall Family Functioning Score

Gender SES1 n M SD
Female SES l a 40 3.40 .49
SES 2b 33 3.27 .53
SES 3e 19 3.60 .34
Male SES la 31 3.26 .54
SES 2b 64 3.53 .45
SES 3e 15 3.68 .50
1 Socioeconomic status
a Low SES
b Middle SES
c High SES

Table 4.19. Two-Way ANOVA between Gender and across Socioeconomic Level on Overall
Family Functioning Score

Source SS df MS F P
Main Effect
Gender 0.17 1 0.17 0.75 .39
Socioeconomic status 2.30 2 1.15 4.94 .01**
Gender x Socioeconomic 1.51 2 0.75 3.24 .04*
status
Error 730.31 196 3.73
Total 2433.08 202
**p < 0.01 *p < 0.05

Further, pairwise comparison was computed and shows that within the male group, there

was a significant difference between males (M = 3.68) in high socioeconomic status level and males

(M = 3.26) in low socioeconomic status level. There was also a significant difference between males

(M = 3.68) in high socioeconomic status level and males (M = 3.53) in middle socioeconomic status

level. This indicates that males who come from high socioeconomic status have higher overall family

functioning scores than males from low socioeconomic status level and middle socioeconomic level

(Table 4.21).
 99

Table 4.20. Pairwise Comparison within Socioeconomic Status Level and Gender on Overall
Functioning Score

Mean
SES1 Gender Gender Difference SE Vs
(I) (J) (I-J)
SES R Female Male 0.54 0.46 .24
SES 2b Female Male 1.03 0.41 .01**
SES 3e Female Male 0.30 0.67 .66
*p < 0.05
5 Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni
1 Socioeconomicstatus
a Low SES
b Middle SES
c High SES

Table 4.21. Pairwise Comparison within Male Group across Socioeconomic Status Levels on Overall
Functioning Score

Mean
Gender SES1 SES* Difference SE f
(I) (J) (I-J)
Male SES 1" SES 3e 1.08 0.42 0.03**
SES 2b SES la 0.60 0.55 0.84
SES 3e SES 2b 1.68 0.61 0.02**
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01
s Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni
1 Socioeconomic status
a Low SES
b Middle SES
c High SES

Therefore, this study rejects the null hypothesis 4 which stated that there was no significant

difference in the overall family functioning score between genders and across the three

socioeconomic status levels and accepts the alternative hypothesis.

Discussion

This study examines perceived family functioning dimensions and adolescent delinquency

among the Malaysian youths. Most researchers of delinquency among adolescents recognize the

necessity of examining the influence of family on delinquency. Results of this study are important to
 100

academia as well as practitioners because the new findings can expand the understanding of the

common-concepts and specific-concepts of this heterogeneous collect)vist culture. With greater

understanding there can be innovation in prevention and intervention efforts for families and

professionals.

Family Functioning Dimensions and Delinquency

The findings of this study show that two-third of the secondary school students (66.8%)

reported that they were not involved in misbehavior activities. Those who were involved in risky

behaviors indicated that they were involved in breaking the school rules more than anything else.

Truancy and cheating on examination had the highest mean (M = 1.52). Then followed watching

pornography (M = 1.42), using force (M = 1.32), property violation (M = 1.30), substance abuse (M =

1.28) and running away (M = 1.19). The risky behaviors in the survey involved both status offenses

(school, runaway, drinking alcohol, vandalism, pornography) and criminal offenses (property,

substance abuse and force). Although no criminal arrests were made, the students' self-report of

delinquency indicated that there were some adolescents in the schools who had engaged in criminal

offenses.

Interestingly, for the delinquency subscales, pornography was the second highest score after

school for both genders. This is a worrisome finding because it suggests that more adolescents in

secondary school are exposing themselves to risky behaviors in their lives. Urban adolescents are

facing greater risk with the advancement of technology in the cities and at home. Easier access to

such materials through cyber cafs, magazines, and video shops give greater opportunities for the

adolescents. This is consistent with Hadi's (2004, December) finding in Malaysia that there were more

adolescents involved in pornography than before.

The level of family functioning dimensions can be considered moderate except for a few

dimensions in some ethnic groups. More attention should be paid to these dimensions because family

connectedness and a strong emphasis on the nature of the relationship between parents and children

are highly valued in Malaysian society. Two of the family functioning dimensions, affective
 101

responsiveness and affective involvement, scored the lowest compared to others. This may indicate

that the Malaysian families are less focused on emotional aspects in the family. This finding is

consistent with findings of several local researchers who found that emotional neglect among

adolescents was a major problem facing Malaysian adolescents (Chong, 2004, July 16; Boosting, 2004,

May 23, Penjenayah, 2004, Mac 1). As Walsh (2003) stressed, family members need to be provided

with material and emotional support. These are some of the protective factors that can help the

family grow and achieve healthy family functioning, which is important because adolescent

delinquency increases when the family functioning is poor.

In the present study, gender and problem solving dimensions were found to be strongest

predictors of delinquency. Gender was found to be a better predictor of delinquency than the family

functioning dimension. The regression coefficient indicates that males are predicted to have higher

total delinquency scores than females with the male adolescents' mean (M = 1.44) being .26 greater

than female adolescents' (M = 1.19). This is consistent with reports of official arrest statistics in both

United States and Malaysia (Baginda, 1984, April; Hussin, 2005, March; Siegel, et al. 2003), as well as

findings in previous studies (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996) that suggested the number of males

involved in delinquency is greater than the number of females. However, Snyder (1998) found that in

the U.S. the trend toward delinquency is increasing faster among females than males. Thus, gender is

considered as a cultural etic in delinquency. Although the trend in the U.S. found females becoming

increasing involved in delinquency, the overall number of delinquent males is still greater.

Irrespective of the difference between collect!vist culture and individualist culture, gender is an

important predictor of delinquency among youth.

In the collectivist culture, female involvement in delinquency is still low compared to male

involvement. This may be because the culture holds the belief that females need more supervision

than males and are expected to stay at home more often. Furthermore, the culture emphasizes that

females are instructed to be more passive and obedient. This may help to control the number of

females involved in misbehavior. On the other hand, the idea that males are viewed as more
 102

aggressive and assertive and learn to use aggression as a way to gain status and power may hold true

for this collect!vist culture. Moreover, biosocial theories view a girl's psychological makeup,

hormonal, and physical characteristics as the main reasons for their lack of involvement in risky

behaviors (Loeber & Stouthamer Loeber, 1998).

After gender, the problem solving dimension was found to be the stronger predictor of

delinquency. This is an interesting finding because previous studies in Malaysia did not find that

problem solving was a predictor of delinquency. They found that lack of family supervision,

discipline and control, lack of father's role model, lack of mother's love and care (Suppiah, 1984,

April), and communication (Taha et al., 2004) were stronger predictors. This finding may indicate

that there is an issue with relationships in the family. The family may have less time to communicate

with adolescents on matters pertaining to their needs. It may also indicate that today's adolescents

need more help than did adolescents 10 years ago because now adolescents, especially those living in

urban areas, are exposed to various opportunities, information, and interaction. It may be true that

when a family does not attempt to listen and help to solve the adolescent's problems, the adolescent

can experience emotional neglect (Chong, 2004, July 16).

Similarly, a study conducted by Jin (2004) found that a parent who had a problem with an

adolescent in any matter found it more difficult to get support from family and friends than did a

parent with a child in primary school. This may indicate a lack of knowledge about ways to cope

with the problems of adolescents. Jin found that secondary school children often use more coping

strategies such as avoidance, distraction, emotional orientation and task orientation in dealing with

problems they face. The use of these strategies implies deficient problem solving skills.

Dodge (1980) and Dodge and Frame (1982) found that adolescents need skills such as

problem solving and decision making to be able to come to the right conclusion and arrive at non-

aggressive solutions. Researchers have found an empirical link between aggression and deficits in

problem solving skills (Klein, et al. 1997). Results of the current study supported the theoretical

framework (Bowen, 1978) that describes how family interaction patterns in the family influence other
 103

family members to act in the same manner. Thus, if one family member uses aggression as a way to

solve a problem, then constructive problem solving may not be the culture of the family. Bowen

(1978) also suggested that those individuals who are not well-differentiated persons act without

thinking and make decisions based, in large part, on the opinions and attitudes of those around him

or her.

Gabarino (1995), McCubbin et al. (1996), Larson and Richards (1994), and Meadows and

Blacher (2002) have all suggested that organization of time and routine as well as belief and practice

of religion in the family, may help to promote healthy family functioning, which is an important

implication to problem solving. These practices can serve as a training ground for adolescents to

develop interpersonal problem solving skills. The family plays an important role in helping to shape

an adolescent's interpersonal problem solving skills when the adolescent is deals with arising

conflicts (Rutter, 1998). Therefore, as an aspect of parenting, today's families needs to encourage

adolescents to look more seriously at problem solving (Kobak et al., 1993).

The next topic discusses the second research question on the finding of differences in gender

and ethnicity on delinquency. Discussions of the differences of Chinese male on delinquency to other

ethnic groups are presented below.

Differences in Gender and Ethnic Groups

Two-way ANOVA shows that Chinese males were found to be significantly different than

Malay and Indian adolescent males. However, Malay and Indian males were not significantly

different. The total delinquency score for Chinese males (M = 1.65) were the highest of all the ethnic

groups. In terms of delinquency subscales, school disciplinary action (M = 1.71) and watching

pornography (M = 1.71) were the highest means among the delinquency subscales. Important

observations such as family functioning dimensions, socioeconomic status, and the Chinese culture

may suggest some reasons for this finding. Lower means for most of the family functioning

dimensions imply that adolescents perceived their families as having poor family functioning. These
 104

perceptions signal a warning to the family. As Rutter (1979) states even the presence of one risk factor

increases the probability of problem behaviors.

The fact that Chinese students gave high scores for family management and low scores for

parent-child relationship is consistent with the Chinese culture which encourages that parents

practice strict and even harsh discipline toward older children particularly sons. Chinese families

often have clear differentiation in the parenting of sons and daughters (Shek, 1998). They use more

power assertion, stronger autocratic discipline, and love withdrawal in regard to their sons (Shek,

1998). For the Malay families, there is clear difference in the parenting of boys and girls. As far as

Islam is concerned, parents are required to treat their children equally. However, some Malay parents

put more supervision upon girls because females also have a special need. They need more

protection, because very often it is females who become the victims of assaults, rape and other

indignities. In the Indian family, parents treat their son and daughters differently. Female children

are more protected. Assertive behavior and autonomy is not encouraged, especially in girls (Sala,

2002).

Other probable reasons for the higher delinquency among Chinese adolescents were harsh

discipline (family management), lack of bonding and caring, and less time spent together (low family

togetherness and parent-child relationship). Low scores for family togetherness (M = 2.55) and

relative connection (M = 2.48) may become an important indication of delinquency. This is consistent

with a previous study by Loeber and Dishion (1983) which found that the most powerful predictors

of later delinquency were parenting variables, specifically those related to harsh, inconsistent

discipline. This is supported by Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber (1984) who found that parental

mismanagement (i.e. harsh and inconsistent discipline) of early oppositional behaviors shapes further

aggressive behavior involving increasingly coercive parent-child interactions.

Another factor which may be related to the delinquent behavior among Chinese males is

associated with the social class of this group. Eighteen out of forty-two Chinese males came from

families with a low socioeconomic status. This is a consistent finding that males of low socioeconomic
 105

status were significantly different to males in middle and high socioeconomic status (Table 4.17). This

result indicates that low socioeconomic status is associated with delinquency. Similarly, previous

findings show that families experiencing economic difficulties may have weakened parental capacity

for consistently applying social control (Kumper, 1999; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Similarly, Gordon et

al. (1998) found that for many families economic stresses lead to decreasing parental support and

lessened parental involvement as parents spend more time at work.

It is interesting to examine why parent-child relationships and family togetherness are low

when the majority of mothers are housewives. It may be an issue of quality time in the family. This is

consistent with the suggestion made by Meadows and Blacher (2002) and Larson and Richards (1994)

that spending time as a family is important in achieving healthy family functioning. Furthermore, a

lack of bonding with their families may cause adolescents to spend more time hanging out with

peers, lessening the potential for family time.

Hence, the present study found that delinquency among male Chinese adolescents may be

attributed to several interrelated factors such as lack of bonding and caring, harsh discipline

especially to sons.

The next topic discusses the third research question which examines the finding of

differences in gender and socioeconomic status on delinquency. Discussion on the differences of low

socioeconomic status on delinquency is presented.

Adolescent Delinquency Differences in Gender and Socioeconomic Status Levels

Of the 37% (n = 106) who were grouped as low socioeconomic status, 56% (n = 59) were

females and 44.3% (n = 47) were males. These groups were found to be significantly different in total

delinquency scores. Adolescents from both genders that came from families with low socioeconomic

status had higher risks of delinquency. This is in contrast to conclusions made by Hadi (2004, March

1) that the trend in delinquency in Malaysia has changed with more delinquency occurring among

adolescents who came from higher income families. However, the findings are consistent both with a
 106

Western context and with earlier research in Malaysia that found low socioeconomic status to be

related to high risk of delinquency.

Thus, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, in which the financial sector was weakened not only

affected the real economy of Malaysian people, but also brought socio-economic implications for

families. This resulted in greater incidence of poverty in the country, particularly among urban

dwellers (Hasan & Hashim, 2001, April). This may have lead to increase participation in the labor

force by two-parent families to maintain family incomes, creating stress for families and difficulties in

caring for and supervising children and adolescents as well.

In addition, several researchers in the U. S found that low socioeconomic status families may

have a high risk of increased parental stress and anxiety that leads to harsh parenting during family

experiences economic hardship (Conger et al., 1994; McLoyd, 1990). In other findings, families

experiencing economic difficulties may have weakened parental capacity for consistently applying

social control (Kumper, 1999; Sampson & Laub, 1993). This is also supported by Gordon et al. (1998)

in a study regarding economic stresses of families that lead to decreasing parental support and

lessened parental involvement as parents spend more time at work.

Thus, the present study found that delinquency has been associated with low socioeconomic

status families and is considered a common-concept or etic in this collect!vist culture. Therefore,

families with low socioeconomic status have increased risk factors to adolescent delinquency.

The next topic discusses the fourth research question which examines the finding of

differences in gender and socioeconomic status on the family functioning dimension. Discussions on

the differences of the groups are presented.

Family Functioning Differences in Gender and across Socioeconomic Status Levels

Scores on the family functioning dimension vary from one family to another. Some families

may have lower or higher scores on dimensions practiced in the family. Every adolescent, regardless

of gender and socioeconomic status level has needs and problems for which the support of the family

is necessary. Therefore, adolescents need multiple supports from the family. This is accentuated by
 107

Frydenberg and Lewis (1993) who suggest that the family can play several roles to help adolescents

cope with some developmental issues. However, in understanding the way in which the family acts

towards adolescents, Walsh (2003) suggested that it is important to look at the context of the family

and other factors such as the sociocultural aspects of the family. This is because the way the family

functions may again vary according to the adolescent's gender and the family's socioeconomic status.

In this study, family functioning was analyzed from both gender and socioeconomic status

aspects. Two findings were found. Males from the middle socioeconomic status families reported

greater family functioning than the females. In lower and higher socioeconomic groups, male and

female adolescents were not significantly different in family functioning. Secondly, males from

higher socioeconomic status have greater family functioning than males from lower and middle

socioeconomic status levels.

The present finding was interesting because males from middle socioeconomic status

perceived their families as having better family functioning than females from middle

socioeconomics status. Findings from previous studies about the family functioning of males in

middle socioeconomic status could not be found. Thus, this finding explained why males from

middle socioeconomic status families were not significantly different on delinquency. Hence, having

perceived their families as having healthier family functioning may have helped this group to avoid

being involved in delinquency. McCubbin et al. (1996) asserted that for a family to be stable across

time a well organized system of behaviors is needed. In addition Meadows and Blacher (2002),

Garbarino (1995), and Larson and Richards (1994) urged families to spend more time with their

adolescent in order to avoid more delinquency. This is also supported by local researchers who found

that healthier family functioning can decrease delinquency (Hadi, 1990, December; Hadi, 2004,

March). Therefore, male adolescents need more support from family members in facing challenges.

Additional investigation of the females group is needed to know why females perceived their family

functioning as less positive.

 108

The second finding reported that males from higher socioeconomic status have greater family

functioning than males from low socioeconomic status and males from middle socioeconomic status.

This result confirms the earlier result that adolescents from low socioeconomic status families are

significantly different on delinquency. Therefore, having lower family functioning among males from

lower socioeconomic status families may lead to higher involvement in delinquency. This finding

supported several earlier studies that found families that have more positive family functioning have

low delinquency.

Therefore, it is necessary for adolescents to have more family protective factors than risk

factors in order to avoid negative developmental outcomes such as risk behaviors (Werner, 2000;

Jessor, 1992). The results of the present study show that males from middle socioeconomic status

have higher family functioning than females. This is an interesting finding which can be considered a

culture-specific concept in this study. This is a culture-common concept in this study.

 109

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter discusses two topics. The first section presents a brief overview of the study's

purpose, methodology, and results. Discussion of the implications and conclusion is presented along

with suggestions for further research in the second section.

Summary of Research

Past research examining adolescent delinquency has focused on determining family factors

that influence delinquency. Moreover, there is a strong need to study the family influence on

delinquency in the Malaysian context due to several reasons. This includes the lack of empirical

studies that examine the relationship of family functioning dimensions and delinquency. Further,

study is needed to identify specific family functioning dimensions that most strongly predict

delinquency. By knowing the perception of the urban adolescents on family functioning dimensions

and the adolescent's involvement in delinquency, an estimate of this group's family functioning can

be determined. Investigation on whether similarities or differences exist in the findings to the

previous studies pertaining to family influence on delinquency is needed. Thus, it is interesting to

examine these findings because within the Malaysian society-the Malays, Chinese, and Indians-all

practice more characteristics of collect!vist culture rather than individualist culture. This is best

explained in terms of the culture-common concepts or etic and the culture-specific concepts or emic.

Therefore, investigating the influence of family functioning dimensions on adolescent delinquency

helps to suggest a prevention models for the families in such a heterogeneous collect!vist culture.

Data were collected from seven secondary schools in an urban area located in Seremban

district, in the state of Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. There were 286 participants (male = 157 and female

= 137) from various ethnic groups (Malay = 138, Chinese = 83, Indian = 73) with different levels of

family socioeconomic status (lower socioeconomic = 106, middle socioeconomic = 129, high

socioeconomic = 50). A cross-sectional survey research design was used. The samples were selected

using purposive sampling within a stratified school framework for the high risk groups and
 110

systematically selected respondents within each strata using random starting point for the non-high

risk groups.

