N smaller in magnitude than the odds ratios for the same

N smaller in magnitude than the odds ratios for the same reference category in rows 1 to 13 (e.g., 5.18 in the last column of row 19). Of note, the outcome categories of focus in rows 14 to 18 (serious violence only) and in rows 19 to 22 (serious theft in combination with serious violence) did not differ significantly from each other (see row 18); this means that these two outcomes were equally (but modestly) elevated during periods of active gang membership. The odds for the remaining configurations of serious delinquency (drug sales and theft; theft only; drug sales only) shown in rows 23 to 28 were also not significant, meaning that young men’s chances of engaging in these sets of delinquent acts in comparison to the remaining reference categories did not depend on their gang membership status. Protective and Risk Factors for Configurations of Delinquency and Gang Membership In the final set of Isovaleryl-Val-Val-Sta-Ala-Sta-OH web analyses, we examined protective and risk factors for the serious delinquency configurations and gang membership. We first tested whether the associations between covariates and outcomes differed by each of the three time dimensions–youth’s ages, PNPP supplement historical period, and cohort–as well as whether associations between covariates and configurations of serious delinquency differed between youth who were ever and never involved with gangs. In initial omnibus tests, we found each set of interaction terms wasNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Gordon et al.Pagesignificant (results shown in Table S6 of the online supporting information). Therefore, in Table 4, we summarize which covariates had significant interaction terms and which had significant main effects in associating with configurations of serious delinquency (columns 1 and 2) and in associating with whether the young man was in a gang in the reference period before the current wave (columns 3 and 4). In the text that follows, we discuss the substantive direction of associations (graphs of predicted probabilities and additional statistical tests are presented in Figures S1 to S12 of the online supporting information). There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the pattern of statistical significance shown in Table 4. First, relatively few interactions were significant for individual covariates and particular outcomes. Just four interactions were significant for cohort, providing considerable support for combining the two cohorts in a single analysis. Only two sets of interactions were significant for age, suggesting that most developmental trends were similar across subgroups. Historical period likewise moderated just four constructs, indicating comparable time trends across most covariate levels. Looking at the main effects reveals that whereas just two covariates were significantly associated with configurations of serious delinquency, and no covariate interactions were significant, six covariates were significantly associated with gang membership, with four sets of significant interactions. Because the two significant covariates of serious delinquency configurations were also associated with gang membership, we organized the presentation of results below by focusing first on the time dimensions, then the common predictors of serious delinquency configurations and gang membership, and finally the unique predictors of gang membership. Where appropriate, we discussed moderated asso.N smaller in magnitude than the odds ratios for the same reference category in rows 1 to 13 (e.g., 5.18 in the last column of row 19). Of note, the outcome categories of focus in rows 14 to 18 (serious violence only) and in rows 19 to 22 (serious theft in combination with serious violence) did not differ significantly from each other (see row 18); this means that these two outcomes were equally (but modestly) elevated during periods of active gang membership. The odds for the remaining configurations of serious delinquency (drug sales and theft; theft only; drug sales only) shown in rows 23 to 28 were also not significant, meaning that young men’s chances of engaging in these sets of delinquent acts in comparison to the remaining reference categories did not depend on their gang membership status. Protective and Risk Factors for Configurations of Delinquency and Gang Membership In the final set of analyses, we examined protective and risk factors for the serious delinquency configurations and gang membership. We first tested whether the associations between covariates and outcomes differed by each of the three time dimensions–youth’s ages, historical period, and cohort–as well as whether associations between covariates and configurations of serious delinquency differed between youth who were ever and never involved with gangs. In initial omnibus tests, we found each set of interaction terms wasNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Res Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.Gordon et al.Pagesignificant (results shown in Table S6 of the online supporting information). Therefore, in Table 4, we summarize which covariates had significant interaction terms and which had significant main effects in associating with configurations of serious delinquency (columns 1 and 2) and in associating with whether the young man was in a gang in the reference period before the current wave (columns 3 and 4). In the text that follows, we discuss the substantive direction of associations (graphs of predicted probabilities and additional statistical tests are presented in Figures S1 to S12 of the online supporting information). There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the pattern of statistical significance shown in Table 4. First, relatively few interactions were significant for individual covariates and particular outcomes. Just four interactions were significant for cohort, providing considerable support for combining the two cohorts in a single analysis. Only two sets of interactions were significant for age, suggesting that most developmental trends were similar across subgroups. Historical period likewise moderated just four constructs, indicating comparable time trends across most covariate levels. Looking at the main effects reveals that whereas just two covariates were significantly associated with configurations of serious delinquency, and no covariate interactions were significant, six covariates were significantly associated with gang membership, with four sets of significant interactions. Because the two significant covariates of serious delinquency configurations were also associated with gang membership, we organized the presentation of results below by focusing first on the time dimensions, then the common predictors of serious delinquency configurations and gang membership, and finally the unique predictors of gang membership. Where appropriate, we discussed moderated asso.