The adolescents' perceptions of family functioning were assessed using the Family

Assessment Device (FAD) to measure the effectiveness of family functioning in six dimensions:

problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavioral

control, and general functioning. The adapted Family Time and Routine (FTRI) was used to measure

the family time spent together and family routines. The adapted Religious Practice in Family was

used to assess the importance of religious belief and practices. Lastly, respondents' involvements in

delinquent activities were reported in the adapted Self-Reported Delinquency Scale. Demographic

data were used to provide some personal information from the samples. This study used a self-

administered survey to collect information using paper-and-pencil techniques.

In analyzing the data, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to find

the strength of relationship and magnitude. Stepwise regression was applied to investigate which is

the best fit to the model in explaining the relationship between family functioning dimensions and

adolescent delinquency. Gender and problem solving are the two strongest predictors for

delinquency. A two-way ANOVA was used to determine interactions among gender and ethnic

groups in relation to the delinquency level. It was found that Chinese males were significantly

different from other groups. Similar analysis was used to determine interactions among gender and

socioeconomic status in relation to the delinquency level and family functioning dimension. The

study shows that both genders in low socioeconomic status families are significantly different. Lastly,

post hoc analyses using Tukey method and simple effects were used to identify the main effect and

interaction effect on the independent variables. These analysis shows that males from the middle

socioeconomic status have better family functioning than females. Further, males from high

socioeconomic status families have greater family functioning than males from low and middle

socioeconomic status families.

 Ill

Implications and Conclusion

The present study demonstrates several important insights for those working with adolescent

delinquency in the context of a heterogeneous collectivist culture. The ways in which risk factors and

protective factors in families contribute to the development of delinquency is important to consider.

Gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic differences in relation to delinquency and family functioning

offer other interesting areas to be studied. The results have implications for family educators,

counselors, and policy makers, as discussed below.

First, the results from this study show significant gender differences in relationships among

the constructs. In particular, male has been shown to be involved more in delinquency than females.

Therefore, the context of this heterogeneous, collectivist culture is an important factor to address in

adolescent delinquent behavior. For male adolescents, providing positive role models who

demonstrate ethnic values and behaviors consistent with the universal norms could help the

Malaysian adolescents build positive character. Thus, it is important for educators and policy makers

in Malaysia to think seriously about gender differences when developing prevention models,

parenting skills, juvenile law, and family policy. This is because of the differences in physical,

cognitive, spiritual, and socio-emotional developments between males and females. Understanding

gender differences can result in a better way of working with adolescents as well as accepting the

uniqueness of each gender. This means providing suitable interventions according to the need and

interest of the adolescent.

Second, emphasizing problem solving as an important family functioning dimension is

necessary for families. Problem solving skills are vital to adolescents. The study found that problem

solving dimension to be stronger predictor of delinquency. Research has found that behavior can be

modified by focusing on thinking processes rather than on the behavior itself. Some families may

spend more time using harsh discipline rather than using problem solving solutions that develop the

thinking of the adolescents. This finding implies a necessity to enhance problem solving in families

(Shultz, 1999). Research found that understanding the adolescent's social cognition has become a
 112

springboard from which to study why some adolescents are socially competent and others are not.

This approach to childrearing should be considered because cognitive thinking skills play a crucial

role in the social adjustment of both parent and child. Thus, it has particular relevance for the

primary prevention of later, more serious problems.

Third, the Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) profession, being the only profession

exclusively focused on solving problems of the family, should influence parents and adolescents in

various ways. Problem solving skills should be taught and be learned. Success at solving problems is

crucially dependent on psychological factors such as the confidence, concentration, and courage of

the individuals. Besides, problem solving skills need to be included in family programs such as the

"Strengthening Families Programs" developed by the Cooperative Extension Service (Iowa State

Extension, 2005). As in the classroom, FCS teachers can exhibit and develop problem solving skills in

the context of cultural differences. Understanding the differences in problem solving skills between

gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic subgroups may give better solutions to the delinquency

problem. Therefore, FCS educators can help by empowering adolescents with problem solving skills,

thus contributing to resiliency. Problem solving through dialogue is an area in which schools rarely

recognize achievement or give credit. Many schools spend more time on fact-based drill than on real

life problem solving situations. Developing the students' intellectual skills through approaches that

address multiple dimensions of learning for secondary students in Malaysia is warranted.

Fourth, delinquency among the low socioeconomic status families is a culture-common

concept or etic. For these families in particular and other socioeconomic status families in general,

appropriate parenting classes with government financial support may provide more information on

the delinquency issues and how the families can cope with the problems. By understanding these

dynamics, school counselors and FCS educators could learn more about strategic interventions for

these families. Additionally, when working with clients who have delinquency problems, mental

health counselors may be able to listen with careful understanding. With this understanding, better

ways to deal with the problems of various groups can be developed.

 113

Finally, comprehensive study of risk and protective factors for all levels including individual,

peers, family, schools, and community should be conducted in the context of Malaysia so that risk

factors can be reduced and protective factors developed. This could help parents establish a support

network to assist them in rearing adolescents in today's society. Collaboration among several

agencies such as police, schools, parents, companies, teenagers, and their communities would help

support prevention on a broader scale.

In conclusion, research on family functioning for Malaysian culture is vital, particularly, as

the number of adolescents involved in delinquency is increasing and thereby raises questions on the

role of family in influencing this social issue. It is not possible to view the family in isolation because

the family is imbedded within the community. Thus, additional research is needed to examine

further the influence of family functioning as well as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status to

delinquency. Knowing the findings of this study promotes the effort to establish healthy family

functioning which may well increase the quality of family life among the society. Subsequently, it can

increase the public understanding of the importance of family and its impact of delinquency.

Currently, Malaysia places great emphasis on the preservation of values that can strengthen the

institution of the family to achieve Vision 2020, a national aspiration plan for Malaysia to become a

fully developed country, a strong and resilient family system is identified as one of the nine

challenges to be met.

The importance of research in this area helps to understand the effect of family functioning

dimensions on adolescent delinquency. As the world becomes more connected through technological

advancements, issues facing the family in one country might be similar to what is happening in other

parts of the world. Families everywhere share similar concerns and needs regarding adolescent

delinquency. Researchers need to look for qualities that are universal (etic) among families as well as

acknowledging the differences that exist in the families (emic). In terms of etic and emic, recognizing

behavior from the point of view of people in other cultures can broaden as well as support the

intervention models to reduce delinquency.

 114

Recommendations for Future Research

Research recommendations made based on the findings of the study are as follows.

1. This study focused on several family functioning dimensions (problem solving, communication,

roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, behavior control, general functioning,

family time and routine, religious belief and religious practice) which may influence adolescent

involvement in delinquency. Future studies should focus on other dimensions such as the effect

of various skills including critical thinking, empathy, observation, justice, technology, and

conflict resolution in families.

2. The sampling procedure in this study utilized purposive sampling within a stratified school

framework for the high risk groups and systematic selected respondents within each strata using

a random starting point for the non-high risk groups. Additional analysis in this data set can be

made to utilize matched pairs of students. For each high risk student, a match can be formed with

a low risk student having similar characteristics based on school, gender, and ethnicity to

examine additional relationships between various family functioning variables.

3. Results from this study showed that Chinese males are significantly different from other ethnic

groups in delinquency. Additional analysis showed that less than 50% of the respondents came

from low socioeconomic status families as well as having low scores for most of the family

functioning dimensions. Future studies need to examine whether ethnicity differences are

evident when controlling for SES groups. A statistical analysis such as using non-parametric

Kruskal-Wallis can be used for further analysis. In addition, to better understand Chinese

families' practices, a qualitative approach can be examined.

4. In the present study, respondents who lived with both parents were analyzed to examine the

significant relationships among variables and significant differences between groups. There were

21 respondents who lived with single parents households, and these were not included in the

analyses. Future studies need to examine the difference between these two groups in terms of

total delinquency score and the family functioning dimensions.

 115

5. It is recommended that Family and Consumer Sciences professionals help to design programs

using the critical thinking skills so that prevention of delinquency prevention can be enhanced.

This is because the problem solving items in the questionnaire (see section II: Family Daily Life

Management, no. 2,12, 24, 38, 50, 60) have the same characteristics as critical thinking

components. Using critical thinking helps improve the quality of problem solving by organizing

structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon process.

6. A quantitative mode of inquiry was used in this study. Future studies should incorporate both

quantitative and qualitative modes of inquiry to gain in-depth understanding of the families'

perceptions regarding family functioning dimensions.

7. It will be important to replicate this study in different geographical areas within Malaysia and

with larger and more diverse samples of families with adolescents from different socioeconomic

status groups.

8. Longitudinal research that periodically assesses the family functioning dimensions and indices of

the collectivist culture is needed.

 116

APPENDIX A. FAMILY ASSESSMENT DEVICE

 117

Instructions sa Haw to Score the FAD

The McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD) is designed to measure family

AmctioomgasdMCfibaimtW hkMista Mo&WFamDyPuoctionrng, kemadeupofscvoi
sales, one measuring overall family functkming and one for each of the six dimensions of the
McMaster Model. Eieh of the items on the PAD belongs to only ore of the seven scales. Some
items describe healthy functioning while others describe unhealthy functioning. Table 1 (below)
indicates the kans each scale,classified according to whether they describe beakhy or
unhealthy gmctiwmg.

Tabkl
Aa%*mcnt of Itema to Stmk*

Fr*| Cmmmi- Seles Affcctlvt Affective 8hr fitaertl

S#Mm( **&** C*w*rW
sirtit

Hemkhy 2* 3 10 49 20 6
Pmctkmm; 13 1* 30* M 32 16
Item 24 29* 40 55
3$ 43 *6
50 H 46
60

Unhemlthy 14 4 9 S 7 !
FmAmiag 22* %* \9 13 17 11
3)' 15 M 27 21
52 23 39 33 44 31
M 37 47 41
43 42 49 31
33 $4
M*

It is important to note the items that m marked in TaMe 1 with an asterisk These are the seven
items added after the original report, which increase the reliability of the three scales white not
affecting their mtercorrelatioo with other scales. We have used the 60-item version in all subsequent
research and iccommeoded others use this wnion.

To 9com the FAD, #Bre5pons are coded asbBowx

Strongly *gre -1
Agree 4)
Disagree =3
Strongly disagree =4

Tkn the scores for items describing unhealthy functioning are transformed by subtracting tiem
from 5. The inverts the respon* scaks on the unhealthy items and las the effect of equating #
Strongly Agree response to an unhealthy item with a Strongly Disagree response to a healthy kern,
ete. As a result of this uansfonmtion, the tarns of each scale are averaged to provide seven scale
score* e&chhaviog* possible range fromLOO (bemkhy) to 4.00 (uobeahky). *
 118

The FAD scoring shed we bave developed is attached. It can be used to score an dividual s
MSp08K& The Srst Aep B to score all of the answers in the column;to the extreme ML The
negative kens (wkh anlAerisk) are then transformed by subtracting them from 5 and catering them
intit scoond cohmm headed transformed score'.

On the ngk-hood side of the scoring sheet are seven columns of boxes, 01 column for each of
the seven scales, The scale to which an item belongs is indicated by the column ia which the box
aggned with the item Ma. The item scores (transformed scores &r unhealthy items) are ocx!
tramfenedto their appropriate boxes. To calculate a scale score, simply add the scores in each
column and divide the sum by the number of items in the column that were answered. A Sttiily score
bthe&vemgeofanMmWaxxes. The scale score; will range 60m 1.00 (healthy) to 4.00
(tmbeakhy).

The Bmwn University/RhodeIsbnd HospWF*n%Research Pn)@%0 W WmpoWpmgr

to score the FAD. These programs generate:

1) The six dimension seek score; &r individuals aad an overall general functioning acale.
2) Family measures scores.
 119

FAMILY fodiufchial:.
ASSESSMENT
DEVICE

FAMILY ASSESSMENT DEVICE V3 SCORING SHEET

McMaster Model Dlmartdons
Response Problem Commimi- Botes ABective Affective Bdtalor Gewal
cation Respoa- Invoke- Control pBaoSwiIng
glvenew went

9MB

15- {J

" uAcA mesitrctEdksm.1

 120

V3SCOHMQ SHEET

PageZ
Rawmnfi Piogmm
"McMaster Model Dimensions-
Response Tawkimed Problem Commuai- Rotes Affective Affective Behavior General
Scow Solving cation Respoe- Invovo Control Fimceiomng
: $###$# ment

*33 5- =
34 5-

35 5-

"51 5-
52 5-
53 5-
54 5-

Sumc^theRponws
Number o(
Answered
Scak Score
PS CM RL AR AI m Of
 121

APPENDIX B. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

 122

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY loailaAonil Rfnf* HoW

ORKP ol Kcawcli CoinplWwv
m: scitxcE ANo rk(:HN0i0(;y V:rr kf & an h
11 ^ Pt*wn IkU
Amw, to*T* 3W]i zz'.'y
)i? aw-45<)b

TO: Fauziah Hanlm Jalal

FROM: Human Subject Research Compliance Office

PROJECT TITLE: FamHy Functioning and Adolescent Delinquency h Malaysia

RE: IRB ID No.: 05-199

APPROVAL DATE: May 31,2005 REVIEW DATE: May 29,2005

LENGTH OF APPROVAL: One year CONTINUING REVIEW DATE: May 30,2006

TYPE OF APPLICATION: E New Project O Continuing Review

Your human subjects research project application, as indicated above, has been approved by
the Iowa State University IRB #1 for recruitment of subjects not to exceed the number
indicated on the application form. AH research for this study must be conducted according to
the proposal that was approved by the IRB. if written informed consent is required, the IRB-
stamped and dated Informed Consent Document(s), approved by the IRB for this project only
are attached. Please make copies from the attached "masters" far subjects to sign upon
agreeing to participate. The original signed Informed Consent Document should be placed in
your study files. A copy of the Informed Consent Document should be given to the subject

The IRB must conduct continuing review of research at intervals appropriate to the degree of
risk, but not less than once per year. Renewal is the Pi's responsibility, but as a reminder, you
will receive notices at least 60 days and 30 days prior to the next review. Please note the
continuing review date for your study.

Any modification of this research project must be submitted to the IRB for review and
approval, prior to implementation. Modifications include but are not limited to. changing the
protocol or study procedures, changing investigators or sponsors (funding sources), including
additional key personnel, changing the Informed Consent Document, an increase in the total
number of subjects anticipated, or adding new materials (e.g., letters, advertisements,
questionnaires). Any future correspondence should include the IRB identification number
provided and the study title.

HSRCMORCMQ
 123

Approval letter
Page 2
Jalal

You must promptly report any of the following to the IRB: (1) all serious and/or unexpected
adverse experiences involving risks to subjects or others; and (2) any other unanticipated
problems Involving risks to subjects or others.

Your research records may be audited at any time during or after the implementation of your
study. Federal and University policy require that a# research records be maintained for a
period of three (3) years Wowing the dose of the research protocol. If the principal
investigator terminates association with the University before that time, the signed Wormed
consent documents should be given to the Departmental Executive Officer to be maintained.

Research investigators are expected to comply with the University's Federal Wide Assurance,
the Belmont Report, 46 CFR 46 and other applicable regulations prior to conducting the
research. These documents are on the Human Subjects Research Office website or are
available by calling {515} 294-4566.

Upon completion of the project, a Project Closure Form wMI need to be submitted to the Human
Subjects Research Office to officially dose the project.

C: AESHM
Cheryl Hausafus

HSRO/ORC8/02
 124

APPENDIX C. MALAYSIA ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT APPROVAL

 125

UNTT PC* AXCANO KKONOkQ

fcowoWc t/m
JABATANPEROANA MEXTEIU
Pttme Mjw tier's Department
8L()K & B6.
PUSAT PEXTAUBIRAX KERAJAAN PERSEKUTVAN
62502 PUTRAJ AYA y WW833J3
MALAYSIA fax. gowBKMWa

Your fief

UK: 40/200/19 5] 1302

n*r 21 Mac 2005

Mrs, Faudah Hankn bL Jalal
170-B Unlverdty VHbge, Ames
50010 1A
USA

APPLICATION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH IN MALAYSIA

WRh reference to your application dated 11 October 2004, 1 am pleased to inform you (hat
your appbcaOon to conduct research in Malaysia has been approved by the Research
Promotion and Co-Ordination Committee, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's
Department.

2. Please collect your Research Pass in person from the Economic Planning Unit, Prime
Minister's Department, Pared B, Level 4 Block 85, Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 Putnjaya and king along two (2) passport size photographs Yda ako required to
comply with the rules and rgulations stipulated (mm Urne to Urne by the agencies with whkh
you have dealings In the conduct of your research.

3. I would Ike to draw your attention to the undertaking signed by you that you
suom* without cost to the Economic Planning Unit the Mowing documents:

a) A brief summary of your research findings on completion of your research and

before you laave Malaysia; and

b] Three (3) copia of your final dserta#xVpuMtation.

4. LasOy, please submit a copy of your preliminary and final report Arectfy to the State
Government where you carried out your research.

ATTBITION
This letter is only m Wbnrn you the status of your awBcaGon and cannot If# used mm a
research pan

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

(MUNIRAH ABO. MANANj

b.p. Ketua Pengarah,
Unit Perancang Ekormi,
(Seksyen Ekonomi Makro)
Email: munirah@epu.jpm.my
Tei: 88882809/2818/2827
 126

C.r:

Pengamh
Bahagen Perartcangan PertyeBdikan & Dasar Pendidikan
Kementerian Petojaran Malaysia
Aras 14,Biok E8
Kompieks Kerajaan Parce! E
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutusn
62604 Putrajaya
(u.p:Dr.WrMoW5dkh@Sakh) (Ru).Tuan: KP(BPPP)G03/008( )

Ketua Stbau&aha
Kementerian Pembangurtan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat,
Am BWAPefdama
Jaian Data' Onn
50515 Kuala Lumpur
(u.p: En. Kua Ahum) (Ru|.Tuan: KPWKM: PP/345/4 K&5 (21)

Lembaga Pendudukdan Pembanguren Keluarga Negara

Kem**honPembai#gWml(a,l%lu*gadanMasya*akaL
Bangunan LPPKN 12B
jabnR^aLaut
PpM Stmit 10416
53712 Kuala Lumpur
Anili Do-hi Gandhi) (Ruj. lutin: Bil(lH)d;-ii.LPPKN 33-'! JW. 7)

"Rr.Mlan No-fc Canselor,

Pjs.it Pen/elid'ksn dan Perundingan,
Ai as 3 Timur, Bangman IPSI,
Kampus Sultan Abdul JaH Shah,
Univers;:! -'endtiikn SulUn ldir>,
JS900 T anpng Mahm,
Perak
(u.p: Dr, H]. Abdui Maiek Abdul Rahman)
 127

APPENDIX D. MALAYSIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

 128

m \K\OIA\ 1\R \WAK DA\ PkmTlIMKAN D\S4RPTXIMDIKAN

kjAiirx rmiw pu u\RV\ v,u .uw.\
\R."*S :-4 MOKM
KAMM CK\ KTR 4fA W P4RO L C Icklon W-KM60IIU
PI SA1 MXT4nMRA\KERAfAANPmtSKKt:a AX !.i) 0MMW4-H)
- 4 n niUA^\ Ltmim W(h ' hly/'l6l.t42 1*4^

Rujukan Kami : KP (BPPP) 603A306( )

TaiWi : 8 Febfuah 2005

KeWa Pengarah
Unit Perancang Ekonomi,
Jabatan Perdana Menlen.
Biok 05 dan 86,
Kompleks Jabatan Perdana Menkrl.
Pusat PentadWen Kwapan Pwwkutuem.
62502 PUTRAJAYA

(up, Pn. Munlrah bt Abd. Manan )

Tuan,

Permohonan Untuk Menjatankan Penyeiidikan dl Malaysia

PN. FAUZ1AH HANIMBTJALAL

Dengan honnatnya saya menjguk kepada perkara dl atas,

2. Adalah saya diarah memaklumkan bahawa Bahaglan ihi (dak mempurqfai

apa-apa halangan dan menyokong penuh ke alas cadangan yang dtkemukakan
oieh penyelidik berkenaan untuk membolehkan menjatankan penyeiidikan: Family
Functioning And Adolescent Delinquency In Malaysia.

3 SeWah aek*a# kajian dljalankan, penyeMk perWah menyemukkan

senaskah lapwan dapatan kajlan krsebut ke BahaglanIm.

4. Bersama*satna int dkertakan iMawn Bahagian ini k ata* cadangan

peny#)lkan yang dtkemukakan

SeWan dlmaklumkan, (efima kWh.

"BERKHfDMAT UNTUK NEGARA"

Saya yang menurut perintah,

(DR. AMIR BIN MOHD SALLEH @ SALEH)

Timbalan Pengarah, Sektor Penyeiidikan Dasar,
Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyeiidikan Dasar Pendidikan
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
 129

Permohonan Untuk Menjatankan Penyeiidikan D Malaysia

Nama : Puan Fauzah Hanim b Jalai
Tajuk kajian : Family Functioning and Adolescent Delinquency In Malaysia

1. Bidang yang akan dikaji

1.1. Kajian mi mengenalpasti hubungan antara keluarga dan delikuensi

di kalangan pelajar pelajar sekolah menengan di Negeri Sembilan.
1.2. Responden kajian akan ditanya mengenai jenis salah laku yang
mereka telah terlibat

2. Kawasan-kawasan yang telah dikenalpasti

Pelajar-pelajar dari sekolah menengah di Seremban. Dalam pemilihan

sampel sekolah, pengkaji akan menggunakan kaedah stratified random
sampling. Dua kumpulan pelajar akan diplih dari sekolah yang menjadi
sampel iaitu yang menunjukkan kelakuan yang berisiko dan mereka yang
tidak menunjukkan mempunyai masalah salah laku.

3. Faedah-faedah dari kajian ini,

3.1. Maklurnat yang diperolehi hasil kajian ini akan membantu

kefahaman dan literatur tentang peranan keluarga dan kewujudan
perlakuan delinkuen
3.2. Memahami fungsi keluarga dari budaya kaum-kaum lain di
Malaysia.
3.3. Dari maklurnat yang diperolehi, pihak-pihak tertentu seperti
pendidik, guru-guru dan kaunselor) merangka strategi pencegah
dan intervensi klinikal yang efektif.

4. Perakuan

Kementerian tidak mempunyai halangan bagi pengkaji ini menjatankan kajian

di sekolah-sekolah yang telah dikenalpasti dengan syarat pengkaji
mengemukakan satu set soal selidik yang akan ditadbirkan ke Bahagian ini.
Selain itu kebenaran menggunakan pelajar pelajar Tingkatan 3 dan diberikan
sektranya kajian dijalankan sebelum atau selewat-lewatnya pada bulan Jun
2005.
 130

APPENDIX E. NEGERI SEMBILAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 131

jjl
JABATAN PELAJARAN
NEGERI SEMBILAN OARUL KHUSUS
.;i AN I;Aru
KARUNli BEfi-vJNCl Hj i- Tal OG rcS TOO
70990 SfcHEVFJAN Fj* 06-<'39568

/ ii i

Rut JPNS(PPS)2/4.'2/1/200D Jld 1(i

SfMac 20Jb

-n Hauziah Hauini bt Ja'al

i j p bn Abd. Hal,m b:n Ja'ai,1
d/j AO: D MPOB Let 9 & 11
.air1 PM-1 la sa 5 Seksyen "0
Kiiwasa-i Pennaustrian MIL L
-1.1650 Bar.dar Baru Dangi
Seldngor Paru! hsan.

1 i.vin/l-'i.an,

Kubenaran Menjatankan Kajian Ke Sekolah-Sekolah Di Negeri

Setnbiian Parut Khusus Di Dawah Kementerian Pelaiaran Malaysia

Aiialah sayd dengan hormu'.nya di arah meriak'umkan bahav.a pe-mchonan tuan/nuan

imtiK "enja'anKap Kajian berajiik -

" Kestabilan Keluarga Dan Kenakaian Remaja Di Malaysia

toi;;h cil'jiuskan

2 luan/Pmn hendaklah berjumpa torus denga.i Gun, Bcsa' sekolah bertonaan

unlu\ reminta perse tujuan dan i-nembincangkan kalian tersebut seperti berikut >

" Seperti Lampiran A "

3. Dm aklamkan oahawa kdbenaran ini tiiben uerdasaikan sural keiulusan dari

pinak Kenentenan Pelajaran Malaysia. Bahagian Perancangan Dan Penyeiidikan
Dasar Pelajaran. ncmbor rujukan KP'1BPPDP)603/008 { ) bertankh 8 Februari 2005.

4 ii 'r i. in I t-i i.nwl- n yiiri n srfln n.isk.i i lus I k.ijan bp. Jabatrf.'i
Pelajaran Negen Sembilan (u p Unit Perhubungan Pendaftaran & Pendidikan

21-

1
 132

-2-

Sektan untuk makluman dan tindakan tuan/puan selanjutnya.

Terima kasih.

"BERKHIDMAT UNTUK NEGARA"

Saya yang memjrut pewAah,

Pengarah Pelajaran
&
( DATO' HAJLEQHANi Olf OHARirf")

Negefi Sembilan Darui Kbusus

S k. Pengetua sekdah-sekoiah berkenaan.

Nota: - Siia beri saiu saJinan surat kelulusan semasa membuat kajian di sekolah.

?ni/ka)iaR
 133

Lamoiran A

1. SMK Tunku Ampuan Durah, 70400 Seremban

2. SMK Dato' Haji Mohd Redza, 70400 Seremban

3. SMK Methodist (ACS), 70100 Seremban

4. SMK Sen Ampangan, 70400 Seremban

5. SMK Dato' Sheikh Ahmad, 70400 Seremban

6. SMK Bukit Kepayang, 70300 Seremban

7. SMK Pendeta Zaba, 70400 Seremban

 134

APPENDIX F. SURVEY INSTRUMENTS (ENGLISH/MALAY)

 135

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by 8e

student questionnaire
 136

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Identification Code Number

(Please leave it blank)

FAMILY PRACTICES AND BEHAVIOR

The aim of this questionnaire is to examine your opinion on the family practices that you experience at home and about your
behavior. The questionnaire has four parts. In part one, you are requested to provide basic background information about
yourself. In part two, you are requested to provide some information about your family time and routines, family assessment
and family beliefs/practices in religion. In the third part you are requested to provide information about your behavior. Please
answer all questions honestly and completely.

PART ONE: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Directions: Please specify your response by circling the appropriate choices given.

Q-l. Your age is Q-2. Your gender is Q-3. Your ethnicity

1. 14 years old 1. Female 1. Malay
2. 15 years old 2. Male 2. Chinese
3. 16 years old 3. India
4. Other, please specify.

Q-4. Your religion is

1. Islam
2. Buddha
3. Hindu
4. Christian
5. No religion
6. Other, please specify

Q-5. For living arrangements, who also stay in your house? Also please indicate the number of years they have lived with
you? (You can circle more than one)

Persons who live with you No. of years staying with you
1. Father
2. Mother
3. Siblings
4. Guardian
5. Stepfather
6. Stepmother
7. Grandmother/grandfather
8. Uncles/aunt
9. Maid
10. others, please specify (e.g., other
relative)

Q6. Your father's/male guardian's highest educational level is

1. Less than high school
2. Some high school
3. High school graduate
4. Some college
5. Bachelor degree
6. Graduate degree (Masters, Ph.D.)
 137

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Q-7. Your father's /male guardian's occupation is

Q-8. Total hours per day your father/male guardian usually spends at home.
1. less than 8 hours
2. 8-16 hours
3. more than 16 hours

Q-9. Your mother's/female guardian's highest educational level is

1. Less than high school
2. Some high school
3. High school graduate
4. Some college
5. Bachelor degree
6. Graduate degree (Masters, Ph.D.)

Q-10. Your mother's/ female guardian's occupation is

Q-ll. Total hours per day your mother/female guardian spends at home.
1. less than 8 hours
2. 8-16 hours
3. more than 16 hours

Q-12. During the past one year did you receive free text books provided by the school?
]. Yes
2. No

Q-13. In the past year, did you meet with the school counselor?
1. Yes
2. No
If you answer Yes, please answer question 14. If you answer No, go to questionlS.

Q-14. Reasons for meeting with the counselor. (You can answer more than one)
1. to discuss academic achievement
2. to discuss career opportunities
3. to discuss personal matter
4. to meet obligation after referral from teacher because of disciplinary matter ( such as skipping class, fighting, drug,
smoking)
5. other, please state

Q-15. Considering the time period from last school year to today, have you been sent to either the principal or student
affairs head, or a teacher, or counselor for misbehavior in the school such as skipping class, fighting?
1. Never
2. Once
3. Twice and more

Q-16. Considering the time period from last year, were any of your family members involved in an activity such as misuse
of drugs, runaway, theft?
1. Yes
2. No
 138

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

PART TWO: FAMILY PRACTICES

This section contains a number of statements about families. Please read each statement carefully, and decide how well it
describes your own family. You should answer according to how you see your family.

Section I: Family Time and Routines.

In this section we want to know your opinion about how you and your family usually spend daily time and routines.

True = 1 if you feel that the statement describes your family very accurately
Mostly True = 2 if you feel that the statement describes your family for the most part
Mostly False = 3 if you feel that the statement does not describe your family for the most part
False =4 if you feel that the statement does not describe your family at all

Directions:
Please circle onlv one choice for each of these items. ja
n
H M-

s o O m
H S S u.
EXAMPLE 1. My parent spends time with me everyday.
1 Q 3 4

Mostly True

Please circle onlv one choice for each of these items.

Mostly
False

False
True

1. My parents(s) have some time each day just for talking with me. 1 2 3 4

2. My parent has regular leisure with me after coming home from work. 1 2 3 4

3. My working parent supervises me some time almost every day. 1 2 3 4

4. My non-working parent and I do something together outside the home almost 1 2 3 4

everyday (e.g., shopping, walking, etc). (If no non-working parent, choose false)

5. My family has a quiet time each evening when everyone goes about their activities 1 2 3 4
quietly.

6. My family goes some place special together each week. 1 2 3 4

7. My family has a certain family time each week when they do things together at home. 1 2 3 4

8. My parent(s) read or tell stories to me almost every day. 1 2 3 4

 139

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Please circle only one choice for each of these items. H

>,

Most]
False

False
[True
o
s

L
9. I have some time each day for being alone. i 2 3 4

10. I spend time with friends daily.

11. My parents have a certain hobby or sport they do together regularly.

12. My parents have time with each other quite often.

13. My parents go out together one or more times a week.

14. My parents often spend time with me for private talks.

15. My parents have a special routine they do with me each night at bedtime.

16. I have to go to bed at the same time almost every night.

17. My family eats at about the same time each night.

18. My entire family eats one meal together daily.

19. At least one of my parents talks to his or her parents regularly.

20. My family has regular visits with the relatives.

21. I spend time with grandparents(s) quite often.

22. My family members talks with/writes to relatives usually once a week.

23. Members of my family check in or out with each other when someone leaves or comes
home.

24. My working parent(s) come home from work at the same time each day.

25. My family has certain things they almost always do to greet each other at the end of
the day.

26. My family members express caring and affection for each other daily.

27. My parent(s) have certain things they almost always do each time I misbehave.

28. My parents discuss either new or changing rules with me.

29. I have regular household chores.

 140

ISUIRB #1 05-199
Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by ge

Please circle only one choice for each of these items. 1

s 1 ?:
S Z
at

tti
H S V-
30. My mother does regular household chores. 1 2 3 4

31. My father does regular household chores. 1 2 3 4

Section II: Family Daily Life Management

In this section we want to know your opinion about how you see your family managing daily life.

Strongly Agree = 1 if you feel that

Agree = 2 if you feel that

Disagree = 3 if you feel that

Strongly disagree = 4 if you feel that

Example:
Please circle onlv one choice for each of these items.

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree
agree

Agree
In my family ..

1. Everyone knows why I am sad. i

(2) 3 4

Please circle onlv one choice for each of these items.

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree
In my family.,.
agree

Agree

I
1. Planning family activities is difficult because we misunderstood each other. 1 2 3 4

2. We resolve most everyday problems around the house. 1 2 3 4

3. When someone is upset the other knows why. 1 2 3 4

4. When you ask someone to do something, you have to check that they did it. 1 2 3 4

5. If someone is in trouble, the others become too involved. 1 2 3 4

6. In times of crisis we can turn to each other for support. 1 2 3 4

7. We don't know what to do when an emergency comes up. 1 2 3 4

8. We sometimes run out of things that we need. 1 2 3 4

9. We are reluctant to show our affection for each other. 1 2 3 4

10. We make sure members meet their family responsibilities. 1 2 3 4

11. We cannot talk to each about the sadness we feel. 1 2 3 4

 141

ISU IRB ttl 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by ge

Please circle only one choice for each of these items.

In my family to

I <
12. We usually act on our decisions regarding problems. 3 4

13. You only get the interest of others when something is important to them. 3 4

14. You can't tell how a person is feeling from what they are saying. 2 3 4

15. Family tasks aren't spread around enough. 2 3 4

16. Individuals are accepted for who they are. 2 3 4

17. You can easily get away with breaking the rules. 2 3 4

18. People come right out and say things instead of hinting at them. 2 3 4

19. Some of us just don't respond emotionally. 2 3 4

20. We know what to do in an emergency. 2 3 4

21. We avoid discussing our fear and concerns. 2 3 4

22. It is difficult to talk to each other about tender feelings. 2 3 4

23. We have trouble meeting our bills. 2 3 4

24. After our family tries to solve a problem, we usually discuss whether it worked or not. 2 3 4

25. We are too self-centered. 2 3 4

26. We can express feeling to each other. 2 3 4

27. We have no clear expectations about personal hygiene. 2 3 4

28. We do not show our love for each other. 2 3 4

29. We talk to people directly rather than through go-betweens. 2 3 4

30. Each of us has particular duties and responsibilities. 2 3 4

31. There are lots of bad feelings in the family. 2 3 4

32. We have rules about hitting people. 2 3 4

33. We get involved with each other only when something interests us. 2 3 4

34. There is little time to explore personal interests. 2 3 4

 142

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Please circle only one choice for each of these items.

II
In my family
QJ
<u to
V)
bO
< O
35. We often don't say what we mean. 2 3 4

36. We feel accepted for who we are. 2 3 4

37. We show interest in each other when we can get something out of it personally. 2 3 4

38. We resolve most emotional upsets that come up. 2 3 4

39. Tenderness takes second place to other things in our family. 2 3 4

40. My parent and I discuss who is to do households jobs. 2 3 4

41. Making decisions is a problem for our family. 2 3 4

42. Our family shows interest in each other only when they can get something out of it. 2 3 4

43. The family members are frank with each other. 2 3 4

44. We don't hold to any rules or standards. 2 3 4

45. If people are asked to do something, they need reminding. 2 3 4

46. We are able to make decisions about how to solve problems. 2 3 4

47. When I break the rules, I don't know what to expect. 2 3 4

48. Anything goes in our family. 2 3 4

49. We express tenderness. 2 3 4

50. We confront problems involving feelings. 2 3 4

51. We don't get along well together. 2 3 4

52. We don't talk to each other when we are angry. 2 3 4

53. We are generally dissatisfied with the family duties assigned to us. 2 3 4

54. Even though we mean well, we intrude too much into each other's lives. 2 3 4

55. There are rules about dangerous situations. 2 3

56. We confide in each other. 2 3

 143

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by 8e

Please circle onlv one choice for each of these items.

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree
In my family

agree

Agree
57. We cry openly. i 2 3 4

58. We don't have reasonable transportation. i 2 3 4

59. When we don't like what someone has done, we tell i 2 3 4

them.

60. We try to think of different ways to solve a problem. i 2 3 4

Section III: Religious Practices in family

In this section we want to know your opinion about how religion is practiced in your family.
Directions: Please circle only one choice for each of these items.

Q-l. My family believes religion is important in life.

1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. Disagree
4. Strongly Disagree

Q-2.1 believe religion is important in life.

1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3 Disagree
4. Strongly Disagree

Q-3. The number of times I pray in a day.

1. At least 5 times a day.
2. At least 4 times a day.
3. At least 3 times a day
4. At least 2 times a day
5. At least 1 time a day
6. less than once a day.

Q-4. Considering the time period from past year until today, I have attended religious services or activities held either at the
mosques, or the temples, or the churches in my area.
1. More than once a week.
2. At least once a week.
3. At least once a month.
4. At least once in two months.
5. At least once in 6 months.
6. At least once a year.
7. No attendance within the past year
 144

ISU IRB SI 05-199

Approved Date: May 31,2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

PART THREE: BEHAVIOR INVOLVEMENT SCALE

In Part III, we ask your opinion about your involvement in some activities.
Direction : Please circle only one choice from the following items. You may choose the scale given either never= 1, once or
twice=2, several times=3 or very often = 4 .

For the following please indicated how many times in the past you have participated in each
activity.
o

O
</)

a. bought or used cigarettes? 3 4

b. taken little things worth less than RM10 that did not belong to you? 3 4

c. bought or tried to buy beer, wine or liquor? 3 4

d. purposely damaged or destroyed pubic or private property that did not belong to you? 3 4

e. skipped school without a good excuse? 3 4

f. run away from home? 3 4

g. drunk beer, wine or liquor? 3 4

h. taken part in a physical fight? 3 4

i. taken things worth more RM10 that did not belong to you? 3 4

j. driven a car without the owner's permission? 3 4

k. used marijuana? 3 4

1. used cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, or any other dangerous drug (besides marijuana)? 3 4

m. hit someone with the idea of hurting them? 3 4

n. thrown objects ( such as rocks or bottles) at cars or people? 3 4

o. avoided paying for things such as movies or food? 3 4

p. cheated on a school test or exam? 3 4

q. painted or written graffiti on public property? 3 4

r. been cruel to an animal so as to injure it? 3 4

 145

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by Se

For the following please indicated how many times in the past you have participated in each
S
activity.
S .1 S
S
o
"s o
> s
e 1 K
2 O CD >
s. watched pornography either on the internet or the video? 1 2 3 4

t. involved in gambling? 1 2 3 4

u. carried weapon when went out from house? 1 2 3 4

v. trespassed onto people's property? 1 2 3 4

THANK YOU for answering this questionnaire and GOOD

LUCK in your future undertaking
 146

ISUIRB #1 05-199
Approved Date: May 31,2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by ge

SOALSELIDIK PELAJAR
 147

ISUIRB #1 05-199
Approved Date: May 31,2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by Se

No. Kod:
(Sila tinggalkan kosong)

AMALAN KEKELUARGAAN DAN TINGKAHLAKU

Tujuan soalselidik in ialah untuk mengetahui pandangan anda mengenai amalan kekeluargaan dan tentang tingkahlaku anda.
Soalseldik ini mempunyai empat bahagian. Bahagian satu mengenai maklumat diri anda. Bahagian dua mempunyai tiga
seksyen yang merangkumi maklumat mengenai peruntukan masa dan rutin keluarga, pengurusan harian keluarga dan amalan
keagamaan dalam keluarga. Bahagian akhir ialah maklumat mengenai tingkahlaku anda. Sila jawab semua soalan dengan
lengkap dan jujur.

BAHAGIAN SATU: MAKLUMAT DIRI

Arahan: Sila bulatkan yang berkenaan.

S-l. Umur anda S-2. Jantina anda S-3. Bangsa anda

1.14 tahun 1. Perempuan 1. Melayu
2.15 tahun 2. Lelaki 2. Cina
3.16 tahun 3. India
4. Lain-lain (sila nyatakan)
S-4. Agama anda
1. Islam
2. Buddha
3. Hindu
4. Kristian
5. Tiada agama
6. Iain-lain, sila nyatakan

S-5. Sila nyatakan individu yang tinggal serumah dengan anda dan nyatakan juga jumlah tahun mereka tinggal bersama
anda. (Anda boleh jawab lebih dari satu)

Jumlah tahun tinggal bersama anda

Individu tinggal bersama anda di rumah
1. Bapa
2. Ibu
3. Adik-beradik (yang ada di rumah sekarang)
4. Penjaga lelaki/penjaga perempuan
5. Ayah tiri
6. Ibu tiri
7. Nenek/datuk
8. Bapa saudara/ibu saudara
9. Pembantu rumah
10. Lain-lain, sila nyatakan (contoh: saudara mara)

S-6. Tahap pendidikan tertinggi bapa a tau penjaga lelaki.

1. setakat sekolah rendah
2. setakat sekolah menengah
3. setakat SPM
4. setakat STPM/Diploma
5. lulusan universiti- Bacelor
6. lulusan universiti- Master, Ph.D
 148

ISU 1KB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by ge

S-7. Pekerjaan bapa/penjaga lelaki

S-8. Jumlah jam dalam sehari bapa/penjaga lelaki berada di rumah.

1. kurang 8 jam
2. 8-16 jam
3. lebih dari 16 jam

S-9. Tahap pendidikan tertinggi ibu atau penjaga perempuan.

1. setakat sekolah rendah
2. setakat sekolah menengah
3. setakat SPM
4. setakat STPM/Diploma
5. lulusan universiti- Bacelor
6. lulusan universiti- Master, Ph.D

S-10. Pekerjaan ibu/penjaga perempuan

S-ll. Jumlah jam dalam sehari ibu/penjaga prempuan berada di rumah.

1. kurang 8 jam
2. 8-16 jam
3. lebih dari 16 jam

S-12. Dalam tempoh satu tahun yang lepas sehingga ke hari ini pernahkah anda menerima bantuan buku teks sekolah?
1. Ya
2. Tidak

S-13. Dalam tempoh satu tahun yang lepas sehingga ke hari ini, pernahkah anda berjumpa dengan kaunselor sekolah?
1. Ya
2. Tidak

Sekiranya anda jawab Ya, sila jawab soalan 14. Sekiranya anda jawab Tidak terns ke soalan 15.

S-14. Nyatakan sebab anda berjumpa dengan kaunselor sekolah (Anda boleh jawab lebih dari satu )
1. berbincang berkaitan akademik.
2. berbincang berkaitan peluang kerjaya.
3. berbincang hal peribadi.
4. dirujuk oleh guru/pihak sekolah kerana salahlaku (contoh ponteng, merokok, dadah, bergaduh).
5. lain-lain, sila nyatakan

S-15. Dalam tempoh satu tahun yang lepas sehingga ke hari ini, nyatakan kekerapan anda berjumpa samada dengan
pengetua, atau guru hal ehwal murid (HEM), atau guru atau kauselor sekolah kerana salahlaku seperti bergaduh, merokok,
ponteng sekolah.
1. tidak pernah
2. sekali
3. dua kali atau lebih
 149

ISUIRB #1 05-199
Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by 8e

S-16. Dalam tempoh satu tahun yang lepas sehingga ke hari ini, adakah ahli keluarga anda terlibat dalam aktiviti seperti
salah guna dadah, lari dari rumah, mencuri?
1. Ya
2. Tidak

BAHAGIAN DUA: AMALAN KEKELUARGAAN

Seksyen ini mengandunig beberapa kenyataan mengenai keluarga. Sila baca setiap kenyataan dengan teliti dan nilaikan
bagaimana ia menerangkan keluarga anda sendiri. Anda patut menjawab sebagiamana anda melihat amalan keluarga anda.
Bahagian 2 mempunyai tiga seksyen. Seksyen 1- Masa dan Rutin Keluarga. Seksyen 2 - Pengurusan Keluarga dan Seksyen 3-
Amalan keagamaan dalam keluarga.

Seksyen 1: Masa dan Rutin Keluarga

Seksyen ini meminta pandangan anda mengenai penggunaan masa dan rutin keluarga. Berikut adalah keterangan mengenai
skala.

Benar = 1 Sekiranya kenyataan ini keseluruhannya menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Hampir benar = 2 Sekiranya kenyataan ini kebanyakannya menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Kurang benar = 3 Sekiranya kenyataan ini kebanyakannya tidak menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Tidak benar = 4 Sekiranya kenyataan ini langsung tidak menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaja. g

JD
E-
E

Contoh:
1. Ibubapa saya suka berbual dengan anak-anak setiap hari.

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaja.

! !
1 r

CO
'EL
Benar

1
H
1. Ibubapa saya menguntukkan sebahagian masa setiap hari untuk berbual-bual dengan saya. 1 2 3 4

2. Ibubapa saya kebiasaannya menguntukkan masa untuk bersantai dengan saya selepas pulang 1 2 3 4
dari kerja.

3. Ibubapa saya yang bekerja menguntukkan sebahagian masa menyelia saya hampir setiap hari. 1 2 3 4

4. Ibubapa saya yang tidak bekerja dan kami melakukan aktiviti bersama di luar rumah hampir 1 2 3 4
setiap hari. (contoh: membeli belah, berjalan-jalan). ( Jika anda mempunyai ibubapa yang
bekeria sila pilih tidak benar).

5. Keluarga saya mempunyai waktu senyap setiap petang apabila setiap daripada kami 1 2 3 4
melakukan aktiviti secara sendiri-sendiri.
 150

ISU IRB n 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by ge

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaia. s

1
S
B 1<v
pa

I l

Benar
a
o
H
6. Keluarga saya pergi ke sesuatu tempat yang istimewa bersama-sama setiap minggu. 1 2 3 4

7. Keluarga saya menguntukkan masa yang tertentu melakukan aktiviti tertentu bersama-sama 1 2 3 4
di rumah.

8. Ibubapa saya membaca atau bercerita dengan saya hampir setiap hari. 1 2 3 4

9. Saya mempunyai masa untuk bersendirian setiap hari. 1 2 3 4

10. Saya mempunyai masa bergaul dengan rakan-rakan setiap hari. 1 2 3 4

11. Ibubapa saya selalu melakukan hobi atau sukan tertentu bersamas-sama. 1 2 3 4

12. Ibubapa saya kerap menghabiskan masa bersama-sama. 1 2 3 4

13. Ibubapa saya keluar bersama-sama sekali atau lebih dalam seminggu. 1 2 3 4

14. Ibubapa saya selalu menguntukkan masa untuk berbual-bual dengan saya mengenai hal 1 2 3 4
peribadi saya.

15. Ibubapa saya mempunyai rutin yang tertentu mereka lakukan kepada saya setiap malam 1 2 3 4
sebelum tidur.

16. Saya harus tidur pada waktu yang sama, hampir setiap malam. 1 2 3 4

17. Keluarga saya makan malam pada waktu yang sama, hampir setiap kali. 1 2 3 4

18. Seluruh anggota keluarga saya makan santapan bersama-sama setiap hari. 1 2 3 4

19. Samada bapa atau ibu saya atau kedua-duanya kerap bercakap dengan ibubapa (datuk/nenek) 1 2 3 4
mereka.

20. Keluarga saya selalu menziarahi saudara mara. 1 2 3 4

21. Saya kerap meluangkan masa dengan datuk dan nenek. 1 2 3 4

22. Keluarga saya selalu bercakap atau menulis (contoh: surat, emel, telefon) kepada saudara 1 2 3 4
mara seminggu sekali.

23. Keluarga saya akan memberitahu ahli keluarga yang lain bila salah seorang meninggalkan 1 2 3 4
rumah atau pulang ke rumah.

24. Ibubapa saya yang bekerja pulang dari kerja pada waktu yang sama setiap hari. 1 2 3 4
 151

ISU 1KB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaja.

I 1 %
S
bo

Benar
s
13
25. Keluarga saya selalu melakukan perkara tertentu apabila menyambut ahli kelaurga yang 1
J I2 3
F
4
pulang dari aktiviti harian

26. Keluarga saya menunjukkan sifat kasih sayang dan sifat tolong-menolong antara satu sama 1 2 3 4
lain setiap hari.

27. Ibubapa saya selalu melakukan sesuatu perkara tertentu kepada saya apabila saya melakukan 1 2 3 4
salahlaku.

28. Ibubapa saya berbincang dengan saya mengenai mengenakan peraturan baru atau mengubah 1 2 3 4
peraturan yang sedia ada.

29. Saya biasanya membantu melakukan kerja rumah. 1 2 3 4

30. Ibu saya biasaya membantu melakukan kerja rumah. 1 2 3 4

31. Ayah saya biasanya membantu melakukan kerja rumah. 1 2 3 4

Seksyen II: Pengurusan Harian Keluarga

Seksyen ini meminta pandangan anda mengenai bagaimana keluarga anda mengurus kehidupan seharian. Berikut adalah
keterangan mengenai skala.

Sangat bersetuju = 1 Sekiranya kenyataan in keseluruhannya menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Bersetuju = 2 Sekiranya kenyataan ini kebanyakkannya menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Tidak bersetuju = 3 Sekiranya kenyataan ini kebanyakkannya tidak menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Sungguh tidak bersetuju = 4 Sekiranya kenyataan ini langsung tidak menggambarkan keluarga anda.

CONTOH:

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaja. 3

S B
's
Dalam keluarga saya <u
8<u S
s 5 -D
"s" Si
> tu s
%
IZ>
%
pa
13
fer CD
1. Kami tidak bercakap hal-hal yang memalukan. 1 2 (2) 4
 152

ISU 1KB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaia.

3
3
Dalam keluarga saya
1 B !
S 1 1

Bersetuju
-
a a
n
1 a
in H ai
1. Adalah sukar untuk merancang aktiviti keluarga kerana antara kami saling tidak memahami. 1 2 3 4

2. Kami menyelesaikan kebanyakan masalah di dalam rumah. 1 2 3 4

3. Apabila seorang anggota keluarga berasa sedih, ahli-ahli yang lain mengetahui puncanya. 1 2 3 4

4. Apabila anda meminta seseorang ahli keluarga melakukan sesuatu, anda perlu memastikan 1 2 3 4
yang dia benar-benar melakukannya.

5. Sekiranya seorang anggota keluarga berada dalam kesusahan, ahli keluarga yang lain akan 1 2 3 4
sama-sama merasakannya.

6. Kami boleh meminta sokongan dari sesama anggota keluarga di dalam waktu kami 1 2 3 4
menghadapi krisis.

7. Kami tidak tahu apa yang sepatutnya kami lakukan apabila kecemasan berlaku. 1 2 3 4

8. Kadang-kadang kami kehabisan barang-barang keperluan yang kami perlukan. 1 2 3 4

9. Kami enggan menunjukkan perasaan kami terhadap sesama sendiri. 1 2 3 4

10. Kami pastikan ahli-ahli keluarga memenuhi tanggungjawab mereka. 1 2 3 4

11. Kami tidak boleh berbincang sesama sendiri mengenai kesedihan yang kami rasai. 1 2 3 4

12. Dalam menghadapi sesuatu masalah, kami selalunya bertindak mengikut keputusan yang 1 2 3 4
kami buat.

13. Saya hanya dapat menarik perhatian ahli keluarga seandainya sesuatu perkara itu penting 1 2 3 4
bagi mereka.

14. Saya tidak dapat menerangkan mengenai perasaan seseorang berdasarkan apa yang mereka 1 2 3 4
katakan semata-mata.

15. Tugas-tugas keluarga tidak dikongsi bersama. 1 2 3 4

16. Setiap ahli keluarga diterima seadanya. 1 2 3 4

17. Saya boleh melepaskan diri dengan mudah apabila saya melanggar sesuatu peraturan. 1 2 3 4
 153

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

3 3
Arahan: Sila bulatkan iawapan pada satu pilihan sahaja. 3
J J
Dalam keluarga saya
S 1
1 3
Q
>

Bersetuj
I
g

o
a
S3

Ui H en
18. Ahli keluarga berterus terang dan tidak menyatakan sesuatu secara sindiran. 1 2 3 4

19. Sesetengah ahli keluarga tidak mempamerkan emosi mereka terhadap sesuatu yang berlaku 1 2 3 4
dalam keluarga.

20. Kami tahu apa yang harus kami lakukan ketika kecemasan. 1 2 3 4

21. Kami mengelak dari berbincang mengenai kebimbangan dan ketakutan kami. 1 2 3 4

22. Adalah susah untuk bercakap sesama sendiri mengenai perasaan kami. 1 2 3 4

23. Kami menghadapi kesukaran untuk meyelesaikan bil-bil kami. 1 2 3 4

24. Pada kebiasaanya, selepas kami cuba menyelesaikan sesuatu masalah, kami akan 1 2 3 4
membincangkan sama ada jalan penyelesaian itu berkesan atau tidak.

25. Kami mementingkan diri sendiri. 1 2 3 4

26. Kami boleh meluahkan perasaan kami sesama sendiri. 1 2 3 4

27. Keluarga saya tidak mempunyai garis panduan tertentu mengenai bagaimana menjaga 1 2 3 4
kebersihan diri dan bilik air.

28. Kami tidak menunjukkan rasa kasih sayang kami terhadap sesama sendiri. 1 2 3 4

29. Kami bercakap dengan seseorang secara terus terang dan tidak menggunakan perantara. 1 2 3 4

30. Setiap ahli keluarga mempunyai tugas dan tanggungjawab tertentu. 1 2 3 4

31. Terlalu banyak perasaan ngatif di dalam keluarga kami. 1 2 3 4

32. Kami mempunyai peraturan tentang memukul orang lain. 1 2 3 4

33. Kami melibatkan diri sesama ahli keluarga hanya apabila sesuatu perkara itu menarik minat 1 2 3 4
kami.

34. Masa untuk meneroka minat sendiri sangat terhad. 1 2 3 4

35. Selalunya apa yang kami nyatakan bukan apa yang kami maksudkan. 1 2 3 4

36. Kami rasa kami diterima seadanya. 1 2 3 4

 154

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31,2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaja. 3

'S 'ET

S 1
"qj
Dalam keluarga saya
1 3

Bersetuj
Xi
a
u
T3
!
tn H i/i
37. Kami mengambil berat sesama sendiri hanya apabila kami boleh dapat sesuatu untuk 1 2 3 4
kepentingan diri sendiri.

38. Kami menyelesaikan hampir semua masalah yang melibatkan emosi yang mendukacitakan 1 2 3 4
kami.

39. Lemah lembut mendapat tempat kedua apabila dibandingkan dengan lain-lain perkara di 1 2 3 4
dalam keluarga kami.

40. Kami membincangkan siapa yang perlu melakukan sesuatu tugas rumah. 1 2 3 4

41. Membuat keputusan adalah sesuatu yang sukar di dalam keluarga kami. 1 2 3 4

42. Keluarga kami menunjukkan minat terhadap ahli keluarga yang lain hanya apabila kami boleh 1 2 3 4
mendapat sesuatu keuntungan daripada perkara itu.

43. Kami jujur terhadap sesama sendiri. 1 2 3 4

44. Kami tidak berpegang kepada mana-mana peraturan dan garis panduan. 1 2 3 4

45. Sekiranya seseorang diminta melakukan sesuatu, dia perlu diperingatkan mengenai perkara 1 2 3 4
itu.

46. Kami berupaya membuat keputusan apabila kami mahu menyelesaikan masalah. 1 2 3 4

47. Kami tidak dapat menjangkakan apa yang akan berlaku sekiranya sesuatu peraturan 1 2 3 4
dilanggar.

48. Semua perkara dibenarkan berlaku dalam keluarga kami tanpa halangan. 1 2 3 4

49. Kami mempamerkan sikap lemah lembut. 1 2 3 4

50. Kami cuba menangani masalah yang melibatkan perasaan. 1 2 3 4

51. Kami tidak sehaluan dengan sesama sendiri. 1 2 3 4

52. Kami tidak bercakap sesama sendiri apabila kami marah. 1 2 3 4

53. Secara umumnya, kami berasa tidak puas hati dengan tanggungjawab yang diberi kepada 1 2 3 4
kami.

54. Kami terlalu banyak campurtangan dalam urusan sesama sendiri, walaupun dengan maksud 1 2 3 4
yang baik.
 155

ISUIRB #1 05-199
Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Sangat bersetuju

Tidak bersetuju
Arahan: Sila bulatkan iawapan pada satu pilihan sahaja.

Bersetuju

bersetuju
S. tidak
Dalam keluarga saya

55. Kami saling percaya mempercayai. 1 2 3 4

56. Kami menangis secara terbuka. 1 2 3 4

57. Kami tidak memiliki kenderaan yang sesuai untuk keluarga kami. 1 2 3 4

58. Apabila seseorang ahli keluarga melakukan sesuatu yang kami tidak suka, kami akan 1 2 3 4
memberitahu ahli keluarga tersebut.

59. Kami cuba memikirkan pelbagai cara dalam menyelesaikan sesuatu masalah. 1 2 3 4

60. Di dalam keluarga kami, terdapat peraturan mengenai bagaimana perlu bertindak di dalam 1 2 3 4
situasi yang bahaya.

Sekyen III: Amalan Beragama Dalam Keluarga

Bahagian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pendapat anda mengenai amalan beragama dalam keluarga anda.
Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaia.

S-l. Keluarga saya percaya agama penting dalam kehidupan seharian.

1. sangat bersetuju
2. bersetuju
3. tidak bersetuju
4. sungguh tidak bersetuju

5-2. Saya percaya agama penting dalam kehidupan seharian.

1. sangat bersetuju
2. bersetuju
3. tidak bersetuju
4. sungguh tidak bersetuju

5-3. Kekerapan saya sembahyang dalam sehari ialah....

1. sekurang-kurangnya 5 kali dalam sehari
2. sekurang-kurangnya 4 kali dalam sehari
3. sekurang-kurangnya 3 kali dalam sehari
4. sekurang-kurangnya 2 kali dalam sehari
5. sekurang-kurangnya 1 kali dalam sehari
6. kurang dari satu kali dalam sehari
 156

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

S-4. Dalam tempoh satu tahun lepas sehingga ke hari ini, saya menghadiri aktiviti/acara
keagamaan samada di masjid, atau di kuil, atau di gereja di kawasan saya.
1. lebih dari sekali dalam seminggu
2. sekurang-kurangnya sekali dalam seminggu
3. sekurang-kurangnya sekali dalam sebulan
4. sekurang-kurangnya sekali dalam dua bulan
5. sekurang-kurangnya sekali dalam 6 bulan
6. sekurang-kurangnya sekali dalam setahun
7. tidak menghadiri dalam tempoh setahun yang lepas

BAHAGIAN TIGA: SKALA TINGKAHLAKU

Di bahagian ini, anda ditanya tentang pengalaman anda dengan aktiviti-aktiviti tertentu.
Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan pada satu pilihan sahaja di bahagian jawapan di sebelah kanan samada Tidak pemah=l,
Sekali sekala=2, Beberapa kali=3, Kerap=4.

Bagi perkara berikut, nyatakan kekerapan pada masa lepas

anda telah
E
d,
10)
"5
Q S S&
*H in P3
a. membeli atau menghisap rokok. 1 2 3 4

b. mengambil barang-barang kecil bemilai kurang dari RM 10.00 bukan milik sendiri. 1 2 3 4

c. membeli atau cuba membeli minuman keras (arak). 1 2 3 4

d. sengaja merosakkan harta awam atau milik orang lain. 1 2 3 4

e. ponteng sekolah tanpa alasan yang munasabah. 1 2 3 4

f. lari dari rumah. 1 2 3 4

g. minum minuman keras (arak). 1 2 3 4

h. terlibat dalam pergaduhan fizikal. 1 2 3 4

i. mengambil barang-barang yang mempunyai nilai lebih dari RM10 bukan milik sendiri. 1 2 3 4

j. memandu kereta tanpa kebenaran pemilik kereta. 1 2 3 4

k. mengambil marijuana. 1 2 3 4

1. mengambil kokain, heroin, methamphetamine atau lain-lain dadah yang merbahaya. 1 2 3 4

m. memukul seseorang dengan niat untuk mencederakan mereka. 1 2 3 4

 157

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Bagi perkara berikut, nyatakan kekerapan pada masa lepas

anda telah
1 Ii 'J
01
ft,

1S &

3rt
3m
1
CO
J
n. membaling objek (contoh batu atau botol) pada kereta atau orang lain. 1 2 3 4

o. mengelakkan dari membayar barang-barang yang di beli seperti makanan atau 1 2 3 4

menonton wayang.

p. menipu di dalam ujian/ peperiksaan di sekolah. 1 2 3 4

q. mengecat atau menulis sesuatu yang tidak baik pada harta awam. 1 2 3 4

r. melakukan kekejaman kepada bina tang dengan niat untuk mencederakannya. 1 2 3 4

s. menonton filem-filem lucah samada di internet atau video atau DVD/CD. 1 2 3 4

t. terlibat dalam perjudian. 1 2 3 4

u. membawa senjata apabila keluar dari rumah. 1 2 3 4

v. masuk kawasan milik orang lain tanpa kebenaran. 1 2 3 4

TERIMA KASIH kerana sudi menjawab soalselidik ini dan

SELAMAT MAJU JAYA dalam pelajaran anda.
 158

APPENDIX G. COVER LETTERS FOR STUDENTS (ENGLISH/MALAY)

 159

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Date

Dear student,

Congratulations! You have been selected to participate in this study. We are interested in knowing
your opinion on your family practices in time allocation and routines, communication, belief,
cohesion and management and how these practices affect youth behavior. We are requesting your
participation in this survey to help us better understand effectiveness of family functioning. This
information will ultimately help inform counselors and teachers in their work with youth and family.

This study is conducted as part of my doctoral requirement. I am a Malaysian student majoring in

Family and Consumer Sciences Education, in the College of Human Sciences at Iowa State
University, USA.

I am inviting your participation, which will involve completing a survey that includes questions
about various kinds of family practices and behaviors. This survey will take about 40 minutes to
complete. Your participation is voluntary. You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time.
The survey is completely anonymous. You will not write your name on the survey. There will be no
risk or discomfort associated with the participation in this study. The information you provide here
will be strictly confidential and used for this research only.

Thank you very much for working with us. Without you, this study would not be possible. Your time
and effort in completing the questionnaire are appreciated. Best wishes for your future undertaking
and your family.

If you have any concerns feel free to call me at home (515-572-4529), office (515-294-7474), or email me
faii7.iainaiastate.edu. You may also contact Dr. Cheryl Hausafus at hausffiastate.edu. Tel: 800-262-
0015 ext 4-5307.

Sincerely,

Dr. Cheryl Hausafus Fauziah Hanim Jalal

Associate Professor and Principal Investigator, Research Assistant
Department of AESHM, Department of AESHMZ
College of Human Sciences College of Human Sciences
Iowa State University Iowa State University
 160

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Tarikh:

Kepada pelajar,

Tahniah! Anda telah dipilih untuk menyertai kajian ini. Kami berminat untuk mengetahui
pandangan anda mengenai amalan-amalan keluarga dalam penggunaan masa dan rutin,
komunikasi, kepercayaan, kerapatan, dan pengurusan dan bagaimana amalan-amalan ini
mempengaruhi tingkahlaku remaja. Maklumat ini dapat membantu para pendidik dan kaunselor
memahami dan menggunakan pendekatan yang sesuai untuk membantu para remaja dan keluarga
pada masa akan datang.

Kajian ini adalah sebahagian dari keperluan ijazah kedoktoran saya. Saya adalah pelajar Malaysia di
dalam jurusan Pendidikan Kekeluargaan dan Sains Pengguna, Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan di Iowa
State University, USA.

Anda akan diminta untuk menjawab soalselidik yang disediakan oleh pengkaji. Soalselidik ini
mengandungi soalan-soalan yang meliputi amalan-amalan kekeluargaan dan tingkahlaku dan
mengambil masa selama 40 minit. Penglibatan anda adalah sukarela. Anda bebas untuk menarik diri
pada bila-bila masa. Tinjauan ini tidak meminta sebarang pengenalan diri anda. Anda tidak diminta
menulis nama. Tidak ada sebarang pengenalan diri tentang anda ditanya dalam kajian ini. Segala
maklumat yang diberikan dalam kajian ini akan dirahsiakan dan dihapuskan setelah analisis ini
selesai.

Terima kasih kerana memberi kerjasama dengan kami. Tanpa anda, kajian ini tidak akan berjaya.
Kami hargai masa dan usaha anda untuk menyempurnakan soalselidik ini. Semoga anda dan
keluarga mempunyai masa depan yang cemerlang.

Sekiranya anda ingin keterangan lanjut sila hubungi saya di rumah (515-572-4529), atau emel
fauziahi'iastate.edu. Anda juga boleh hubungi Dr. Cheryl Hausafus h a u s@'i as tate.ed u. Tel: 800-262-
0015 samb.4-5307.

Yang benar,

Dr. Cheryl Hausafus Fauziah Hanim Jalal

Prof. Madya dan Penyelidik Utama Pembantu Penyelidik
Program Pengajian Pakaian, Pembelajaran Program Pengajian Pakaian, Pembelajaran
Pendidikan dan Pendidikan dan
Pengurusan Perkhidmatan Pengurusan Perkhidmatan
Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan
Iowa State University Iowa State University
 161

APPENDIX H. COVER LETTERS FOR PARENTS (ENGLISH/MALAY)

 162

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Date

Dear parent,
I am a Malaysian student currently pursuing my doctoral degree in Family and Consumer Sciences
Education at College of Human Sciences, Iowa State University, USA. I am conducting a study to
examine the opinion of adolescents on family practices in time allocation and routines,
communication, belief, cohesion, and management, and how these practices affect youth behavior.

Your child has been chosen to participate in this survey. This survey will involve completing
questionnaires about various kinds of family practices and adolescent behaviors. The survey will
take about 40 minutes to complete. There is no risk or discomfort associated with the participation
in this study. Your child's participation is voluntary. He /she is free to withdraw from the study at
any time. The survey is completely anonymous. He/she will not provide his/her name on the survey.
The information provided will be strictly confidential and used for this research only. All surveys
will be destroyed after the analyses are completed.

I hope you will be willing to allow your child to participate in this survey. Thank you for your
cooperation and time. Without your permission, this study would not be possible. Have a wonderful
family!

If you have any concern feel free to call me at home ( 515-572-4529), office (515-294-7474), or email
me fauziahc'iasta te.edu. You may also contact Dr. Cheryl Hausafus at haus@iastate.edu. Tel: 800-262-
0015 ext 4-5307.

Please fill out the form below and return it to the teacher by (date) .

Sincerely,
Dr. Cheryl Hausafus Fauziah Hanim Jalal
Associate Professor and Principal Investigator, Research Assistant
Department of AESHM, Department of AESHM,
College of Human Sciences College of Human Sciences
Iowa State University Iowa State University

Survey on Family Practices.

Please check (X) your decision in the appropriate blank.

I grant permission for my child to participate in this survey.
I do not grant permission for my child to participate in this survey.
Parent's Signature Date:_
Child's Signature _ _ Date:
 163

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

Tarikh
Kepada ibubapa/penjaga,

Saya adalah pelajar ijazah kedoktoran Pendidikan Kekeluargaan dan Sains Pengguna di Fakulti Sains
Kemanusiaan, Iowa State Universiti, USA. Kajian ini adalah sebahagian dari keperluan ijazah
kedoktoran saya. Kajian ini akan mengkaji pandangan para remaja terhadap amalan-amalan
keluarga dari segi penggunaan masa dan rutin, komunikasi, kepercayaan, kerapatan dan pengurusan
dan bagimana amalan-amalan ini mempengaruhi tingkahlaku remaja. Maklumat ini dapat
membantu para pendidik dan kaunselor menggunakan cara yang lebih berkesan untuk memahami
dan pendekatan yang sesuai untuk membantu para remaja dan keluarga pada masa akan datang.

Anak tuan/puan telah terpilih untuk menyertai tinjauan ini. Tinjauan ini memerlukan anak
tuan/puan menjawab soalselidik mengenai pelbagai bentuk amalan keluarga dan tingkahlaku
remaja. Tinjauan ini hanya mengambil masa selama 40 minit untuk dilengkapkan. Tidak ada
sebarang risiko atau rasa tidak selesa akan timbul kepada anak tuan/puan. Penglibatan anak
tuan/puan adalah sukarela. Anak tuan/puan bebas menarik diri pada bila-bila masa. Tidak ada
sebarang pengenalan diri anak tuan/puan ditanya dalam kajian ini. Segala maklumat yang diberikan
dalam kajian ini akan dirahsiakan dan dihapuskan setelah analisis dari kajian ini selesai.

Saya berharap tuan/puan dapat memberi kebenaran untuk anak tuan/puan terlibat dalam kajian ini.
Terima kasih kerana memberi kerjasama. Tanpa kebenaran tuan/puan, kajian ini tidak akan berjaya.
Semoga tuan/puan mempunyai keluarga yang bahagia!

Sekiranya tuan/puan mempunyai sebarang pertanyaan sila hubungi saya di rumah (515-572-4529,
atau emel fauziahgHastate.edu, atau hubungi Dr. Cheryl Hausafus di haus@iastate.edu. Tel: 800-262-
0015 sambungan 4-5307.
Sila isikan borang di bawah dan pulangkan kepada guru/kaunselor sebelum tarikh)

Yang benar,
Dr. Cheryl Hausafus Fauziah Hanim Jalal
Prof. Madya dan Penyelidik Utama, Pembantu Penyelidik
Program Pengajian Pakaian, Pembelajaran Pendidikan Program Pengajian Pakaian,
dan Pengurusan Perkhidmatan Pembelajaran Pendidikan dan
Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan Pengurusan Perkhidmatan
Iowa State University Fakulti Sains Kemanusiaan
Iowa State University

Kajian mengenai Amalan Keluarga.

Sila pangkah (X) keputusan anda di kotak yang berkenaan.
Saya memberi kebenaran kepada anak saya untuk melibatkan diri di dalam kajian ini.
Saya tidak memberi kebenaran kepada anak saya untuk melibatkan diri di dalam kajian ini.
Tandatangan ibubapa _Tarikh
Tandatangan anak Tarikh
 164

APPENDIX I. INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (ENGLISH/MALAY)

 165

ISUIRB #1 05-199
Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT

TITLE: Measuring Family Functioning among Adolescence Behavior in Malaysia.

INVESTIGATORS: Fauziah Hanim Jalal, Dr. Cheryl O. Hausafus

This is a research study. Please take your time in deciding if you would like to participate.

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to investigate adolescent perception of family functioning.
The first objective will be to investigate the relationship between family functioning patterns and the
level of behavior activities among the adolescents. The second objective will be to examine whether
there exist differences in adolescent behavior activities grouped by gender, ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status.

BENEFIT. As an adolescent you are invited to participate in this study. We ask you to indicate your
opinion on your family practices in time allocation and routines, communication, belief, cohesion and
management and how these practices affect youth behavior. Results of this study will help us better
understand effectiveness of family functioning. This study has no direct benefit to the subject but will
benefit the individuals and society in general.

TIME/PROCEDURE. The survey will take approximately 30-40 minutes to respond. You may skip
any question that you do not wish to answer or that makes you feel uncomfortable.

RISK. There are no foreseeable risks from participating in this study.

COSTS AND COMPENSATION. You will not have any costs from participating in this study. You
will not be compensated for participating in this study. However, after receipt of the completed
survey, as a token of appreciation, you will receive a small note book, pencil and eraser.

PARTICIPANT RIGHTS. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may
refuse to participate or leave the study at any time. If you decide to not participate in the study or
leave the study early, it will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise
entitled.

CONFIDENTIALITY. To ensure confidentiality, no personal information will be asked. Subjects will

be assigned a unique code that will be used on forms instead of your name. Only the researchers will
have access to the completed surveys and data files. The surveys will be kept in locked filed cabinets
and computer data files will be password protected. If the results are published, your identity will
remain absolutely confidential.
 166

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS. You are encouraged to ask questions at any time. For further
information about the study contact Cheryl O. Hausafus, Associate Professor, (515) 294-5307,
haus@iastate.edu or Fauziah Hanim Jalal, (515) 572-4529, fauziah@iastate.edu at any time. If you
have any questions about the rights of research subjects or research-related injury, please contact
Ginny Austin Eason, IRB Administrator, (515) 294-4566, austingr@iastate.edu, or Diane Ament,
Research Compliance Officer (515) 294-3115, dament@iastate.edu.
Returning the survey indicates that you voluntarily agree to participate in this study, that the study
has been explained to you, that you have been given the time to read the document and that your
questions have been satisfactorily answered.

SUBJECT SIGNATURE

Your signature indicates that you voluntarily agree to participate in this study, that the study
has been explained to you, that you have been given the time to read the document and that
your questions have been satisfactorily answered. You will receive a copy of the signed and dated
written informed consent prior to your participation in the study.

Subject's Name (printed)

(Subject's Signature) (Date)

(Signature of Parent/Guardian or (Date)

Legally Authorized Representative)

INVESTIGATOR STATEMENT

I certify that the participant has been given adequate time to read and learn about the study. It
is my opinion that the participant understands the purpose, risks, benefits and the procedures that
will be followed in this study and has voluntarily agreed to participate.

(Signature of Person Obtaining (Date)

Informed Consent)
 167

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

DOKUMEN MAKLUMAN KEBENARAN

TATUK : Kestabilan Keluarga dan Tingkahlaku Remaja di Malaysia.

PENYELIDIK : Fauziah Hanim Jalal, Dr. Cheryl O. Hausafus

Ini adalah satu kajiart penyelidikan. Sila luangkan masa untuk membuat keputusan samada untuk
melibatkan diri dalam kajian ini atau tidak.

TUTUAN. Tujuan kajian ini ialah untuk mengkaji hubungan di antara kestabilan keluarga dan
aktiviti remaja. Objektif pertama ialah untuk mengenalpasti corak kestabilan keluarga dan
hubungannya dengan tinkahlaku remaja. Objektif kedua ialah untuk menyelidiki samada terdapat
perbezaan aktiviti remaja mengikut jantina, bangsa, dan status sosioekonomi.

MANAFAAT. Sebagai remaja anda dijemput untuk menyertai kajian ini. Kami ingin mengetahui
pandangan anda mengenai amalan-amalan keluarga dalam penggunaan masa dan rutin,
komunikasi, kepercayaan, kerapatan, dan pengurusan dan bagaimana amalan-amalan ini
mempengaruhi tingkahlaku remaja. Maklumat ini dapat membantu para pendidik dan kaunselor
memahami keberkesanan kestabilan keluarga. Kajian ini tidak memberi manafaat kepada pelajar
yang terlibat dalam kajian ini tetapi iaanya akan berfaedah kepada individu and masyarakat amnya.

MASA/ PROSEDUR. Kajian ini mengambil masa selama 30-40 minit. Anda boleh tinggalkan mana-
mana soalan yang anda rasa tidak selesa atau tidak mahu jawab.

RISIKO. Tidak ada sebarang risiko dialami sekiranya anda terlibat dalam kajian ini.

KOS DAN BAYARAN. Anda tidak dikenakan sebarang kos untuk menyertai kajian ini. Anda juga
tidak akan dibayar dengan penglibatan ini.
Namun, setelah selesai menyempurnakan kajian ini, sebagai penghargaan, anda akan diberi
sebuah buku nota kecil, pensel dan pemadam.

HAK PESERTA. Penglibatan anda dalam kajian ini adalah sukarela dan an da boleh menolak untuk
terlibat atau meninggalkan kajian ini pada bila-bila masa. Sekiranya anda tidak mahu terlibat atau
hendak meninggalkan kajian ini lebih awal, tidak ada sebarang dendaan atau kerugian manafaat
yang anda layak perolehi.

KERAHSIAAN. Untuk memastikan kerahsiaan, tidak ada maklumat peribadi akan ditanya. Subjek
akan di kenali dengan kod dan bukan nama sendiri. Hanya penyelidik sahaja akan mempunyai
kemudahan ke soalselidik dan fail data. Semua soalselidik akan di simpan dan dikunci dalam
kabinet. Fail data dalam komputer dilindungi dengan "kata laluan". Sekiranya kajian ini
diterbitkan, identiti anda adalah dirahsiakan.
 168

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

SOALAN DAN MASALAH Anda digalakkan menyoal pada bila-bila masa. Untuk maklumat lanjut
mengenai kajian ini sila berhubung terus dengan Cheryl O. Hausafus, Professor Madya, (515) 294-
5307, haus@iastate.edu or Fauziah Hanim Jalal, (515) 572-4529, fauziah@iastate.edu. Sekiranya anda
ingin mengetahui mengenai hak peserta kajian atau berhubung dengan kecederaan dalam kajian sila
hubungi Ginny Austin Fason, Pengawai Tadbir IRB, (515) 294-4566, austingr@iastate.edu, atau Diane
Ament, Pegawai Penyelidik (515) 294-3115, dament@iastate.edu. M emulangkan soalselidik yang
lengkap bermakna anda bersetuju untuk menyertai kajian ini dan anda telah diberi masa untuk
membaca documen ini dan jawapan anda telah dijawap dengan memuaskan.

TANDATANGAN SUBJEK

Tanda tangan anda menunjukkan anda telah bersetuju untuk melibatkan diri dalam kajian ini, anda
telah diberi keterangan mengenai kajian, anda telah membaca dokumen dan jawapan anda telah
dijawab dengan memuaskan. Anda akan menerima satu salinan sebelum anda melibatkan diri dalam
kajian ini.

Nama Subjek

(Tandatangan Subjek) (Tarikh)

(Tandatangan ibubapa/ penjaga atau (Tarikh)

wakil yang sah di sisi undang-undang)

KENYATAAN PENYELIDIK

Dengan ini saya mengesahkan subjek telah diberi masa yang cukup untuk membaca dan memahami
mengenai kajian ini. Pada pendapat saya subjek memahami tujuan, risiko, manafaat dan prosedur
yang digunakan dan dengan sukarela bersetuju menyertai kajian ini.

Fauziah Hanim Jalal (Tarikh)

(Individu yang memperolehi

makluman kebenaran)
 169

APPENDIX J. DIRECTIONS FOR PROJECT (ENGLISH/MALAY)

 170

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

DIRECTIONS FOR PROJECT

 171

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

DIRECTIONS FOR PROJECT

To get the information needed, please proceed as follows:

1. Carefully follow the "procedure of selecting the sample" (attached in the letter).
2. All the students selected for the survey read the letter about requesting their participation and get their agreement
to participate in the research.
3. Distribute the parental consent form to obtain permission for their youth to participate in answering the
questionnaire.
4. Every student should be informed about the day, time and place where the questionnaire will be distributed so
that they can come on time.
5. Every student should be respected and avoid labeling them.
6. Try to maintain quietness during answering session.
7. Before answering the questionnaire proceed to read "Direction for Answering Questionnaire" to the students.
8. Monitor students as they complete the questionnaire. Students should record their answers in the questionnaire
sheet itself using a pencil.
9. Ask student to place their completed questionnaire sheet in the envelope provided. Seal envelope in the presence
of the students.
10. Every student should be given a pencil and small note book as a token.
11. In the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope enclosed, please return the following materials by:
a. The completed student questionnaire,
b. Parent consent form,
c. Sampling forms ( Form A,B,C, D),
d. Provide any comments and suggestion from your observation.

DIRECTIONS FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Please read these directions to the students-

Please note: If your students have difficulty in language or to understand the questionnaire please help them by
read aloud the directions in each part. Refer to no. 7).

1. Assalamu Alaykom(to Muslim students) /Good morning/Afternoons to all of you. Thank you for coming to
this session and for your willingness to participate in this study.
2. Answering this questionnaire will take less than 40 minutes. Your participation in this study will help us
better understand effectiveness of family functioning. This information will ultimately help inform
counselors and teachers in their work with youth and families.
3. The questionnaire has four parts. In part one, we request that you provide basic background information
about yourself. In part two, we ask you to provide some information about your
4. family time and routines, family daily life management and family beliefs/practices in religion. In the third
part, we would like you to provide information about your behavior.
5. Please answer all questions honestly and completely. All your answer will be confidential and will be mailed
directly to the researcher.
6. If you have finished completing the questionnaire please send the questionnaire in front here and place it in
the envelope provided.
 172

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by ge

7. You can answer the questionnaire now. If you have any concerns and need any clarification on the questions
feel free to ask. I am glad to help you.
8. OPTIONAL. If the students need more guidance and clarification in understanding the questionnaire
especially the scales, the counselor can read aloud to them.
Okay, let's start with Part 1 (Read the direction, Directions: Please specify your response by circling the
appropriate choices given.)

a. For part 2, sect 1, the scales are :

True = 1 if you feel that the statement describes your family very accurately.
Mostly True = 2 if you feel that the statement describes your family for the most part.
Mostly False = 3 if you feel that the statement does not describe your family for the most part.
False = 4 if you feel that the statement does not describe your family at all.

b.For section 2, the scales are:

Strongly if you feel that the statement describes your family very accurately.
Agree = 1
Agree=2 if you feel that the statement describes your family for the most part.
Disagree=3 if you feel that the statement does not describe your family for the most part.
Strongly if you feel that the statement does not describe your family at all.
Disagree=4

d. Similarly repeat for section 3 and Part 3.

 173

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

PANDUAN PROJEK
 174

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

PANDUAN MENJALANKAN PROJEK

Bagi memastikan maklumat yang diperolehi menepati tujuan kajian, sila ikut langkah berikut.
1. Laksanakan dengan teliti "Prosedur Persampelan" (seperti yang dilampirkan dalam
surat kepada kaunselor).
2. Semua pelajar yang terpilih dalam kajian ini diminta membaca surat mengenai penglibatan mereka dalam kajian ini
dan dapatkan persetujuan mereka.
3. Edarkan surat mengenai kajian kepada ibubapa dan makluman kebenaran kajian bagi
membenarkan pelajar terlibat dalam kajian ini. (pelajar juga perlu menanda tangani borang ini)
4. Setiap pelajar dimaklumkan mengenai: hari, masa dan tempat soalselidik akan
dijalankan agar mereka dapat hadir pada masa yang ditetapkan.
5. Setiap pelajar mesti dihormati dan elakkan dari melabel mereka.
6. Semasa pelajar menjawab soalselidik pastikan tiada gangguan.
7. Sebelum pelajar menjawab soalselidik, sila bacakan "Arahan Menjawab Soalselidik"di hadapan pelajar.
8. Mengawas pelajar ketika mereka menjawab soalselidik. Arahkan pelajar untuk menggunakan pensil ketika menjawab
soalselidik.
9. Setelah selesai sila kutip semua soalselidik pelajar dan masukkan ke dalam sampul
surat. Gamkan sampul surat tersebut di hadapan pelajar untuk membuktikan bahawa jawapan mereka dirahsiakan.
10. Pastikan setiap pelajar mendapat buku nota kecil tanda penghargaan serta pensil/pemadam.
11. Di dalam sampul surat yang telah beralamat dan bersetem, sila kembalikan sampul
surat tersebut dengan bahan-bahan berikut pada (tarikh)
a. soalselidik yang telah dilengkapkan oleh pelajar di dalam sampul surat,
b. Dokumen Makluman Kebenaran
c. Borang sampel ( Borang A, B, C, D)
d. Borang komen.

ARAHAN MENJAWAP SOAL SELIDIK

Sila baca arahan ini di hadapan pelajar.

(Perhatian:Iika anda dapati ramai pelajar mempunvai masalah memahami soalselidik kerana masalah bahasa. sila
bantu mereka dengan membaca arahan bagi setiap bahagian/seksven. Sila ruiuk no. 7)

Asslamualaikum /selamat pagi/petang semua. Saya ucapkan terima kasih kerana sudi berkerjasama dalam
menjayakan kajian ini.
1. Kami memerlukan penglibatan anda dalam kajian kerana jawapan anda dalam soalselidik ini akan membantu
kami memahami keberkesanan kestabilan keluarga
Maklumat ini akhimya akan membantu para kaunselor dan pendidik memahami keberkesanan keluarga pada
masa akan datang.
2. Anda akan mengambil masa lebih kurang 40 minit untuk menjawap soalselidik ini. Soalselidik ini mempunyai
empat bahagian. Bahagian satu mengenai maklumat diri anda. Bahagian dua mempunyai tiga seksyen yang
merangkumi maklumat mengenai peruntukan masa dan rutin
3. keluarga, pengurusan harian keluarga dan keagamaan dalam keluarga. Bahagian akhir ialah maklumat mengenai
tingkahlaku anda.

.
 175

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

4. Sila jawab semua soalan dengan jujur dan lengkap. Segala jawapan adalah rahsia dan soalselidik ini akan
dimelkan terus kepada pengkaji.
5. Semua soalan yang telah dilengkapkan akan dikutip dan dimasukkan ke dalam sampul surat.
6. Anda boleh mula menjawab soalselidik ini. Sekiranya anda mempunyai kemusykilan tolong maklumkan kepada
saya untuk penjelasan selanjutnya.
7. (Pilihan)- Jika pelajar mempunyai masalah memahami soalselidik.
a. Baiklah, kita akan mulakan dengan bahagian 1 (Bacakan Arahan: Sila bulatkan yang berkenaan)
b. Untuk bahagian 2, seksyen 1 (tolong jelaskan skala kepada pelajar).

Berikut adalah keterangan mengenai skala.

Benar = 1 Sekiranya kenyataan ini keseluruhannya menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Hampir benar = 2 Sekiranya kenyataan ini kebanyakannya menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Kurang benar = 3 Sekiranya kenyataan ini kebanyakannya tidak menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Tidak benar = 4 Sekiranya kenyataan ini langsung tidak menggambarkan keluarga anda.

c. Bagi seksyen 2 (tolong jelaskan skala kepada pelajar).

Berikut adalah keterangan mengenai skala.

Sangat bersetuju = 1 Sekiranya kenyataan ini keseluruhan menggambarkan keluarga anda.

Bersetuju = 2 Sekiranya kenyataan ini kebanyakkannya menggambarkan keluarga anda

Tidak bersetuju = 3 Sekiranya kenyataan ini kebanyakannya tidak menggambarkan keluarga anda anda
Sungguh tidak Sekiranya kenyataan ini langsung tidak menggambarkan keluarga anda.
bersetuju = 4

9. Ulangi bagi seksyen 3 dan Bahagian 3.

 176

APPENDIX K. SAMPLING PROCEDURES (ENGLISH/MALAY)

 177

1SU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

SAMPLING PROCEDURES
 178

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

PROCEDURE SELECTING THE SAMPLE

I'll ere arc two methods of sampling, the first is using purposive within stratified to select
high risk group. Second, for the low risk group a systematic sampling with random
starting point will be used. These two methods are not difficult. It requires a bit of time
and we believe you will not face the difficult}.

To get the sample is important. He want all students from Form 3 and Form 4 has the
chance to be selected in this survey so that problem such as bias can be avoided. We
understand that you have the capability to identify the sample that we wanted to
document. So you can continue selecting the sample according to the procedure that we
have prepared for you. Please contact us if you need any assistance.

The following information is about the number of sample to be selected.

1. The total number of students to be selected is 48 of which 24 is the high risk group and another 24 from the low
risk group from the two classes, Form 3 and Form 4.
2. From each group 12 girls and 12 boys will be selected with each has same number of ethnic, i.e. Malays= 4,
Chinese= 4 and Indian=4 being selected.
3. Below are two tables that show the number of high risk group and low risk group according to Form, gender
and ethnic.
E.g. School A.

High Risk Group

Form Girls Boys Total
Malay Chinese Indian Malay Chinese Indian
F.3 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
F.4 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Total 4 4 4 4 4 4 24

Low Risk Group

Form Girls Boys Total
Malay Chinese Indian Malay Chinese Indian
F.3 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
F.4 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Total 4 4 4 4 4 4 24

II. Below is information about steps of selecting sample for the high risk group (Make selection with this group
first)

Method: Purposive stratified sampling

Purposive sampling is using the researcher's personal judgment from previous knowledge of the population and the
specific purpose of the study.
 179

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date; May 31,2005
Expiration Date: May 30,2006
Initial by ge

In this study sample are selected with stratified groups who have criteria of high risk behaviors.

Steps:
a. From the Form 3 and Form 4 list students, select first, those students who past record had shown
involvement or currently involved in very high risk behaviors such drug, fighting, theft, run away, smoking,
to lesser high risk behaviors such as those who were/are often absent, cheating in tests and showing
persistently low academic performance..
b. Select the sample according to gender and ethnic groups.
c. Enter those selected sample in form A (High risk group (boys)) and form B (High risk group (girls)).
d. Note: Please select one alternate student for every gender and ethnic from each Form 3 and Form 4 in the
event that a substitute is needed.

HI. Below is information about steps of selecting sample for the low risk group
Method : A systematic sampling of strata with random starting point.
Systematic sampling is sampling in which the sample are selected from a list by taking every Kth name, where K
equals the number of individuals on the list divided by the number of subjects desired for the sample.
e.g.: Total number of students in Form 3 classes= 200, total number of students needed =12, Kth is 200/12=16. The
sample will be selected every 16 times is counted from the list.

Steps:
a. From the Form 3 and Form 4 list students, remove first, all the high risk sample names that had been
selected.
b. Taking every Kth name, with random starting point, select the sample from the list. Repeating the process
until all samples according to gender, and ethnic are selected.
c. Enter those selected samples in form C (Low risk group by gender (boys)) and form D (Low risk group by
gender (girls)).
d. Note: Please select one alternate student for every gender and ethnic from each Form 3 and Form 4 in the
event that a substitute is needed.
 180

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by 8e

PROSEDUR PERSAMPELAN
 181

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

PROSEDUR MENJALANKAN PERSAMPELAN

Terdapat dua kaedah persampelan, pertama kaedah berstrata dengan bertujuan (purposive within
stratified) bagi kumpulan berisiko tinggi. Kedua, persampelan berstrata secara sistematik dengan
peimulaan titik rambang bagi pelajar bukan berisiko tinggi. Kedua-dua kaedah ini tidaklah rumit.
Ianya hanya memerlukan sedikit masa dan kami yakin anda tidak akan mengalami kesuiitan.

Persampelan adalah penting dalam kajian. Kami mahu setiap pelajar tingkatan 3 dan 4 mempunyai
peluang untuk dipilih dalam kajian ini agar masalah seperti bias dapat dielakkan. Kami yakin
bahawa anda juga mempunyai keupayaan untuk membuat persampelan ini. Kami berharap
saudara/saudari akan terus membuat persampelan seperti prosedur yang telah kami sediakan. Sila
hubungi kami jika saudara/saudari memerlukan pertolongan.

Berikut ialah maklumat mengenai jumlah sampel yang perlu dipilih.

1. Jumlah pelajar yang diperlukan bagi setiap sekolah ialah 48 orang di mana 24 orang terdiri dari kumpulan
berisiko tinggi dan 24 orang lagi dari kumpulan bukan berisiko tinggi dari kedua-dua kelas tingkatan 3 dan
4.
2. Bagi setiap kumpulan berisiko tinggi dan bukan berisiko tinggi, pilih 12 pelajar perempuan dan 12 pelajar
lelaki. Bagi setiap kumpulan jantina ini, pilih jumlah yang sama bagi setiap bangsa iaitu Melayu =4, China#
dan India=4.
3. Berikut adalah dua rajah yang menunjukkan jumlah pelajar yang berisiko tinggi dan kumpulan pelajar yang
bukan berisiko tinggi dipilih mengikut tingkatan, jantina dan bangsa.

Ini adalah contoh bagi sekolah A.

Kumpulan Berisiko Tinggi

Ting. Perempuan Lelaki jum.
Melayu Cina India Melayu Cina India
T.3 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
T.4 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Jum. 4 4 4 4 4 4 24

Kumpulan Bukan Berisiko Tinggi

Ting. Perempuan Lelaki Jum
Melayu Cina India Melayu Cina India
T.3 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
T.4 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Jum. 4 4 4 4 4 4 24
 182

ISU IRB #1 05-199

Approved Date: May 31, 2005
Expiration Date: May 30, 2006
Initial by ge

III. Berikut adalah maklumat mengenai langkah menjalankan persampelan bagi kumpulan berisiko tinggi ( Sila
buat pemilihan bagi kumpulan ini dahulu).

Kaedah: Kaedah berstrata dengan bertujuan ialah menggunakan taksiran peribadi

Dari pengetahuan lepas mengenai kumpulan itu dan tujuan yang khusus bagi kajian.
Dalam kajian ini, sampel dipilih daripada kumpulan berstrata yang mempunyai
ciri-ciri tingkahlaku berisiko tinggi.

Langkah:
a. Dari senarai pelajar tingkatan 3 dan 4, pilih pelajar yang mempunyai rekod
b. penglibatan dalam aktiviti berisiko seperti dadah, bergaduh, mencuri, lari dari rumah, merokok, sehingga
kepada tingkahlaku yang kurang berisiko seperti kerap tidak hadir
c. ke sekolah, menipu dalam ujian dan menunjukkan penurunan dalam pencapaian
d. akademik.
e. Pilih sampel mengikut jantina dan bangsa.
f. Tulis senarai nama pelajar tersebut dalam borang A (lelaki berisiko tinggi) dan
g. borang B (perempuan berisiko tinggi)
h. Nota: Sila pilih seorang pelajar sebagai pelajar ganti bagi setiap jantina dan
i. bangsa sekiranya terdapat keadaan yang memerlukan gantian.

III. Berikut adalah maklumat mengenai langkah memilih pelajar bukan berisiko tinggi.

Kaedah: Persampelan berstrata secara sistematik bermula dengan titik rambang.

Kaedah ini ialah dimana sampel dipilih dari satu senarai dengan cara menghitung
setiap bilangan ke "K", di mana K ialah jumlah pelajar dalam senarai nama
dibahagi dengan jumlah pelajar yang dikehendaki.
Contoh: Jumlah pelajar dalam tingkatan 3 = 200, jumlah pelajar yang dikehendaki
ialah= 12, ke "K" ialah 200/12=16. Sampel akan dipilih setiap 16 kali hitungan dalam
senarai.

Langkah:
a. Dari senarai pelajar tingkatan 3 dan 4, keluarkan nama pelajar yang berisiko
b. tinggi yang telah dipilih.
c. Dengan mengambil bilangan ke "K", bermula dengan titik rambang, pilih sampel
d. dari senarai nama pelajar. Ulangi proses ini sehingga cukup sampel mengikut jantina
e. dan bangsa.
f. Tuliskan senarai sampel di dalam borang C (lelaki bukan berisiko tinggi) dan
g. borang D (perempuan bukan berisiko tinggi)
h. Nota: Sila pilih seorang pelajar sebagai pelajar ganti bagi setiap jantina dan
i. bangsa sekiranya terdapat keadaan yang memerlukan gantian.
 183

APPENDIX L. CONSENT TO USE THE INSTRUMENTS

 184

BROWN UNIVERSITY
Providence, Rhode Wand 02912
Brown University Family Research Program

Enclosed please find the McMaster assessment/manuals that you ordered from the Brown
University Family Research Program. These instruments are copyrighted. You have permission^
however, to duplicate the Family Assessment Device (FAD) the Family Information Form, the
McMaster Clinical Rating Scale (MCRS), and McMaster Structured Interview of Family
Functioning (MeSifl) tor your own clinical/researciVteaching purposes.

In addition to a bibliography of our own work, we have recently added a listing of published
articles in which one or more of the McMaster instruments are used. If you know of my articles
we haw omitted, we would be happy to add than to oar list.

Please do ootbcsiMc to call or e-mail ifyou have aoy question#.

CM*** & PfiO.

Assistant Director, Mood Disorders Program
AxxkWwfNwpW
Assistant Professor,
Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior
Brown University School of Medtcim

Tel. 401-444-3534
FAX4M-444-32**
e-mail ChristineJtyanlgBroimedu
 185

Thank you for your message. All of our instruments are now on CD and can
be ordered from the University Book Store in Madison, Wisconsin.

Phone: 1-800-993-2665 x 2327

e-mail: techref@uwbookstore.com

The CD does include the Family Time and Routines Scale with information
about its development, scoring, reliability and validity. When you receive
the CD, please complete the abstract form included and put the CD number
from the label on the form too. You can mail or FAX this form to me
(please see below).
You have permission to re-format the instrument to suit the needs of
your sample (e.g., include in a questionnaire booklet, larger print,
etc.) You also have permission to translate the instrument. We would
greatly appreciate receiving a copy of the translated version and the
procedure you used to accomplish this translation.

If you have further questions, do let me know. Best wishes on your

exciting research.

Marilyn McCubbin, RN, PhD, FAAN

Professor & Director
Center for Health Disparities Research
University of Hawaii at Manoa
School of Nursing & Dental Hygiene
Webster Hall
2528 McCarthy Mall
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Phone : 808-956-5469
FAX: 808-956-3257
 186

Hi Fauziah,

I apologize for the delay in responding to you. I was out of town for a
conference. We did not create the Self-Report Delinquency scale, but
adapted it from other's work. I will check with my first author, but I
believe it was available to use without permission.

I will get back to you ASAP. Thanks for your patience!

Kathy

At 11:27 AM 10/13/04 -0500, you wrote :

>Dear Dr.Nakagawa,
>
Seeking Permission to Use and to Translate the Adapted Self-Report
Delinquency
>
>1 am a doctoral student from Malaysia, and I am currently working on my
doctoral degree in the College of Family Consumer Sciences at Iowa
State
University, Iowa. My major is in Family and Consumer Sciences Education
and
Studies.
>
I plan to use the adapted Self-Report Delinquency in my dissertation
project ^entitled, "Family Functioning and Adolescent Delinquency: A
study of Secondary School Students in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. I
decided to use the instrument after reading your article published
online
https_: //webmail.iastate.edu/cgi -
bin/mailman?NOFRAMES=TRUE&:BACKGROUND=http%3a%2f%2fcie%2easu%2eedu%2fvolu
me6*2fnumber16%2findex%2ehtml and my decision was strongly
supported by my doctoral advisor.

I would like to request the scoring sheets and keys and any supportive
documents that may relevant to my project. What I have now is just a
copy of the instrument from the articles. Since the study will be
conducted in
Malaysia, I would also like to seek your permission to use and to
translate the Self-Reported Delinquecny Scale into Malaysian language.

I really appreciate if you could respond to my letter at your earliest

convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Fauziah Hanim Jalal

170 University Village
Apartment B
Ames, IA 50010
>515-572-4529
 187

APPENDIX M. RELIABILITY OF ITEMS

 188

Reliability Coefficient

Family Assessment Device Items Reliability

Factor 1 Problem Solving (healthy) Fad2 Fadl2 Fad24 Fad38 Fad50 Fad60 .56
Factor 2 Communication (Healthy) Fad3 FadlS Fad29 Fad43 Fad59 .55
Communication - Unhealthy Fadl4 Fad22 Fad35 Fad52 .46
Factor 3 Roles ( Healthy) FadlO Fad30 Fad40 .57
Roles (Unhealthy) Fad4 Fad8 FadlS Fad23 Fad34 Fad45 Fad53 .24
Fad58
Factor 4 Affective Responsiveness Fad49 Fad57 .27
(Healthy)
Affective Responsiveness Fad9 Fadl9 Fad28 Fad39 .53
(unhealthy)
Factor 5 Affective Involvement FadS Fadl3 Fad25 Fad33 Fad37 Fad42 .52
(unhealthy) Fad54
Factor 6 Behavioral Control (Healthy) Fad20 Fad32 FadSS .35
Behavioral Unhealthy Fad7 Fadl7 Fad27 Fad44 Fad47 Fad48 .49
Factor 7 General Functioning Fad6 Fadl6 Fad26 Fad36 Fad46 Fad56 .62
(Healthy)
General Functioning Fadl Fadll Fad21 Fad31 Fad41 FadSl .67
(Unhealthy)
Overall FAD (60 items) .81
Family Time and Routines Index
Factor 1 Child Routines Ftri9 FtrilO FtrilS F tri 16 .25
Factor 2 Couple's Togetherness F trill Ftril2 Ftril3 Ftri25 .57
Factor 3 Meals Together Ftril7 FtrilS .51
Factor 4 Parent-Child Togetherness Ftril Ftri2 Ftri3 F tri 8 Ftril4 .73

Factor 5 Family Togetherness FtriS Ftri6 F tri 7 Ftri26 .40

Factor 6 Relative's Connection Ftril9 Ftri20 Ftri21 Ftri22 .57
Factor 7 Family Chores Ftri29
Factor 8 Family Management Ftri23 Ftri27 Ftri28 Ftri30 Ftri31 .59
Overall FTRI (31 items) .83
Religion in family
Factor! The importance religious RP_1 RP_2 .73
belief
Factor 2 The importance religious RP_3 RP_4 .58
practice
Overall Religion in family (4 items) .56
Self-Reported Delinquency Scale
Factor 1 Substance Abuse Bisl Bis3 Bis7 Bisll Bisl2 .75
Factor 2 Property Bis2 Bis4 Bis9 BislO Bisl4 BislS Bisl7 Bis21 .88
Bis22
Factor 2 School Bis5 Bisl6 .67
 189

Self-Reported Delinquency Scale

Factor 3 Force Bis8 Bisl3 BislS .78
Watching pornography Bis 19
Run away Bis 6
Gambling Bis 20
Overall SRDS (22 items) .94
 190

APPENDIX N. HIGH RISK AND LOW RISK GROUPS

 191

HIGH RISK AND LOW RISK GROUPS

School 1 Ethnicity Groups Gender Kiik School

Female Male Subtotal Total
SMK Malay Low Risk 9 8 17
Kepayang High Risk 1 3 4

Ethnicity Subtotal 10 11 21

Chinese Low Risk 8 5 13

High Risk 3 3 6
Ethnicity Subtotal 11 8 19
Indian Low Risk 5 6 11
High Risk 0 1 1
Ethnicity Subtotal 5 7 12 52

SMK ACS Malay Low Risk 1 0 1

High Risk 0 0 0
Ethnicity Subtotal 1 0 1
Chinese Low Risk 7 8 15
High Risk 4 6 10
Ethnicity Subtotal 11 14 25
Indian Low Risk 7 4 11
High Risk 0 6 6
Ethnicity Subtotal 7 10 17 43
SMK Hj M. Malay Low Risk 5 7 12
Redha High Risk 8 4 12
Ethnicity Subtotal 13 11 24
Chinese Low Risk 4 2 6
High Risk 1 1 2
Ethnicity Subtotal 5 3 8
Indian Low Risk 3 3 6
High Risk 1 1 2
Ethnicity Subtotal 4 4 8 40
SMK Malay Low Risk 7 3 10
SAhmad High Risk 1 5 6
Ethnicity Subtotal 8 8 16
Chinese Low Risk 8 3 11
High Risk 0 3 3
Ethnicity Subtotal 8 6 14
Indian Low Risk 5 3 8
High Risk 0 2 2
1 Ethnicity Subtotal 5 5 10 40
 192

SMK Sen Malay Low Risk 7 13 20

Ampangan High Risk 5 18 23
Ethnicity Subtotal 12 31 43
Chinese Low Risk 0 1 1
High Risk 0 1 1
Ethnicity Subtotal 1 2 2
Indian Low Risk 3 1 4
High Risk 0 0 0
Ethnicity Subtotal 3 1 4 49
SMK TAD Malay Low Risk 0 6 6
High Risk 0 1 1
Ethnicity Subtotal 0 7 7
Chinese Low Risk 6 6 12
High Risk 0 0 0
Ethnicity Subtotal 6 6 12
Indian Low Risk 5 3 8
High Risk 0 1 1
Ethnicity Subtotal 5 4 9 28
SMK Zaaba Malay Low Risk 8 5 13
High Risk 4 7 11
Ethnicity Subtotal 12 12 24
Chinese Low Risk 1 0 1
High Risk 0 0 0

Ethnicity Subtotal 1 0 1
Indian Low Risk 3 1 4
High Risk 0 0 0
Ethnicity Subtotal 3 1 4 29
Missing Malay Low Risk 0 1 1
School High Risk 0 0 0
Ethnicity Subtotal 0 1 1
Indian Low Risk 0 1 1
High Risk 0 0 0
Ethnicity Subtotal 0 0 1 2
1 283
 193

REFERENCES CITED

Abdul Rahman, S. (2004, March). Senario jenayah juvenil di Malaysia. Paper presented at National
Seminar on Juvenile Crime and Prevention: Islamic Perspective organized by Institut
Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Retrieved on January 5, 2005
from
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?y=2004&dt=0301&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&se
c=Keluarga&pg=ke_03.htm

Alexander, G. R., Massey, R. M., Gibbs, T., & Altekruse, J. M. (1985). Firearm-related fatalities: An
epidemiologic assessment of violent death. American Journal of Public Health, 75,165-168.

Ausebel, D. P. (1954). Theory and problems of adolescent development. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Baginda, A. M. (1984). Juvenile delinquency and some measures to control its increasing trends.
Preparation for Adulthood. Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Workshop on Child and Adolescent
Development. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 273359)

Baker, R. L. A., & Mednick, B. R. (1984). Influences on human development: A longitudinal perspective.
Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Baldwin, A., Baldwin, C., Kasser, T., Zax, M., Sameroff, A., & Seifer, R. (1993). Contextual risk and
resiliency during late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 743-761.

Balkely, C. H., Kushler, M. G., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson, W. 5. (1980). Self-reported delinquency as
an evaluation measure: Comparative reliability and validity of alternative weighting
schemes. Criminal justice and Behavior, 7, 369-386.

Barber, B. K. (1992). Family, personality, and adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 4(1), 69-79.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child

Development, 67, 3296-3319.

Barber, B. K. (1997). Adolescent socialization in context: The role of connection, regulation, and
autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(1), 5-11.

Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V. (1964). Big school small school: High school size and student behavior.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Windle, M. (1987). Parent-adolescent interactions in the development
of alcohol abuse and other deviant behaviors. Family Perspective, 21, 321-335.
 194

Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication. In D. H. Olson, H. I.

McCubbin, H. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Muxen, & M. Wilson (Ed.), Family inventories (pp. 55-70).
University of Minnesota: Family Social Science.

Baumrind, D. (1980). New directions in socialization research. Psychological Bulletin, 35, 639-652.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.

Beavers, W. R., & Hampson, R. B. (1993). Measuring family competence: The Beavers systems model.
In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed. pp. 73-103).
New York: Guilford.

Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crimes: The direct and
indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood.
Criminology, 41,1287-1318.

Berry, J. W. (1999). Emics and etics: A symbiotic conception. Culture and Psychology, 5,165-171.

Blakely, C. H., Kushler, M. G., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson II, W. 5. (1980). Self-reported delinquency
as an evaluation measure: Comparative reliability and validity of alternative weighting
schemes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 369-386.

Blanc, M. L., McDuff, P., & Kaspy, N. (1998). Family and early adolescent delinquency: A
comprehensive sequential family control model. Early Child Development and Care, 142, 63-91.

Boosting self-esteem a way to contain juvenile delinquency (2004, May 23). New Straits Times
(Malaysia). Retrieved February 3, 2005 from LexisNexis (TM) Academic Database.

Bourque, L. B., & Fielder, E. P. (1995). How to conduct self-administered and mail survey. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.

Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture's influence on behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Co.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1989). Adolescent sexual behavior. American psychologist, 44(2),
249-257.

Burton, L. M., & Jarrett, R. L. (2000). In the mix, yet on the margins: The place of families in urban
neighborhood and child development research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62,1114-1135.

Byles, J., Byrne, C., Boyle, M., & Offord, D. (1988). Ontario child health study: Reliability and validity
of the general functioning subscales of the McMaster Family Assessment Devices, Family
Process, 27, 97-104.
 195

Calhoun, G., Jurgens, J., & Chen, F. (1993). The neophyte female delinquent: A review of the
literature. Adolescence, 28, 461-471.

Carlson, J., Kurato, Y., Ruiz, E., Ng, K. M., & Yang, J. (2004). A multi-cultural discussion about
personality development. The Family journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families,
12(2), 111-121.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents (1989).
Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie.

Cashwell, C. S., & Vacc, N. A. (1996). Family functioning and risk behaviors: Influences on adolescent
delinquency. School Counselor, 44,105-115.

Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25,
295-319.

Chong, (2004, July 16). Shrinking the problem. New Straits Time Press (Malaysia). Retrieved February 2,
2005 from LexisNexis (TM) Academic Database.

Clark, R. D., & Shield, G. (1997). Family communication and delinquency. Adolescence. 32, 81-91.

Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H. Jr., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive
family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541-561.

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48,243-267.

DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Department of Statistic of Malaysia (2001). Retrieved on November 17, 2005 from

http://www.statistics.gov.my/english/frameset_census.php?file=pressdemo

Department of Statistics Malaysia (2005). Retrieved on November 17, 2005 from

http://www.statistics.gov.my/english/frameset_keystats.php

Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early
adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child
Development, 66,139-151.

Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child Development, 5(1), 162-
70.

Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child
Development, 53, 620-635.

Doling, J., & Omar, R. (2002). The Welfare of State System of Malaysia, journal of Societal & Social
Policy, 2(1), 33-47.
 196

Dorfman, L.z Woodruff, K., Chavez, V., & Wallack. L. (1995). Youth and violence on local television news.
Unpublished Report, Berkeley Media Studies Group.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Community schools: New institutional arrangements for preventing high-risk
behavior. Family Life Educator, Summer, 4-9.

Edgar, D. & Glezer, H. (1992). A man's place: Reconstructing family realities', Family Matters, 31, 36-
39.

Edgar, D. (1999). The future of work and family. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 25, 3.

Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. A. (1997). Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing
Policy Debate, 8, 833-866.

Elliot, D. S. (1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination: The
American Society of Criminology 1993 presidential address. Criminology, 31,1-21.

Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official
estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110.

Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ensminger, M. E., & Pother gill, K. E. (2003). A decade of measuring SES: What it tells us and where to
go from here. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Ed.), Socioeconomic status, parenting and
child development (pp. 13-28). Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum.

Epstein, N. B, Bishop, D., & Levin, S (1978). The McMaster model of family functioning. J Marriage
Family Counseling, 4(4), 19-31.

Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. 5. (1983). The McMaster Family Assessment Device.
journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9,171-180.

Epstein, N. B., Bishop, D., Ryan, C., Miller, & Keitner, G., (1993). The McMaster Model View of
Healthy Family Functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal Family Processes (pp. 138-160). The
Guilford Press: New York/London.

Farrington, D. P. (1987). Epidemiology. In H. C. Quay (Ed), Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp. 33-
61). New York: John Wiley.

Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violence and
Victims, 4, 79-100.

Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2002). Male and female offending trajectories. Development and
Psychopathology, 14,159-177.
 197

Fong, Y. K. (1982). Broken homes and juvenile delinquency. Unpublished manuscript, Jabatan
Antropologi & Sosiologi, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia.

Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1988). Survey research methods (Revised ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. An
introduction to survey methods.

Frankel, J. R., & Wallen, N. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: Mc Graw
Hill.

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Adolescent coping scale: Administrator's manual. The Australian
Council for Educational Research Ltd: Australia.

Galambos, N. L., & Almeida, D. M. (1992). Does parent-adolescent conflict increase in early
adolescence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 737-747.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). New York:
Longman.

Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). London:
Merrill.

Gecas, V., & Seff, M. A. (1990). Families and adolescents, journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 941-
958.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund.

Gordon, D. A., Jurkovic, G. & Arbuthnot, J. (1998). Treatment of the juvenile offender. In R. M.
Wettstein (Ed.), Treatment of offenders with mental disorders (pp. 365-428). New York: Guilford.

Gorman- Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). The relations of family
functioning to violence among inner-city youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 10,115-129.

Green, R., Kolevzon, M., & Vosler, N. (1985). The Beavers-Timberlawn Model of Family Functioning
and the Circumplex Model of Family Functioning: Separate but equal? Family Process, 24,
385-398.

Green, S., Salkind, N., & Akey, T. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hadi, Z. A. (1990, December), juvenile delinquency: Its relationship to the family social support. Paper
presented at the First National Conference on the Caring Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
 198

Hadi, Z. A. (2004, March 1). Penjenayah juvenile-persekitaran merxjadi pendorong. Retrieved July 3,
2004 from
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2004&dt=0301&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&

Hamburg, M. A. (1998). Youth violence is a public health concern. In D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, &
K. R. Williams (Ed.), Violence in American Schools (pp. 31-54). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Hasan, A. R., & Hashim, S. (2001, April). Poverty Statistics in Malaysia. Paper presented at the at the
World Bank/PIDS Workshop on Strengthening Poverty Data Collection and
Analysis.

Hauser, 5. T., & Bowlds, M. K. (1990). Stress, coping, and adaptation. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott
(Eds.), At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent (pp. 388-413). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Hawkins, J. D. (1994). An introduction to prevention. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research &

Programs.

Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., &
Cothern, L. (2000). Predictors of Youth Violence, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Retrieve on April 3 2005 from
http://www.jefcoed.com/central/federalprograms/safeschools/predictors%20of%20youth%20
violence.pdf

Henggeler, S. W. (1989). Delinquency in adolescence. Newbury Park: Sage.

Henggeler, S. W., Edwards, J., & Borduin, C. M. (1987). The family relations of female juvenile
delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15,199-209.

Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weiss, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hinkle, D. H., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1996). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ho, D. Y. F. (1981). Traditional patterns of socialization in Chinese society. Acta Psycholigica Taiwanica,
23(2), 81-95.

Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed, pp. 231-252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F. A., & Weiher, A. W. (1991). Are there multiple paths to delinquency?
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 83-118.
 199

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., & Thornberry, T. P. (1995). Recent findings from the program of research on the
causes and correlates of delinquency. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Program, OJJDP.

Hurrelmann, K. (1990). Health promotion for adolescents: Prevention and corrective strategies
against problem behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 231-50.

Hurrelmann, K, (1994). International book of Adolescence (d.). Westport, CT: Greewood.

Hussin, N. (2005, March). Juvenile delinquency in Malaysia: Legal provision and prospects for reform. Paper
presented at the 4th World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights, Cape Town,
South Africa. Retrieved on May 2, 2005 from
http://www.lawrights.asn.au/docs/hussin 2005.pdf

Iowa State Extension (2005). Strengthening families program for parents and youth 10-14. Retrieved
on November 11, 2005 from www.extension.iastate.edu/sfp/sfpback.cfm

Jacob, T. (1975). Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and
substantive review. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 33-65.

Jensen, E. W., James, S. H. Boyce, W. T., & Harnett, S. A. (1993). The Family Routine Inventory:
Development and Validation. Social Science Medicine, 17 (4), 201-211.

Jessor, R. (1992). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and
action. In D. E. Rogers & E. Ginzberg (Eds.), Adolescents at Risk: Medical and Social Perspectives
(pp. 19-34). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Jessor, R. (1998). New Perspectives on adolescent risk behavior (ed.). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Jin, T. H. (2004). A comparison of social, family, and interpersonal experiences of primary and
secondary school children in Malaysia. Sunway College Journal, 1, 73-78. Retrieved January 20,
2005 from http://www.sunway.edu.my/others/academic%20journal/teoh.pdf

Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, D. B., & Spencer, D. L. (2001). Does adolescent religious
commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 22-44.

Klein, K., Forehand, R., Armistead, L., & Long, P. (1997). Delinquency during the transition to early
adulthood: Family and parenting predictors form early adolescence. Adolescence, 32, 61-80.

Kling, Z. (1995). The Malay family: Beliefs and realities. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26(1), 43-
67.
 200

Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and
emotion regulation during mother-teen problem-solving: A control theory analysis. Child
Development, 64, 231-245.

Krishnan, U. D. (2004). Parent-adolescent conflict and adolescent functioning in a collectivist, ethnically

heterogeneous culture: Malaysia. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences, 65 (09-A), 4493. (UMI No. AAT 3148394)

Kumpfer, K. L., (1999). Strengthening America's families: Exemplary parenting and family strategies for
delinquency prevention-user's guide. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.

Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Family emotions: Do young adolescents and their parents
experience the same states? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 567-583.

Lauren, B., & Collins, W. A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. In M. J., Cox & J.
Brooks-Gunn (Ed.), Conflict and Cohesion in Families (pp. 185- 206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lee, H. S. (2002). A Study of Poverty and Social Security in Malaysia. Retrieved on May 2005 from
http://segero.hufs.ac.kr/library/iar/10-6.pdf

Leiber, M., & Stairs, J. (1999). Race, contexts, and the use of intake diversion. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 36, 56-86.

Lerner, R. M., & Galambos, N. L. (1998). Adolescent development: Challenges and opportunities for
research, programs, and policies. Annual Review Psychological, 49, 413-46.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological
BuHehn, 94, 68-99.

Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). The significance of child delinquency. In R. Loeber & D. P.
Farrington (Ed.), Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and service need (pp. 1-24).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some
common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53, 242-259.

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In
E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social
development (Vol. 4. pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Mattern, C., & Nakagawa, K., (2003). Segregating students on the margin: Peer relationships in
alternative charter high schools. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 6(16). Retrieved
November 2 2004 from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/numberl6/
 201

Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
28, 467-178.

McAuliffe, T. M., & Handal, P. J. (1984). PIC Delinquency Scale: Validity in relation to self-reported
delinquent acts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 35-46.

McCord, J. (1991). Family relationships, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. Criminology, 29,
397-417.

McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. I. (1986). Family Celebrations Index (FCELEBI). In H.I. McCubbin,
A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (Ed.), Family assessment: Resiliency, coping, and adaptation-
inventories for research and practice (pp. 349-356). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.

McCubbin, H. I., Olson, D., & Larsen, A. (1981). Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F-
COPES). In H. I. McCubbin, A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (Ed.). Family assessment:
Resiliency, coping, and adaptation-inventories for research and practice, (pp. 455-508). Madison:
University of Wisconsin System.

McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1996). Family Time and Routine Index. In H. I.
McCubbin, A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (Ed.), Family assessment: Resiliency, coping, and
adaptation-inventories for research and practice (pp. 355-366). Madison: University of Wisconsin
System.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship in Black families and development. Child
Development, 61, 311-346.

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist,

53(2), 185-204.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, 5. (1997). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (4th ed.). New
York: Longman.

Meadows, R. J., & Blacher, J. H. (2002). Difficult teens: A parent's guide for coping. Ventura, CA:
Meadow Oaks Press.

Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham,
MD. Rowman & Littlefield.

Miller, I. Wv Epstein, N. Bv Bishop, D. S., & Keitner, G. I. (1985). The McMaster Family Assessment
Device: Reliability and validity, journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 345-356.

Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and
adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and
Psychopathology, 13,355-375.
 202

Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Self-reported delinquency: Results from an instrument for New
Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 21, 227-240.

Mohamed, B. (2002, December). Planning for the children of the future: The case of Malaysia.
Proceeding of Conference on Children and the City, Amman: Jordan, 121-129. Retrieved on
January 2004 from http://www.araburban.org/childcity/Papers/English/Badaruddin.pdf

Montemayor, R. (1986). Family variation in parent-adolescent storm and stress. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 1,15-31.

Nagaraja, J. (1984, April). Problems of adolescents and youth. Preparation for Adulthood. Proceedings
of the 3rd Asian Workshop on Child and Adolescent Development. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 273371)

National Research Council (1995). Losing generations: Adolescents in high-risk settings. Commission on
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Negeri Sembilan State Department of Education (2004). Retrieved January 2004 from
http://www.jpnns.gov.my/

Neter, J., Kutner M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied Linear Statistical Models
(4th ed.). Chicago: Irwin.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. New York: Wiley.

Olson, D. H. (1993). Circumplex model of marital and family systems assessing family functioning. In
F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed. pp. 104-137).
NY: Guilford.

Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2003). Circumplex Model of marital and family systems. In F. Walsh
(Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 3-26). New York:
Guilford.

Olson, D. H., Bell, R. Q., & Portner, J. (1982). FACES 11: Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation
Series Scales. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.

Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Families: what
makes them work'? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pang, C. Y. (1995). The impact of socioeconomic status on cardiovascular risk factors in urban Malaysia.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: Sciences and Engineering, 56 (10-B),
5444. (UMI No. AAT 9605383)
 203

Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management practices
and delinquency. Child Development, 55,1299-1307.

Pearce, L. D., & William, G. A. (1998). The impact of family religious life on the quality of parent-child
relationships. American Sociological Review, 63, 810-28.

Pekeliling perkhidmatan bil 4/2002- perlaksanaan sistem saraan Malaysia bagi anggota perkhidmatan
awam persekutuan. Retrieved May 1 2005 from http://www.jpa.gov.my/defaultn.asp

Penjenayah juvenil: Persekitaran menjadi pendorong (2004, March 1). Retrieved January 3, 2005 from
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?y=2004&dt=0301&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&se
c=Keluarga&pg=ke_02.htm

Perkins-Dock, R. E. (2001). Family intervention with incarcerated youth: A review of the literature.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 606-625.

Phillips, J. (1997). Variation in African-American homicide rates: An assessment of potential

explanations. Criminology, 35, 527-59.

Powers, S. I., & Welsh, D. P. (1999). Mother-daughter interactions and adolescent girls depression. In
M. J. Cox & J. Brooks-Gunn (Ed.), Conflict and Cohesion in Families (pp. 243-281). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Pulkkinen, L. (1983). Finland: The search for alternative to aggression. In A. P. Goldstein & M. H.
Segal (Ed.), Aggression in global perspective (pp. 104-144). New York: Pergamon.

Qureshi, S. M. (1991). The Muslim family: The scriptural framework. In E. H. Waugh, S. M. Abu
Laban & R. B. Qureshi (Ed.), Muslim families in North America (pp. 32-67). Edmonton, Alberta:
The University of Alberta Press.

Ramsey, F. L. & Schaper, D. W. (2002). The statistical sleuth: A course in methods of data analysis (2nd
ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

Random House Webster's college dictionary (2005). New York, NY: Random House, Inc.

Rankin, J. H. (1990). The effect of parental attachments and direct control in delinquency. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27,140-165.

Redzuan, M. (2004). Gologan berpendapatan rendah: Konsep dan pendekatan. In M. A. Othman, &
N. Yahya (Ed.), Golongan berpendapatan rendah, reality, dan cabaran (pp. 61-72.). Serdang:
Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Regnerus, M. D. (2003). Linked lives, faith, and behavior: Intergenerational religious influence on
adolescent delinquency. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(2), 189-203.

Robin, A. L., & Foster, S. L., (1989). Negotiating parent-adolescent conflict. New York: Guilford.
 204

Robins, L. N., & Przybeck, T. R. (1987). Age of onset of drug use as a factor in drug and other
disorders. National Institute on Drug Abuse Monograph 56 (pp. 178-92). DHHS Pub (ADM) 87-
1335. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Roncone, R., Rossi, L., Muiere, E., Impallomeni, M., Matteucci, M., & Giacornelli, R. (1998).The Italian
version of the Family Assessment Device. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33,
451-461.

Rosen, L. (1985). Family and delinquency: Structures or function. Criminology, 23, 553-73.

Rupured, M., & Quick, S. (1989.). Family vitality: characteristics of strong families. Publication H.E. 7-138,
University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Retrieved April 16, 2005 from
http://www.ca.uky.edU/agc/pubs/FCS7/FCS7138/FCS7138.pdf#searclWfamily%20vitality%2C
%20rupured'

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children's responses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W. Kent
& J. E. Rolf (Ed.), Primary prevention ofpsychopathology: Social competence in children (Vol. 3, pp.
49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

Sala, M. J. (2002). The conflict between collectivism and individualism in adolescent development:
Asian Indian female decision making in regard to cultural normative behavior. Abstracts
International: Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61(11-A), 4551. (UMI No.
AAI9995022)

Sampson, R. J., & Groves. W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social
disorganization theory. American Sociological Review, 51, 876-885.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shek, D. T. L. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relations of family functioning to adolescent

psychological well-being. Journal of Youth Studies, 1,195-209.

Shek, D. T. L. (2001). Perceptions of happy families amongst Chinese adolescents and their parents:
Implications for family therapy. Family Therapy, 28, 74-103.

Shek, D. T. L. (2002). Family functioning and psychological well-being, school adjustment, and
problem behavior in Chinese adolescents with and without economic disadvantage. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 163(4), 497-502.

Shek, D. T. L. (2005). A longitudinal study of perceived family functioning and adolescent adjustment
in Chinese adolescents with economic disadvantage. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 518-543.
 205

Sheth, M. (1995). Asian Indian Americans. In P. G. Min (Ed.), Asian Americans: Contemporary trends
and issues (pp. 169-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shuttz, T. W. (1961). Education and economic growth. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Social Forces Influencing
American Education (pp. 46-88). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2003). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Whitbeck, L. B., (1996). Parents and peer
group as mediators of the effect of community structure on adolescent problem behavior.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(1), 145-71.

Simons, R. L., Wu, C. I., Lin, K. L., Gordon, L., & Conger, R. D. (2000). A cross-cultural examination of
the link between corporal punishment and adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology, 38,
47-49.

Simons, R. L., Wu, C.I., Johnson, C., & R. Conger (1995). A test of various perspectives on the
intergenerational transmission of domestic violence. Criminology, 33,141-171.

Smith, C. A., & Stern, S. B. (1997). Delinquency and antisocial social behavior: A review of family
processes and intervention research. Social Service Review, 71, 383-420.

Smith, J. P. (1991). Labor markets and economic development in Malaysia. Research Population
Economic, 7,131-56.

Snyder, H. N. (1998). Juvenile Arrests 1997. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U. S. Department of Justice.

Snyder, J., & Patterson, G. R. (1987). Family interaction and delinquent behavior. In H. C. Quay (Ed.),
Handbook of juvenile delinquency, (pp. 34-50). New York: John Wiley.

Statistik kes membabitkan penjenayah juvenile. (2004, March 1). Utusan Malaysia Online. Retrieved
January 20 2005 from http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?
y=2004&dt=0301&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Keluarga&pg=ke_04.htm

Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1995). Onset of official delinquency: Its co-occurrence in time with
education, behavioral, and interpersonal problems. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 438-445.

Steffensmeier, D. & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and Crime: Toward a gendered theory of female
offending. Annual Review Sociology, 22, 459-487. Retrieved on April 2005 from
http://arjournals.annualreviews.Org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.l.4597cookieSe#l

Steinberg, L. (1987). Familial factors in delinquency: A developmental perspective. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 2, 255-268.
 206

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. S. Feldman &
G. R. Elliot (Ed.). At the threshold: the developing adolescent (pp. 259-276). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Steinberg, L. (1991). Adolescent transitions and alcohol and other drug use prevention. Preventing
adolescent drug use: From theory to practice. Office of Substance Abuse Prevention Monograph-
8, (pp. 13-51). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Steinberg, L. (1996). Adolescence (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Steinberg, L., & Avenevoli, S. (1998). Disengagement from school and problem behavior in
adolescence: A developmental-contextual analysis of the influences of family and part-time
work. In R. Jessor (Ed.), New perspectives on adolescent risk behavior (pp. 392-425). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Suppiah, C. (1984, April). Factors contributing to drug addiction among youths: A case study of
twelve inmates at a drug rehabilitation center. Preparation for Adulthood. Proceedings of the
3rd Asian Workshop on Child and Adolescent Development. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 273371)

Taha, A. B., Ridzwan, A. A., & Ahmad, M. (2004). School-going and institutionalized adolescents'
perception of their family functions. International Medical Journal, 11(2), 95-100.

Taib, M. M. (1973). Remaja nakal: Faktor-faktor dan usaha-usaha pemulihan-berdasarkan kajian di sekolah
laki-laki Taiping, Perak. Unpublished manuscript, Jabatan Antropologi & Sosiologi, Universiti
Malaya, Malaysia.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and
collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-in group relationships, journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

Tutty, L. M. (1995). Theoretical and practical issues in selecting a measure of family functioning.
Research on Social Work Practice, 5, 80-106.

UNICEF (2002). At a glance: Malaysia. Retrieved on December 3, 2005 from

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/malaysia.html

Wadsworth, M. E. J. (1979). Roots of delinquency: Infancy, adolescence, and crime. Oxford, England:
Robertson.

Walsh, F. (2003). Changing families in a changing world: Reconstructing family normality. In F.

Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 3-26). New
York: Guilford.

Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. H. (1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of the impact of
broken homes. Social Problems, 38, 71-83.
 207

Wenniger, W. F. M., Hageman, W. J. J. M., & Arrindell, W. A. (1993). Cross-national validity of

dimensions of family functioning: First experiences with the Dutch version of the McMaster
Family Assessment Device (FAD). Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 769-782.

Werner, E. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In J. P. Shonkoff, & S. J. Meisels. (Ed.),
Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 115-132). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Werner, E. E., & Smith. R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and
youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.

West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1977). The delinquent way of life. London: Heinemann.

Wicks-Nelson, R., & Israel, A. C. (1997). Behavior disorders of childhood (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Widom, C. S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Criminology, 27, 251-271.

Wolfgang, M. R., Figlio, R. M., & Stellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Wu, Z. L., & Rudkin, L. (2000). Social contact, socioeconomic status, and the health status of older
Malaysians. Gerontologist, 40, 228-234.
 208

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks to Allah, Lord of the universe and all that exists.

Prayers and peace be upon His prophet Mohammed,

the last messenger for all humankind.

With His infinite blessings I was enclosed with loving, supportive, and understanding

families, friends, faculty, and community who helped to make the completion of this work possible.

My first step to the department of Family and Consumer Sciences Education brought excellent

learning experiences of interaction, sharing, and developing a network of friends with faculty,

graduate students, and staff. Not to mention the learning environment the university has provided

that encourages and motivates graduate students doing betterment in their field according to their

best abilities. Many people have assisted me and my work during my study in graduate school. A

few deserve special mention here.

My profound gratitude to members of my Program of Study Committee: Dr. Beverly

Kruempel, Dr. Leah Keino, Dr. Sedahlia Crase and Dr. Janet Melby for their valuable guidance and

expertise that made this work a meaningful piece of research writing. My thanks also go to Dr. John

Litrell, Dr. Sharon Redick, Dr. Pete Conis, and Dr. Yvonne Gentzler for their guidance.

I extend my greatest appreciation to Dr. Cheryl O. Hausafus, my major professor and

mentor. Her sincere advice, patience, support, and vision help to make the academic work a

thoughtful and a great contribution to the body of knowledge. She was gifted with the ability to

recognize the potential in each work with thought provoking questions and careful analyses.

I also want to extend heartful appreciation to my friends and individuals who have given

support, encouragement, and guidance throughout the completion of this work. Melati Sumari,

Hashidah Abdul Hamid, Enas Sarour, Mita Banerjee, Jagdish Kaur, Man-Yu Yum, Dr. Abang Ahmad

Riduan, Collette-Ryder Hall, Hayati Mohammad, Gretchen Mosher, Farah Norbi and family, Siti
 209

Sabtu, Malaysian students in Ames, and Ames Muslim community. Also thank you to my fellow

doctoral students who have supported me in this endeavor.

My special thanks to Abdul Halim who have assisted me in collecting data in Malaysia. His

interest, diligent, and well-organized approach have made the work successful. Also, my

appreciation to the school counselors who have supported in this study. Similarly, to Malaysian

Economic Planning Unit, Ministry of Education, Negeri Sembilan Education Department, and

Malaysian Student Department in Chicago for all their support.

This work also is an accomplishment to my parents, Hj. Abdul Jalal and Almarhum Hajjah

Ramlah who taught wisdom and hard work as important elements in achieving this goal. My

siblings, Norhani, Jamil, Rozana, Habibah, Abdul Aziz, and Abdul Halim, your prayers and

confidence in me and in my ability to contribute to the society, are an inspiration for future

generation. I am proud to be a part of this family.

Special thanks to my loving husband, Fauzi, who has been my best friend for all of my life.

His constant support, ideas, prayers, understanding, scarification, listening with heart, and patience

throughout graduate school brought balance to my life. I thank my sweet daughters, Sakinah,

Fatimah, and Safiah, for teaching me more about parent-child interaction than I could ever learn from

books, articles, and analyses. You are my first hand observation, experience, and authenticity for

understanding the risk and protective factors in family. I am proud of you all.

Finally, I acknowledge with gratefulness the institutions that provided financial support:

University Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Perak; Public Services Department (SLAB) of Malaysia; Upsilon

State Organization of Delta Kappa Gamma Society International, Iowa; Iowa FCS Association;

Geraldine M. Bentler Scholarship; Department of Apparel, Education Studies and Hospitality

Management; and Department of Human Development and Family Studies, College of Family and

Consumer Sciences, Iowa State University.